Challenges and opportunities for an integrated coastal management approach in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia
Evi Siti Sofiyah
Discipline of Geography Environment and Population The University of Adelaide, South Australia November 2013
List of contents List of contents .............................................................................................................................ii List of tables..................................................................................................................................x List of figures ..............................................................................................................................xii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................xiv Declaration .................................................................................................................................xvi Presentations and publication .................................................................................................xvii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................xviii Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................xix Chapter 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 The importance of coastal areas .............................................................................................1 1.2 Integrated coastal management (ICM) ....................................................................................4 1.3 Indonesia ................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Jakarta Bay .............................................................................................................................9 1.5 Rationale, aim and objectives ...............................................................................................12 1.6 Thesis organisation ...............................................................................................................14 Chapter 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................17 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................17 2.2 Theoretical framework of case study approach .....................................................................19 2.3 Research framework .............................................................................................................21 2.3.1 Research protocol .......................................................................................................21 2.3.2 Research questions and objectives ............................................................................22 2.3.3 Unit analysis: case and boundaries ............................................................................23 2.3.4 Type and source of evidence ......................................................................................23 2.3.5 Data collection methods and research instrument ......................................................26 2.3.6 Maintaining a chain of evidence..................................................................................28 2.3.7 Managing data and data interpretation .......................................................................28 2.3.8 Reporting ....................................................................................................................29
2.4 Chapter summary..................................................................................................................29 Chapter 3 Integrated coastal management: concept and practice .......................................30 3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................30 3.2 Concept of ICM .....................................................................................................................30 3.2.1 Background.................................................................................................................30 3.2.2 What is ICM? ..............................................................................................................31 22.214.171.124 Philosophy .....................................................................................................31 126.96.36.199 Concept .........................................................................................................33 188.8.131.52 What does ICM do? .......................................................................................35 184.108.40.206 How does an ICM work? ................................................................................37 3.2.3 Developing an ICM framework ....................................................................................37 3.2.4 Principles and elements of ICM ..................................................................................42 220.127.116.11 Integration and interrelationship principles .....................................................43 18.104.22.168 Adaptive management ...................................................................................44 22.214.171.124 Effective governance .....................................................................................45 126.96.36.199 Institutional arrangements ..............................................................................45 188.8.131.52 Coordinating mechanism ...............................................................................46 184.108.40.206 Multi-stakeholders’ participation .....................................................................46 220.127.116.11 Capacity development ...................................................................................47 18.104.22.168 Financing arrangements ................................................................................48 22.214.171.124 Monitoring and evaluation ..............................................................................48 126.96.36.199 Two-track approach.....................................................................................49 188.8.131.52 Boundaries and scope .................................................................................49 184.108.40.206 Communication ...........................................................................................49 220.127.116.11 Educational outreach ...................................................................................50 3.2.5 Sustainability...............................................................................................................50 18.104.22.168 Measurable environmental gain .....................................................................51 22.214.171.124 Stakeholders’ participation .............................................................................51 126.96.36.199 Economic returns and livelihood ....................................................................52 188.8.131.52 Legal and policy framework ...........................................................................52
184.108.40.206 Compliance ....................................................................................................53 220.127.116.11 Durable institutions beyond leadership changes ............................................53 18.104.22.168 Private sector role ..........................................................................................53 22.214.171.124 Capacity improvement ...................................................................................54 126.96.36.199 Education and awareness ..............................................................................54 3.3 ICM practice ..........................................................................................................................54 3.3.1 ICM practice in Indonesia ...........................................................................................55 3.3.2 Successful ICM program of Sanur, Indonesia .............................................................57 3.3.3 Successful ICM program of Xiamen, China ................................................................60 3.4 Chapter summary..................................................................................................................66 Chapter 4 State of the Jakarta Bay coast ...............................................................................68 4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................68 4.2 Physical profile ......................................................................................................................69 4.2.1 Geography ..................................................................................................................69 4.2.2 Geology ....................................................................................................................71 4.2.3 Rivers and estuaries ...................................................................................................72 4.2.4 Climate ....................................................................................................................75 4.2.5 Coastal use .................................................................................................................75 4.2.6 Physical issues ...........................................................................................................77 188.8.131.52 Accretion and erosion ....................................................................................77 184.108.40.206 Groundwater ..................................................................................................79 220.127.116.11 Subsidence ....................................................................................................80 18.104.22.168 Flooding .........................................................................................................81 22.214.171.124 Reclamation ...................................................................................................83 126.96.36.199 Sea level rise and inundation .........................................................................84 4.3 Environmental profile ............................................................................................................85 4.3.1 Nutrients ....................................................................................................................85 4.3.2 Persistent organic pollutants .......................................................................................86 4.3.3 Garbage ....................................................................................................................87 4.3.4 Heavy metals ..............................................................................................................88
4.4 Coastal resources .................................................................................................................89 4.4.1 Coral reef ....................................................................................................................89 4.4.2 Mangroves ..................................................................................................................91 4.4.3 Seagrass ....................................................................................................................93 4.4.4 Beaches ....................................................................................................................94 4.4.5 Captured fish ..............................................................................................................94 4.5 Economic profile....................................................................................................................94 4.6 Stakeholder profile ................................................................................................................97 4.6.1 Residents ....................................................................................................................97 4.6.2 Fishers
4.6.3 Mussel farmers .........................................................................................................102 4.6.4 Enterprises................................................................................................................104 4.6.5 NGOs
4.6.6 Universities ...............................................................................................................106 4.6.7 Social contract ..........................................................................................................106 4.7 Policy enforcement and educational measures ...................................................................107 4.8 Chapter summary................................................................................................................108 Chapter 5 Coastal governance in Indonesia ........................................................................109 5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................109 5.2 Definition of governance .....................................................................................................109 5.3 The nature of the Indonesian coastline ...............................................................................110 5.4 National policy framework ...................................................................................................111 5.4.1 Coast and ocean management in Indonesian development plans ............................112 5.4.2 Coastal management Law 27/2007 ..........................................................................118 188.8.131.52 Historical perspective ...................................................................................119 184.108.40.206 Main features of Law 27/2007 ......................................................................119 220.127.116.11 Linkage with Law 26/2007 regarding spatial planning ..................................131 5.4.3 Other national legislation affecting coastal areas ......................................................133 18.104.22.168 Coastal and marine resources management ...............................................133 22.214.171.124 Marine resources and related activities ........................................................135
126.96.36.199 Coastal and terrestrial activities ...................................................................136 188.8.131.52 Environmental management ........................................................................137 184.108.40.206 Decentralisation regulation...........................................................................139 5.5 Structure of government......................................................................................................141 5.6 Chapter summary................................................................................................................143 Chapter 6 Jakarta Bay management system ........................................................................146 6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................146 6.2 Authorities of Jakarta Bay ...................................................................................................146 6.3 Government affairs distribution ...........................................................................................146 6.4 Local legislation ..................................................................................................................148 6.4.1 Banten Province long-term development plan 2005 to 2025 ....................................148 6.4.2 Province of Jakarta’s mid-term development plan 2007 to 2012 ..............................148 6.4.3 Province of West Java’s long-term development plan 2005 to 2025.........................149 6.4.4 Spatial plans of Jakarta Province ..............................................................................150 220.127.116.11 Plans ............................................................................................................150 18.104.22.168 Issues related to the plans and implementation ...........................................157 6.5 Management framework .....................................................................................................161 6.6 Chapter summary................................................................................................................161 Chapter 7 Jakarta Bay management accomplishment from an ICM perspective .............163 7.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................163 7.2 General management practice ............................................................................................164 7.2.1 Responsibilities .........................................................................................................164 7.2.2 Problems in the bay ..................................................................................................165 7.2.3 Main regulations affecting Jakarta Bay .....................................................................167 7.2.4 Programs and funding...............................................................................................167 7.2.5 Obstacles in program implementation.......................................................................167 7.2.6 Obstacles from other sectors ....................................................................................168 7.2.7 Efforts to address the obstacles ................................................................................169 7.2.8 Vision for the future ...................................................................................................169 7.2.9 Proposed inter-sectoral management mechanism ....................................................170
7.2.10 Main points of the survey result ................................................................................170 7.3 Accomplishments of the Jakarta Bay management practice from an ICM perspective .......172 7.3.1 Integrated programs .................................................................................................172 7.3.2 Adoption of ICM actions ............................................................................................173 7.4 Management framework from an ICM perspective..............................................................175 7.4.1 Integration .................................................................................................................175 7.4.2 Adaptive management ..............................................................................................180 7.5 Jakarta Bay and ICM principles...........................................................................................180 7.6 Jakarta and Sanur ...............................................................................................................181 7.7 Family planning program: A lesson of public attitude changing...........................................183 7.8 Chapter summary................................................................................................................186 Chapter 8 An integrated management framework for Jakarta Bay: a recommendation...187 8.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................187 8.2 Contributing elements to an effective ICM program ............................................................187 8.3 The enabling factors of the family planning program in Indonesia ......................................188 8.4 Development of an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay ............................................................189 8.4.1 Identification of environmental, social and governance issues .................................189 8.4.2 Primary environmental, social and governance issues .............................................191 22.214.171.124 Pollution .......................................................................................................191 126.96.36.199 Flooding .......................................................................................................192 188.8.131.52 Subsidence ..................................................................................................192 184.108.40.206 Reclamation .................................................................................................196 220.127.116.11 Spatial use ...................................................................................................196 18.104.22.168 Sustainable livelihood of fishers ...................................................................196 22.214.171.124 Sustainable livelihood of mussel farmers .....................................................197 126.96.36.199 Policy ...........................................................................................................197 188.8.131.52 Management framework ..............................................................................197 8.4.3 Primary stakeholders and their roles.........................................................................198 8.4.4 Issues prioritisation ...................................................................................................201 8.5 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................203
8.5.1 Vision, goals and objectives......................................................................................203 8.5.2 The boundaries .........................................................................................................204 8.5.3 Required measures to address the main issues .......................................................205 8.5.4 ICM framework .........................................................................................................208 184.108.40.206 Initiator .........................................................................................................209 220.127.116.11 Governance arrangement ............................................................................210 18.104.22.168 Policy arrangement ......................................................................................210 22.214.171.124 Management framework ..............................................................................212 126.96.36.199 Coordinating force and mechanism .............................................................213 188.8.131.52 Stakeholders ................................................................................................214 184.108.40.206 A model of ICM for Jakarta Bay ...................................................................215 8.6 Chapter summary................................................................................................................218 Chapter 9 Discussion and future research ...........................................................................219 9.1 Discussion...........................................................................................................................219 9.1.1 Policy to manage Jakarta Bay ..................................................................................219 9.1.2 Coastal policy framework ..........................................................................................219 9.1.3 Law 27/2007 .............................................................................................................220 9.1.4 Pro-environmental regulations and enforcement ......................................................223 9.1.5 The impact of decentralisation ..................................................................................224 9.1.6 Secretary of local government (sekda) .....................................................................224 9.1.7 ICM approach ...........................................................................................................225 9.1.8 Educational measure ................................................................................................226 9.1.9 Public attitude change: A lesson from the family planning program ..........................227 9.2 Contribution to the knowledge .............................................................................................228 9.2.1 A model of ICM for Jakarta .......................................................................................228 9.2.2 Does Indonesia need a national policy? ...................................................................228 9.3 Research limitation..............................................................................................................229 9.4 Future research ...................................................................................................................230 9.5 Closing ................................................................................................................................231 List of references ......................................................................................................................233
Appendix 1 List of regulations ................................................................................................249 Appendix 2 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................252
List of tables Table 1.1 ESP of coastal ecosystems in several countries ..........................................................2 Table 2.1 Research objectives and source of data ....................................................................24 Table 2.2 Government offices associated with the Jakarta Bay management framework .........25 Table 2.3 Questions list for the Likert scale enquiry ..................................................................27 Table 3.1 Indicators for the five steps of an ICM cycle ..............................................................40 Table 3.2 Guiding principles for developing ICM initiatives ........................................................42 Table 3.3 Application of hierarchical principles to ICM practice .................................................43 Table 3.4 Political and cultural setting of Xiamen ......................................................................61 Table 3.5 Xiamen ICM cycle ......................................................................................................63 Table 3.6 Enabling conditions in Xiamen ...................................................................................63 Table 4.1 Climate profile of Jakarta Bay in 2010 .......................................................................75 Table 4.2 Rate of subsidence (cm/year) in three locations in Jakarta Bay ................................81 Table 4.3 Sea level rise rate in Jakarta Bay ..............................................................................84 Table 4.4 Level of concentration of PO4-P and NO3-N in surface waters of Jakarta Bay...........86 Table 4.5 The extent of mangrove areas in North Jakarta .........................................................92 Table 4.6 The gross regional domestic product of the three municipalities at current market prices (in million Rupiahs) ..........................................................................................95 Table 4.7 The percentage of the revenue based on sources in the three municipalities ...........95 Table 4.8 The GRDP of the three provinces and comparison to the average national GRDP ...96 Table 4.9 The percentage of the revenue sources of the three provinces in 2010 ....................96 Table 4.10 Population and density of the municipalities and the coastal districts of Jakarta Bay in 2010 ................................................................................................................97 Table 4.11 Statistics related to fishing in the Tangerang and Bekasi Regency, 2008 ................101 Table 4.12 Statistics related to fishing in North Jakarta .............................................................101 Table 4.13 Statistics related to green-mussel farming in North Jakarta and Tangerang ............103 Table 4.14 List of NGOs with interests associated with the coastal and marine affairs of Jakarta Bay ..............................................................................................................105 Table 4.15 List of regulations regarding environmental quality protection .................................107 Table 5.1 Hierarchy of the Indonesian legal system according to Law 12/2011 ......................112
Table 5.2 Indonesia’s development plan since Independence Day .........................................113 Table 5.3 Planning documents according to the National Development Planning System and its functions ..............................................................................................................115 Table 5.4 List of the Ministry of Marine Affair and Fisheries regulations as the derived regulations of Law 27/2007 ......................................................................................124 Table 5.5 Local governments that have developed part of the four-plans (√)..........................125 Table 5.6 Laws affecting coastal and marine resources ..........................................................134 Table 5.7 Environmental management tools according to Law 32/2009..................................138 Table 6.1 Spatial plans of Jakarta ...........................................................................................150 Table 6.2 Other spatial regulations affecting development of Jakarta .....................................151 Table 6.3 Objectives, policies and strategies that related to coastal area of Jakarta and Jakarta Bay issues...................................................................................................155 Table 6.4 List of local offices in the Jakarta Bay authorities- the shaded numbers indicate offices involved in activities on the coast of Jakarta Bay..........................................160 Table 7.1 Field research result related to data collection method ............................................163 Table 7.2 The responsibilities of some government offices related to the physical state of Jakarta Bay ..............................................................................................................165 Table 7.3 Main problems in Jakarta Bay according to respondents (total problems stated are 66) ...........................................................................................................................165 Table 7.4 Survey result of identified problems faced by the management of Jakarta Bay .......171 Table 7.5 Result of self-assessment on Jakarta Bay management measure by government representatives in a percentage...............................................................................176 Table 7.6 Result of self-assessment on Jakarta Bay management measure by government representatives in score ...........................................................................................177 Table 7.7 Comparison of ICM principles and Jakarta Bay context...........................................180 Table 7.8 Comparison of the enabling factors in Sanur and Jakarta Bay ................................182 Table 8.1 Identified environmental, social and governance issues in Jakarta Bay ..................190 Table 8.2 Links of issues and its related concern ....................................................................193 Table 8.3 List of stakeholders and their roles in the proposed Jakarta Bay management framework ................................................................................................................198 Table 8.4 Scoring process of issues in Jakarta Bay ................................................................202 Table 8.5 Contributing aspects of pollution and flooding, the required and the type of measures .................................................................................................................205 Table 8.6 Authorities responsible for the required actions .......................................................211
List of figures Figure 1.1 A traditional developmental approach to coastal resources (addapted from Hotta & Dutton, 1995, p. 8) .......................................................................................................3 Figure 1.2 Location of Jakarta Bay and Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia ...........................10 Figure 2.1 General approach of the research .............................................................................17 Figure 2.2 The approach in conducting field research ................................................................26 Figure 3.1 Relationship between coastal areas and coastal resources systems (Scura et al. 1992, cited in Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 17) ........................................................36 Figure 3.2 ICM cycles of development (Olsen, 2003, cited in Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 43) ......38 Figure 3.3 Location of Xiamen, China (Chua, 2008, p. 88; Google Map, retrieved 18 November 2013) ........................................................................................................61 Figure 4.1 Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu (Cleary, Suharsono, & Hoeksema, 2006, p. 3658) .........................................................................................................................70 Figure 4.2 Main rivers that shaped the coastline of Jakarta Bay and a comparison of the Jakarta Bay coastlines between 1883/1885 and 1976 (Adapted from Ongkosongo, Ilahude, & Praseno, 1980) .........................................................................................72 Figure 4.3 The 13 waterways that flow through the Jakarta Province (modified from Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2010; Susanti, 2009) ..........................73 Figure 4.4 Estuaries and canal mouths in Jakarta Bay (modified from BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 3; Google Map, retrieved 22 February 2013) ...............................................74 Figure 4.5 Coastal use of Jakarta Bay (Adapted from BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 5; Google Earth, accessed on 12 March 2013)..............................................................76 Figure 4.6 Aerial photograph of the Cilincing area in 1948, scale :12,500 (Verstappen, 1988, p. 578) .......................................................................................................................78 Figure 4.7 Aerial photograph of the Cilincing area in 1982 with the 1948 coastline added for comparison, scale 1:12,500 (Verstappen, 1988, p. 579)............................................78 Figure 4.8 Part of Cilincing coastline in 2011 (picture by Sofiyah) ..............................................79 Figure 4.9 The position of Mauk and Angke (Google Map, retrieved 15 November 2013) .........91 Figure 4.10 Coastal districts of Jakarta Bay..................................................................................98 Figure 4.11 Bagans in Cilincing (picture by Sofiyah, 1 August 2010)..........................................100 Figure 4.12 The locations of static farming and fishing (adapted from Arifin, 2005, p. 2) ............102 Figure 5.1 The constituents of coastal governance ..................................................................110
Figure 5.2 Links between planning documents under the National Development Planning System.....................................................................................................................116 Figure 5.3 The components of management in the Law 27/2007(Adapted from Republik Indonesia, 2007b) ....................................................................................................121 Figure 5.4 The procedure for developing the four-plans of coastal and small island management according to the Ministerial Decree 16/2008 ......................................122 Figure 5.5 Structure of regional administration(adapted from Government Decree 41/2007 regarding the regional organisation) ........................................................................142 Figure 6.1 Administrative boundaries on the coastline of Jakarta Bay (Map source: Google Map, retrieved 22 February 2013) ...........................................................................147 Figure 6.2 Development growth of Jakarta (RUTR 1985-2005, Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 1984, p. 2) .....................................................................................151 Figure 6.3 Land use of northern part of Jakarta (Adapted from Dinas Tata Ruang DKI Jakarta, 2011, pp. 1-5, 7; Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 1967, p. Peta 2; 1984, p. 13; 2012, p. 146) ...........................................................................154 Figure 6.4 Comparison of North Jakarta coast without islands (land use 2009 – above picture) and the plan of developing some islands in the RTRW 2030 (below) (Local Regulation 1/2012 regarding the RTRW 2030, Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2012, pp. 158, 173) .......................................................................156 Figure 7.1 Value, score and interpretation ................................................................................174 Figure 7.2 Accomplishment of respondents concerning Jakarta Bay management actions .....174 Figure 8.1 Challenges and opportunities for an ICM approach in Jakarta Bay .........................208 Figure 8.2 A model of ICM for Jakarta Bay ...............................................................................217
Abstract Integrated coastal management (ICM) has had limited success in the Asia-Pacific region where, according to the literature, only three countries have inter-agency or inter-ministerial coordinating mechanisms, including Indonesia as the only developing country. However, there is a lack of research into the practice and efficiency of these coordinating mechanisms in Indonesia and the extent to which ICM can operate in practice, particularly in areas with complex administration such as Jakarta Bay. This research aims to investigate the applicability of an ICM approach within the existing Indonesian governance systems focusing on Jakarta Bay. The bay is adjacent to the Jakarta metropolitan area of 6,406.33 km2, which is inhabited by approximately 28 million people, has some of the highest economic development in in the country, is experiencing population growth, and economic development pressures related to pollution, erosion, subsidence, flooding, habitat degradation and loss of ecosystem. These diverse problems are subject to the complexities of management between different sectors and jurisdictional boundaries. It is in this context that this research investigates an integrated approach for managing coastal areas of Jakarta Bay. The research was carried out in two steps. First, a literature study of ICM concepts, principles and successful practices in the region was conducted to explore the factors required in designing an ICM initiative and to identify the enabling factors that could be adopted in a Jakarta Bay ICM framework. Second, a detailed case study of Jakarta Bay was conducted to investigate the state of the Jakarta Bay coast, and gain a better understanding of the coastal governance provisions in Indonesia and the current management system of Jakarta Bay. The primary data for the case study was obtained through interviews and surveys of government officers and members of coastal communities. Government officers were selected from sectoral offices involved in managing Jakarta Bay at national, provincial and municipal levels. Secondary data was obtained from government documents, research reports and academic articles. The research shows that the governance system in Indonesia has advantages and disadvantages for employing an ICM approach. A major advantage is an existing umbrella policy to conduct an integrated approach for coastal management (Law 27/2007). However, the policy has not been fully implemented, and many of the derived regulations are not finalised. The current management structure has no single agency to coordinate divergent perspectives among
sectors and different levels of government. The structure also experiences problems with intersectoral and inter-level connection. On the other hand, sekda (local government secretary) is a critical entity in the management structure that is potentially capable of mobilising sectoral offices to employ an ICM approach. The research also concludes that there is a need for an initiator or champion to drive the ICM agenda. In addition, an entry point is needed to enable access and communication with leaders and a mechanism to convince decision makers of the importance of an ICM approach. The contributions of this research are two-fold. Firstly, it provides new insights into coastal governance in Indonesia and reveals key differences between the purpose of existing coastal legislation and policies compared with some of the problems of implementation and the reality of what happens in practice. Secondly, the research provides a framework for adopting an ICM approach for Jakarta Bay within the existing legislation and the complexities of the various management structures currently operating.
Declaration I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution in my name and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In addition, I certify that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in my name, for any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of the University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web, via the University’s digital research repository, the Library catalogue and also through web search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to restrict access for a period of time.
Evi Siti Sofiyah November 2013
Presentations and publication
Presentations arising out of this thesis:
Jakarta Bay: Identifying governance issues. LOICZ open science conference: Coastal systems, global change and sustainability. Yantai - China, 12th – 15th September 2011. The footprints of anthropogenic activities in Jakarta Bay coastal area. Academic discussion conducted by the Indonesian Student Association (PPIA – Perhimpunan Pelajar Indonesia di Australia) the University of Adelaide. Adelaide – Australia, 9th May 2012.
Publication arising out of this thesis:
Contribute to: Pelling, M. and Blackburn, S. (forthcoming) "Megacities and the Coast: Risk, Resilience and Transformation", Routledge. Link: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415815123/
Acknowledgements My sincere thanks go to Professor Nick Harvey who provided me with enormous support and guidance from the time I applied for the scholarship. Without his continuous support and faith in my ability to complete the program, it would not have been possible for me to come this far in a PhD journey. I am thankful to Dr. Melissa Nursey-Bray, my co-supervisor, for her valuable feedback on my thesis. I am also thankful to Dr. John Tibby, the earliest co-supervisor, who granted me with support at the early stage of candidature. I would like to thank the University of Adelaide for giving me the opportunity to undertake this program by providing the IPRS and UAS Scholarship. Undertaking this research was possible with the assistance of different government offices and organisations and the kindness of various individuals in Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. My sincerest thanks go to all who participated in the survey and interviews. Thanks to Christine Crothers in the Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population, University of Adelaide, for preparing some of the maps used in this thesis. I am thankful to Linda Christensen who proofread the whole thesis and Meredith Hugo who proofread some of my chapters and gave advice on English grammar. I wish to thank my mum and dad, also my grandma who passed away during this program and my big family back home for their encouragement and support for me to achieve more. Special thanks go to my husband, Dadang Purnama, for his encouragement, support and understanding all the way through to pursue my dream. Special thanks also go to my three wonderful distractions Ira, Adelia and Abhi. I cannot expect more understanding than what you showed me when precious family time was consumed by this research. Thanks to Nicole Pelton for her support for my family and I and for proofreading my proposal. Thanks to Ika Saimima who was just an e-mail away to help me with her caring heart. Also, thanks to my friends Prae, Abel, Ash, Nita, Wahida, Uci, Ratni, Poppy, Supre and the girls in room G37a; Rhiannon, Cathy and Romy; for friendship and sharing all the ups-and-downs of a PhD journey. Thanks also go to Mustafa for organizing my final thesis lodgement. This long journey was not easy for me. Therefore, I am grateful to the Almighty for giving me the courage and strength to travel this far. Alhamdulillah...
Asian Development Bank
Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan National environmental agency
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Regional planning agency
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional National planning agency
Bunaken National Park Management Projects
Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association
Badan Pengelola Lingkungan Hidup Daerah Local environmental management agency
Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program
Coastal Resource Management Project or Proyek Pesisir
Digital Elevation Model
Daerah Khusus Ibukota Special capital region
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat National parliament
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Regional parliament; province and municipal level
Environmental Impact Assessment
Economic Institution for Coastal Development
Ecosystem Service Product
Global Environmental Facility
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
Gross Regional Domestic Product
Hak Pengusahaan Perairan Pesisir The undertaking right
Integrated Coastal Management
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Jakarta Bogor Depok Tangerang Bekasi Jakarta Metropolitan Area
Jakarta Bogor Depok Tangerang Bekasi Puncak Cianjur A region that includes Jakarta Province; Bogor Regency, Bogor City, Depok City, Cianjur Regency, Bekasi Regency and Bekasi City in West Java Province; Tangerang Regency and Tangerang City in Banten Province
Japan Bank of International Cooperation
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Komodo Island National Marine Park
Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis Strategic environmental assessment
Marine and Coastal Management Areas
Marine and Coastal Resources Management Project
Ministry of Home Affairs
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Public Work
Marine Resources Evaluation and Planning
Musyawarah Rencana Pembangunan Development planning meeting
National Planning Agency
Natural Resource Management Program
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pantai Utara Jakarta North shore of Jakarta
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
Program Pembangunan Nasional National development program
Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun Five-year development plan
Rencana Induk Jakarta (1965-1985) Master plan of Jakarta (1965 to 1985)
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Medium-term development plan
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Regional medium-term development plan
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional National medium-term development plan
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Long-term development plan
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Daerah Regional long-term development plan
Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional National long-term development plan
Rencana Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Environmental protection and management plan
Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Regional spatial plan
Rencana Umum Tata Ruang (1985-2005) General spatial plan of Jakarta (1985 to 2005)
Segara Anakan Project
Strategic Environmental Management Plans
Special Marine Areas
Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional National development planning system
The Nature Conservancy
Total Fertility Rate
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
United Nations Environment Programme
United States Agency for International Development
Undang Undang Dasar 1945 Basic Constitution of 1945
World Summit on Sustainable Development
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1
The importance of coastal areas
Coastal areas have been a focal point of human activity for a long time. They represent only 20% of all land in the world (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 269) but play important roles in human life. Harvey and Caton (2003, pp. 1-2) note that globally coastal areas are important for three reasons; first, a high proportion of the world’s population lives around the coast; second, there is a high dependency of people on coastal resources and; third, there is a high impact of development as the result of high population and population dependency on coastal areas. Correspondingly, Martinez et al. (2007) see that coastal areas are important for ecological, economic and social reasons. The coasts are home to 41% of the world’s population (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 254). Approximately 80 to 100% of the total population in more than 50% of coastal countries live within 100 km of the coastline and 21 of the 33 world's megacities are found on the coast (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 254). A denser population compared to the average global population density inhabits coastal areas. The average population density within 100 horizontal km and 100 vertical meters of a coastline in 1990 was 112 people/km2. This figure was 2.5 times higher than the average global population density, which was 44 people/km2 (Small & Nicholls, 2003, p. 591). The population in coastal areas grows faster than in other parts of the world. The population living at or near the coast in 1990 was approximately 1.2 billion people or about 23% of the global population (Small & Nicholls, 2003, p. 591). By 2003, the figures had risen to approximately 2.4 billion or 41% of the global population (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 254). Using the coastal population growth rate between 1990 and 2000, the United Nations (UN) Population Division (2001, cited in Duxbury & Dickinson, 2007, p. 319) estimates that the number of people living at and around the coast would increase to 3.1 billion people by 2025. This is a significant population living in such narrow strips. The coastal ecosystem services provide a significant role to human welfare. Martinez et al. (2007) have estimated the economic value (ecosystem service product, ESP) that is provided by coastal ecosystems of the world (see Table 1.1). The estimation includes natural (terrestrial and aquatic)
and human-altered ecosystems, with a terrestrial limit within 100 km. The total value calculated for the ESP adds up to 25,782.53x109 $US per year (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 257). Natural ecosystems contribute the most and within the natural ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems provide a higher ESP than terrestrial, even though aquatic ecosystems only represent 5% of total natural coastal ecosystems (p. 261). Australia, Indonesia and the Russian Federation hold the highest values of natural and total ESP. Table 1.1
ESP of coastal ecosystems in several countries Natural (million $US)
Total (T + A)
Modified (million $US) SemiAltered altered
Total (million $US)
Papua New Guinea
Source: Martinez et al. (2007, pp. 258-260)
Martinez et al. (2007, p. 261) estimate the total value calculated for the ESP provided by coastal ecosystems of the world, including natural (terrestrial and aquatic) and human-transformed ecosystems represents 77.5% of world global value calculated by Costanza et al. (1997, p. 256), which is 33,268×109 $US per year, whereas the remaining is provided by terrestrial ecosystem. This is a high economic value of coastal resources and high contribution to human welfare. The high value of coastal resources throughout the world has historically been among the most heavily exploited. As stated above, people are highly dependent on coastal resources (Harvey & Caton, 2003, p. 2). The problem is particularly critical in developing countries, where unsustainable practices of coastal exploitation occur. As illustrated by Hotta and Dutton (1995, pp. 7-8) in Figure 1.1, when resources are over-exploited and development is conducted in an unsustainable manner, resource depletion or even loss will occur and put the quality of life for coastal inhabitants at risk. The impacts of human activities upon coastal areas include pollution, erosion, habitat degradation, loss of ecosystem and conflicting uses of coastal resources as the result of sectoral management approach (Chua, 2006, pp. 10-11).
Recognise Need for Sustainability Management
Sustainable Development Approach Resources Discovery
Death of System
Figure 1.1 A traditional developmental approach to coastal resources (addapted from Hotta & Dutton, 1995, p. 8)
The problems of coastal areas make effective coastal management practice critical. Through time, coastal management practices have been shown to develop and become more effective in addressing such problems. O’Riordan and Vellinga (1993) identify three periods of coastal management development. Coastal management from 1950 to 1970 was characterised by a sectoral approach, man-against-nature ethos, low public participation, limited ecological consideration and a reactive focus. Between 1970 and 1990, the practices developed more ecological considerations. The coastal management key features during those years involved environmental assessment, greater integration and coordination between sectors, public participation, heightened ecological awareness, sustained engineering dominance and a combined proactive and reactive focus. Since 1990, the practices have become more focused on sustainable development and comprehensive environmental management with an emphasis on public participation (Harvey & Caton, 2003, p. 196). The establishment of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in the United States in 1965 was seen as the beginning of an integrated approach to coastal management. The country then disseminated the Coastal Management Act in 1972, the landmark legislation that encouraged coastal states throughout the country to develop and implement coastal zone management. This was followed by the first Coastal Zone Conference, which was held in San Francisco in 1978. In early 1983, through the efforts of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the US model of coastal zone management was promoted in many developing countries. The concept of integrated management received considerable support, especially after the 1992 United Nation Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) where the integrated coastal management (ICM) concept was an integral part of
Agenda 21 (Chapter 17 on Oceans and Coasts). ICM became the overarching action plan arising from Agenda 21 (Chua, 2006, p. 14). 1.2
Integrated coastal management (ICM)
The main aim of ICM is to balance development pressure and the use of coastal resources in a sustainable manner. A holistic approach is needed to address intense conflicts among competing interest groups for coastal resources and between the impacts of inland activities on coastal areas. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 18) state that the major reason why an integrated approach is needed for managing oceans and coasts are twofold: (1) the effect of the ocean on coastal use, and the effect of activities farther inland on ocean and coastal environments, and (2) the effects that ocean and coastal users can have on one another. The following are two frequently cited definitions of ICM: ICM is a process that unites government and the community, science and management, sectoral and public interests in preparing and implementing an integrated plan for the protection and development of coastal ecosystems and resources (GESAMP, 1996, p. 2). A continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources. The process is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in single-sector management approaches (fishing operations, oil and gas development, etc.), in the splits in jurisdiction among different levels of government, and in the land-water interface (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 1).
The above definitions highlight characteristics of ICM and demonstrate that ICM is a process of governance, consisting of a legal and institutional framework which aims at uniting government and the community including scientists; and allowing development of coastal areas while taking conservation and sustainable use of coastal and ocean resources and habitat in account. ICM is designed to overcome the complex relationships that exist between sectors and jurisdictions in the coastal areas. Managing human activities and the use of coastal resources is the purpose of ICM. It aims to protect the functional integrity of natural resources systems while allowing economic development to proceed. Chua (2006, p. 14) states that the purpose of ICM is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of coastal governance in terms of achieving the sustainable use of coastal resources and services generated by the ecosystem in the coastal areas. Similar to his opinion, Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 41) state that the purpose of ICM is to achieve sustainable development of coastal and marine areas, to reduce vulnerability of coastal areas and their
inhabitants to natural hazards, and to maintain essential ecological processes, life support systems, and biological diversity in coastal and marine areas. To add to the ICM purposes mentioned above, Christie (2005, p. 209) states that another purpose of ICM is to resolve conflicts among user groups. The main principle of ICM is a holistic or integrated approach. Several aspects of integration need to be addressed as a part of an ICM. Those aspects are (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, pp. 45-46; English, 2003, pp. 5-6; Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 43; Sorensen, 1997, p. 9): Inter-sectoral or horizontal integration: integration among different sectors. It is translated as integration between different government sectors related to coastal activities and integration between: (1) coastal and marine sectors and (2) coastal and marine sectors with land-based sectors that affect the coastal and ocean environment. Inter-governmental or vertical integration: integration among different levels of government from national to local. Spatial integration: integration between three geographic components—ocean, coast and land. Science-management integration: integration among the different disciplines (natural, social, technical, legal) into coastal management. International integration: among nations on trans-boundary coastal use and management issues. Community integration: the public domain that benefits from coastal areas and resources and public agencies that are concerned about coastal issues, such as NGOs. To ensure the development of ICM and to fulfil its principles and purpose, guidelines have been issued by various global organisations. Those organisations are OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 1991, IUCN (The International Union for Conservation of Nature) in 1993, the World Bank in 1993, World Coast Conference Report and UNEP (The United Nations Environment Programme) in 1995 (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 105). The numbers of ICM guidelines also demonstrate global acceptance of ICM. The number of ICM initiatives across the world also shows the global acceptance for ICM. Sorensen (2002, pp. 3-1) examined that 217 ICM initiatives that were recorded world-wide in 1993, and this number increased to 698 initiatives by early 2002 (2002, pp. 1-4). ICM has also been practiced across the world, in both developed and developing countries (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 253).
An evaluation of ICM practices in twenty-two nations conducted by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, pp. 269-272) showed that there was some evidence of a movement towards greater integration. They also found that most nations adopted a similar range of regulatory and planning processes, external assistance and funding had played an important role in many countries and the available data was insufficient to assess the implementation of ICM in most countries. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, pp. 255-258) also found that in developed countries such as United States, the extent of ICM implementation is good with moderate effectiveness. In the Netherlands, the extent of ICM implementation is good and effective with the establishment of a coordinating mechanism. In developing countries such as Ecuador, Pakistan, Fiji or Indonesia, the extent of ICM implementation is very limited and the effectiveness of ICM is mainly unknown (pp. 261-269). In the Asia-Pacific region, Harvey and Hilton (2006, pp. 56-59) conducted a review of ICM practice in 41 countries. Their review showed that only three countries (Singapore, Japan and Indonesia) had interagency or inter-ministerial coordinating mechanisms while no nation had a single agency responsible for ICM. In the Southeast Asia region, Chua (1998, p. 599) evaluated the performance of eight donor-initiated ICM programs in seven countries. He examined management frameworks, planning and implementation processes relative to outputs and impacts. In contrast to the progress observed by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), Chua (1998, p. 609) concluded that ICM was relatively new in the region and there were not many success stories. Of the eight case studies that had completed requirements for problem identification and project formulation, only two initiatives; Batangas Bay, Philippines and Xiamen, China had reached the implementation stage (p. 599). The examination by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) showed that ICM is widely adopted in developed countries and proven as an effective approach but in developing countries, the approach is limited with a need for studies on its effectiveness. Similarly, Chua (1998) recognised the limited success of ICM achievement in Southeast Asia’s developing countries. The fact that these studies could provide only limited examples of ICM success raises the question about the usefulness of the ICM model for Southeast Asia’s developing countries. The broad review conducted by Harvey and Hilton (2006, pp. 56-57) showed that three countries in the region had an inter-ministerial coordinating mechanism indicating potential to develop an integrated approach such as ICM. Two of the countries (Japan and Singapore) are classed as developed countries but the third country listed, Indonesia, is a developing country with the fourth largest population in the world, one of the longest coastlines and high coastal ESP. Harvey and
Hilton (2006) provided only a broad review of ICM in Indonesia and did not examine mechanisms of ICM in practice or provide any detail on the governance systems around coastal management. However, given their identification of the potential for ICM in Indonesia and given the lack of ICM success for other developing counties in the region, Indonesia provides an ideal case study to examine detailed information on ICM practices and on the potential to apply the principles of ICM within the governance system of Indonesia. Before discussing this further, it is appropriate to provide an introduction to the country of Indonesia. 1.3
Indonesia is an archipelagic country located in South-eastern Asia, around the equator, between the Indian and the Pacific Ocean and between the continent of Asia and Australia. It comprises of 13,466 islands (Karsidi, 2011, cited in Yun, 2011) with 95,181 km of coastline (Rompas, 2009, cited in Antara News, 2009). According to Central Intelligence Agency (2009) database, Indonesia has the second longest shoreline in the world after Canada, with the total area of is about 1.9 million km2. Upon the recommendation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) 1982, Indonesia acquired jurisdiction over an Economic Exclusive Zone of some 2.7 million km2 which means the marine assets (oceans and coastal resources) of Indonesia are outstanding compared to land assets (Sukardjo, 2002a, p. 200). Indonesia’s population is increasing at a significant rate, with 147,490,298 people in 1980 to 237,641,326 people in 2010 (BPS RI, 2013). Approximately 140 million people or almost 60% of the Indonesian population live in coastal areas and 22% of them live in coastal rural areas and small islands (Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, 2007, p. iii). Indonesia has 34 provinces and 500 municipalities, with all provinces and 319 municipalities (approximately 64%) contain coastal areas (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2013). The population and the coastal municipality number put immense pressure on coastal environment, particularly with the wellestablished cultural traditions of marine resource exploitation and a significant economic dependence on coastal and marine resources (Dahuri & Dutton, 2000, p. 1). Coastal areas play an important role to the Indonesian people for social, economic and political reasons. Coastal resources have been used by the communities on a continuous basis; to live at, to obtain food, to facilitate transportation, and to obtain other services. There is no doubt that population pressures on coastal areas in Indonesia are substantial. The problems experienced by coastal areas in Indonesia range from pollution, sedimentation, salt water intrusion, the increase
of shoreline development, abrasion, land subsidence, overfishing, loss of mangrove and coral reef, to increasing poverty among coastal communities (Dahuri, Rais, Ginting, & Sitepu, 2008, p. 3; Nur, Fazi, Wirjoatmodjo, & Han, 2001, p. 337; White, Christie, D'Agnes, Lowry, & Milne, 2005, p. 272). An integrated coastal management approach is essential if the country aims to keep the coastal resources sustainable. Considering the coastal problems that occurred in Indonesia, the country has attempted to carry out several ICM programs. Some scholars have studied the potential applicability of ICM and its practice in Indonesia. They conducted research into the importance of an integrated approach to be carried out in Indonesia and the review of previous ICM programs in Indonesia. Sukardjo (2002a) pointed out the need for an ICM initiative in Indonesia from a mangrove ecologist point of view. However, the suggestion was broad and did not refer to a specific region. Nontji and Setiapermana (1996) reported on an ongoing ICM project of MREP (Marine Resources Evaluation and Planning). The project, carried out from 1993 to 1998, was initiated and funded by ADB and involved at least 13 provinces (no province in Java Island was included). Patlis et al. (2001) suggested that ICM could work in a decentralised system of Indonesia. The research focused on the mechanism of establishing a voluntary and incentive-based ICM program. However, the research was conducted before the Indonesian coastal management law was enacted and the decentralisation law was revised and the suggestion was general related to the Indonesian context at the time. Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005) examined factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in Segara Anakan, Central Java and Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi. White et al. (2005) examined lessons provided by five ICM programs in Indonesia and gave proposals for designing future sustainable ICM programs. Similarly, Christie (2005) and Christie et al. (2005) examined the features that contributed to ICM programs sustainability and suggest to adopt the features in designing an ICM program. Farhan and Lim (2010) provided a broad review on several previous ICM programs in Indonesia and analysed ICM implementation impact towards Indonesia global ocean observing system (INAGOOS) program. Farhan and Lim (2012) assessed the ecological vulnerability with a focus on coral reefs in Kepulauan Seribu using geographic information systems and remote sensing technologies. The above studies show a range of ICM examples for and in Indonesia. The literature points out the importance of sustainable coastal development and an integrated approach to be adopted in Indonesia. More research can be done regarding ICM in Indonesia as the country has a lengthy
coastline, contains numerous coastal municipalities and abundant coastal resources. One significant gap in the literature is the lack of study on coastal management in Java Island, except for the Sagara Anakan project, as the natural resources of the island are intensively exploited in order to meet development objectives (Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, 2007). The island is also the most populated island in the country (BPS RI, 2013). However, the impact of such exploitation and population pressure on coastal areas has received limited attention. One particular area, Jakarta Bay, is a coastal zone adjacent to the largest conurbation cities in the country; Jakarta Metropolitan Area (van der Meij, Suharsono, & Hoeksema, 2010, p. 11). The region holds a population of nearly 28 million (see Chapter 4), has an uncontrolled growth of urban area (Texier, 2008, p. 362) and produces the highest GRDP in the country, indicating a fine achievement in economic development. The features of Jakarta Metropolitan Area put significant pressure on the Jakarta Bay coastal environment and need an integrated management approach for addressing the impact of the pressure. However, there is no study regarding an integrated coastal management approach for the Jakarta Bay coastal area. 1.4
Jakarta Bay is situated in the north-west coast of Java Island, Indonesia, facing the Java Sea to the north. The total length of the Jakarta Bay coastline is about 149.1 km and covers a water area of approximately 595.4 km2 (Arifin, 2005, p. 1). To the north of the bay lies an archipelago, namely Kepulauan Seribu, which forms a chain stretching from the south-east to the north-west. Geographically, the bay is situated between Pasir Cape in the west and Karawang Cape in the east (see Figure 1.2), and its coastline is situated in three municipalities: Tangerang Regency (Banten Province), North Jakarta City (Jakarta Province), and Bekasi Regency (West Java Province). The three municipalities are part of a rapidly growing urban agglomeration of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area consists of 13 municipalities and occupies a region of 6,406.33 km2, which in 2010 was inhabited by approximately 28 million people (see Chapter 4). The economic development in the region is among the highest in the country. The Jakarta Province achieves the highest Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP), which contributed about 16.32% of the total Indonesian GRDP in 2011, while the West Java Province contributes 14.30% and the Banten Province contributes 3.19% of the total Indonesian GRDP (BPS RI, 2012d).
Figure 1.2 Location of Jakarta Bay and Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Indonesia
The marine and coastal resources of Jakarta Bay were once rich and diverse. The reef complex in Jakarta Bay once flourished. The coral reefs in the area were richer in species compared to the species on the coasts of Sumatra and Singapore (Sluiter, 1888, cited in van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 4). Mangroves that existed along the coast were interspersed by some sectors of sandy beach and estuaries (Verstappen, 1953, cited in Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). The growing population and economic achievement of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area placed significant environmental pressure on Jakarta Bay. As a result, the area is experiencing considerable environmental problems. Coral reefs are damaged (Tomascik, Mah, Nontji, & Moosa, 1997b, p. 1238) and some
coral cays have disappeared due to erosion as the result of coral extraction, sand mining and destructive fishing practices (Ongkosongo & Sukarno, 1986, p. 69; Verstappen, 1988, pp. 584586). In 42 years, from 1960 to 2002, mangrove areas were reduced by almost 83% (Pramudji, 2008, p. 63). The quality of the bay water has reduced significantly because of pollution - the bay has acted as a recipient of pollutants from the hinterland which are conveyed via waterways (Willoughby, 1986, p. 158). Numerous rivers run through Jakarta Metropolitan Area and end in 16 estuaries and canal mouths in Jakarta Bay. Changes have occurred and the most dramatic of these is the change in the coastal ecosystem itself. The ecosystem has deteriorated and habitats have degraded. The bay also experiences other problems such as scarcity of fish (Djamali & Parino, 2008, p. 161), unhealthy seafood (Arifin, 2008, p. 220), over-exploitation of groundwater (Onodera et al., 2009, p. 3215), subsidence (Abidin et al., 2011, pp. 1765-1766), flooding (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008) and conflicts between users (Cordova, Zamani, & Yulianda, 2012). The problems in Jakarta Bay are diverse, relate to various sectoral activities and are transboundary. They are subject to the complexity of management between different sectors and jurisdictional boundaries. Currently, there is no single agency with ultimate responsibility for coordinating the divergent perspectives among sectors and different level of governments. Understanding those problems, this research looks into an integrated approach for managing coastal area of Jakarta Bay. As stated in section 1.2, ICM is broadly accepted as an effective approach for managing the complexity of coastal issues compared to the single sector approach. An integrated approach is different from the single sector approach because it attempts a more comprehensive approach. The approach takes account of all sectoral activities that affect a coastal area and its resources, and deals with economic and social issues as well as ecological and environmental concerns. Integration is the principle of ICM. The principle is the expression of the need to establish the relationship between issues and sectoral offices and between the environment and development. The integration principle includes vertical and horizontal, spatial, science and management, stakeholders and policy integration. ICM is not a ‘one size fits all’ concept (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 9). It is not a fixed approach that can be applied in a wholesale fashion to all situations. Designing an ICM program requires an understanding of the characteristics of the area where the program will be implemented. The characteristics of Jakarta Bay, therefore, are identified here so that an ICM framework can be developed to provide an alternative management that employs an integrated approach.
Rationale, aim and objectives
As stated earlier, the rationale for conducting this study is to address the lack of research into the Indonesian coastal governance system as it relates to the potential for the implementation of an ICM program in the country. In particular, there is a need to focus on an integrated management framework for the coastal area of Jakarta Bay where the densely populated Jakarta Metropolitan Area is linked to development pressure generating significant problems such as pollution and coastal ecosystem degradation. The problems in Jakarta Bay are diverse and subject to the complexity of management between different sectors and jurisdictional boundaries. With no single agency that holds the responsibility for coordinating the divergent perspectives among sectors and different level of governments, an integrated management framework is an imperative for Jakarta Bay. This research aims to investigate the applicability of an ICM approach within the existing Indonesian governance system focusing on Jakarta Bay. The governance system of Indonesia contains certain policy framework and management structures, in which the applicability of ICM principles is investigated to discover how the principles of ICM may work or may not work within the system, with a focus on Jakarta Bay. The investigation looks into a detailed policy framework and management structure where no other study has been carried out for the bay. Included in this research is development of Jakarta Bay ICM framework that poses as a recommendation for the authorities of the bay. To achieve the aim, the research is carried out in two pathways: The first pathway is about ICM, which contains two steps: a)
A literature study of ICM concepts and principles, which aims to investigate the elements that should present an ICM approach
A literature study of successful ICM practices, which aims to identify the enabling factors of successful ICM programs that can be adopted in Jakarta Bay ICM framework. The study focuses on best practices of ICM in East Asia.
The second pathway is a case study of Jakarta Bay, which consists of four steps and the steps are investigation of (a) the state of Jakarta Bay coast, (b) coastal governance in Indonesia, (c) current management system of Jakarta Bay and (d) the state of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective. Each step is described as follow:
The investigation of the state of Jakarta Bay coast aims to comprehend problems that are encountered by the bay, which include environmental and social issues.
The investigation of Indonesian coastal governance aims to examine the detailed structure of Indonesian coastal governance framework hence the context where Jakarta Bay management system sits is comprehended. Included in this investigation are the examination of policy framework and the structure of government.
The investigation of the current management system of Jakarta Bay aims to examine the structure of management system that is currently employed in Jakarta Bay, which includes the policy framework related to Jakarta Bay, stakeholders and the structure itself.
The investigation of the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective aims to examine the extent to which the current management system achieves any ICM principles and to investigate the features in the management system that might enable or hinder employing an ICM approach in the future.
A thorough investigation of Jakarta Bay contained in the second step is needed so an ICM framework that suits the bay can be proposed. The objectives of this research, therefore, are identified as follows: 1. To investigate the principles of ICM in order to understand those features that are required for a successful ICM initiative 2. To investigate examples of ICM best practice to determine if there are any features which could be adopted for a Jakarta Bay ICM framework 3. To examine the state of Jakarta Bay coast to understand problems encountered by the bay 4. To investigate coastal governance of Indonesia that includes policy frameworks and management structures to understand the broader operating context for the current management system of the Jakarta Bay 5. To investigate the current Jakarta Bay management system, which includes identification of the Jakarta Bay authorities, identification of government affairs distribution in each authority, examining Jakarta Bay in the local legislation framework and examining the coastal stakeholders 6. To examine the state of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective, which include the examination of management system accomplishment in an ICM perspective and the investigation of the features in the management system that might enable or hinder in employing an ICM approach
7. To develop an integrated management framework for managing the coast of Jakarta Bay, as an alternative for the current management system and as a recommendation for the authorities of the bay. 1.6
The structure of the thesis is organised into nine chapters, each of which is described below: The first chapter outlines the importance of the coast for humankind and the need for an integrated approach (ICM) to managing coastal resources. This chapter also identifies the lack of research regarding the Indonesian coastal governance system as it relates to the potential for the implementation of an ICM program. This leads to the rationale for the research, which focuses on Jakarta Bay. The research aim and objectives are outlined in this chapter. Chapter 2 presents the methods employed in this research. As stated above, the second pathway to achieve the research aim is by conducting a case study; therefore this chapter provides the theoretical basis of a case study. Survey and interview techniques are also included in this research, and the method for these surveys and the selection of respondents is described in this chapter. In Chapter 3 the literature review on ICM is presented, which meets research objective one and two. The chapter consists of the examination of ICM concepts and principles and the investigation of successful examples of best practice ICM in East Asia. The investigation of the state of Jakarta Bay coast is presented in Chapter 4, which meets research objective three. It examines the physical and environmental profile of the bay and outlines its coastal resources. Issues of competing coastal resource use are identified to understand the problems experienced by the bay. Coastal stakeholders are part of coastal governance (research objective four) and the Jakarta Bay management system (research objective five), however the profile of stakeholders is reviewed in this chapter as it is a part of the socio-economic state of Jakarta Bay coast. The issues related to coastal stakeholders are also identified in this chapter. Chapter 5 presents the examination of coastal governance in Indonesia, which meets objective four. It discusses the components of coastal governance and the state of each component that includes policy framework and governmental structure. The examination aims to understand the
governance context within which the Jakarta Bay management system is nested. This requires a detailed study of the policy framework. In addition, the underlying aim in this examination is to identify the applicability of an ICM approach, the same underlying aim for the examinations presented in Chapter 6 and 7. Specifically in this chapter, the identification of the ICM applicability is concerning Indonesian coastal governance – the broader context for the Jakarta Bay management system. In Chapter 6 the current management system of Jakarta Bay is discussed, which meets objective five. The management system consists of the governmental structure and policy framework. The examination of the structure includes identification of the Jakarta Bay authorities and identification of government affairs functions in each authority, while the examination of policy framework consists of identification of Jakarta Bay in the local development and spatial plans. The investigation in this chapter provides an understanding of the Jakarta Bay management system in order that the applicability of an ICM approach can be identified, which both are discussed in the following chapter. Further, the identification of the Jakarta Bay authorities and government affairs function in each authority is used in the selection of respondents for survey and interview. In Chapter 7 the results of surveys and interviews are presented. These relate to the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective. This chapter addresses research objective six. Two investigations are presented in this chapter, first is the examination of the success or otherwise of the current management system to achieve integration and the second is the investigation of aspects of the current system that might enable or hinder employing an ICM approach in the future. This chapter reveals the current position of the Jakarta Bay management system and identifies the opportunities and impediments to employ an ICM approach. This chapter also examines an example of a significant shift in public attitude of the Indonesian people through a national family planning program. The family planning program is not related to ICM, but lessons can be learned from the national success of this program in attitudinal change given that a similar shift is needed to change the culture of Indonesian government and public from unsustainable and fragmented development to a more sustainable and integrated development approach. Chapter 8 discusses the applicability of the ICM approach and the findings from previous investigations are synthesized to form an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay. This chapter meets research objective seven. In this chapter, the environmental and governance issues that are
identified in Chapters 4 to 7 are addressed by developing a more integrated management scheme that is focused on a more sustainable development approach. In Chapter 9 discussion regarding the main research findings is presented, as well as the contribution of this research to knowledge. Directions for further research and research limitations are also presented in this chapter.
Chapter 2 Methodology 2.1
The gap that provides the rationale for conducting this research is the lack of study into the Indonesian coastal governance system as it relates to the potential for the implementation of an ICM program in the country. The aim of this research, therefore, is to investigate the applicability of an ICM approach within the existing Indonesian governance system focusing on Jakarta Bay. How an ICM approach may or may not work within the governance system of Indonesia, particularly in Jakarta Bay is investigated, followed by the development of an ICM framework addressing problems that are occurring in Jakarta Bay. The developed framework is a model of integrated management approach, which poses as an alternative for the current management system and as a recommendation for Jakarta Bay authorities. This chapter discusses the research framework addressing the research aim. Literature study of ICM
Case study: Jakarta Bay status
State of Jakarta Bay coast
Coastal governance in Indonesia Jakarta Bay management system State of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective
The applicability of ICM and integrated management framework of Jakarta Bay Figure 2.1 General approach of the research
To achieve the aim, the research is carried out in two pathways (see Figure 2.1). The first pathway is a literature study about ICM and the second pathway is a case study of the Jakarta
Bay status. Steps in each pathway relate to the research objectives as stated in the previous chapter. The first pathway consists of two steps: A literature study of ICM concepts and principles, which aims to investigate the elements that should present an ICM initiative. This step addresses research objective one. A literature study of successful ICM practices, which aims to identify the enabling factors of successful ICM programs. This step meets research objective two. The second pathway is a case study of the Jakarta Bay status, which contains four steps: The investigation of the state of Jakarta Bay coast, which aims to comprehend problems that are encountered by the bay, including environmental and social issues. The investigation of coastal stakeholders is also part of this step. This step meets research objective three. The investigation of Indonesian coastal governance, which aims to examine the detailed structure of the Indonesian coastal governance framework, especially where the Jakarta Bay management system sits within this framework. Included in this investigation is the examination of the policy framework and the structure of government. This step meets research objective four. The investigation of the current management system of Jakarta Bay, which aims to examine the structure of the management system currently employed. This includes policy framework related to Jakarta Bay, stakeholders and the structure itself. This investigation involves the authorities of Jakarta Bay, which are Tengerang Regency (Banten Province), Jakarta Province and Bekasi Regency (West Java Province). This step meets research objective five. The investigation of the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective, which aims to examine the accomplishments from an ICM perspective and to investigate the features in the management system that might enable or hinder in employing an ICM approach. The investigation is carried out through filed research that consists of surveys and interviews. This step meets research objective six. The findings from all examinations in the second pathway are synthesized with principles and successful factors of ICM (findings of the first pathway) to develop an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay, which meets research objective seven. To conduct the second pathway a thorough investigation of the Jakarta Bay status is required so the applicability of integrated approach can be discovered and a suitable integrated management framework proposed. In order to accomplish a thorough investigation, the second pathway of this
research is conducted using a case study approach. The subject that is investigated through the case study is the status of Jakarta Bay, which includes the state of Jakarta Bay coast, Indonesian coastal governance, the Jakarta Bay management system and the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective (see Figure 2.1). In conclusion, the overall framework for this research consists of a literature review on ICM and a case study of the Jakarta Bay status. In the following section, the theoretical basis of a case study approach is discussed. 2.2
Theoretical framework of case study approach
A case study approach is a research method in which researchers can explore a problem in depth. Creswell (2009, p. 227) defines a case study approach as: A qualitative strategy in which the researcher explores in depth a program, event, activity, process, or one or more individuals. The case(s) are bounded by time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period of time. (p. 227)
And Feagin et al. (1990, cited in Tellis, 1997) see case studies as: Striving towards a holistic understanding of cultural systems of action with cultural systems of action refers to sets of interrelated activities engaged in by the actors in a social situation.
A case study is a qualitative strategy that captures the complexity of the subject of research. The subject of research in a case study consists of interrelated activities that are conducted by particular people at a certain time. In order to capture the comprehensiveness of the subject of research, a case study employs a variety of data collection methods. A case study approach seeks to understand a phenomenon. The phenomenon involves multiple participants and requires no control of behavioural actions. The approach has an underlying constructivist philosophical assumption (Creswell, 2009, p. 17). It commences with no prior theoretical concept (Gillham, 2010, p. 2); instead, it has potential to generate a theory (Creswell, 2009, p. 6). A case study is not started with a theory because that cannot be understood until the evidence is at hand, the context is comprehended and explanations that make the most sense are generated. Several features are contained by a case study approach. The features include research questions, unit analyses, evidence, validity and reliability, and limitation. The features are discussed in the following paragraphs.
A research question is an essential component in case study research. Establishing research questions is the first task of researchers, which is followed by designing the research framework. The way a case study addresses research questions is by assigning total attention in observation, reconstruction and analysis of the case under study and it is conducted in a manner that incorporates the opinions of the stakeholders related to the case (Tellis, 1997). A unit analysis defines what a case is. A unit analysis is the essential component in terms of defining the ‘case’ and the unit analysis could also be the ‘case’ itself (Yin, 2009, pp. 29-30). The unit analysis could be an individual, group of individuals or an institution and the study can also use a single case or multiple cases (Gillham, 2010, p. 1). A unit analysis requires boundaries (Stake, 1995, cited in Tellis, 1997). This is essential to maintain the focus of the case. A case study approach enables the researcher to explore the process, complexity and dynamics of an event in depth. To capture the magnitude of the case, evidence needs to be assembled. The evidence in a case study is not necessarily in the form of qualitative data; instead, it gathers all kinds of relevant evidence including quantitative data (Gillham, 2010, p. 10). The evidence that can be used in case study research includes documents, records, interview results, ‘detached’ observation, participant observation and physical artefacts (Gillham, 2010, p. 21). The methods to acquire evidence can be through interview, survey, direct observation or participant observation (Tellis, 1997). There are three principles in collecting evidence (Yin, 2009, pp. 114-125): (1) employ multiple sources of evidence, (2) construct a case study database and (3) maintain a chain of evidence. Employing multiple sources of evidence ensures that stakeholders of the case present their voice so the researcher is able to capture the dynamics of the case. Employing multiple sources of evidence, constructing a case study database, and maintaining a chain of evidence are essential for maintaining the validity of research. A case study approach has the advantage of deep exploration, but it also has limitations. The limitations include the substantial amount of data, the detailed report, validity and reliability. The substantial amount of data could be difficult to process. To deal with it, researchers need to be organised. Organising the data can be carried out through the process of selecting, focusing and abstracting the key information from raw data (Miles and Huberman, 1994, cited in Simons, 2009, p. 120). The focusing process is guided by the research questions and the sub-research questions. The report of a case study is detailed and, therefore, too long to read. To avoid a
lengthy report, modification of the reporting style into a more accessible form, such as a conclusion-led, interpretative or storytelling style, is recommended by Simons (2009, p. 24). Validity and reliability are problematic in case study research. Validity is the accuracy of the findings while reliability is the entity that indicates the researcher approach is consistent with different researchers and projects (Creswell, 2009, p. 190). The two aspects are problematical because case studies involve potential researchers’ subjectivity (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 234). Employing multiple sources of evidence, setting a chain of evidence and allowing a draft of the case study report to be reviewed by key informants are suggested to maintain validity (Yin, 2009, p. 41). Reliability could be attained by establishing a case study protocol. A case study protocol contains procedures and general rules that should be followed in using the research instrument (Tellis, 1997). Using data source triangulation as a part of a case study research protocol also functions as a validating strategy (Creswell, 2009, p. 235). 2.3
The main features of case study approach discussed in section 2.2 above are employed in this research. The research framework used in this study and presented in this section incorporates the two research pathways, the literature review on ICM and the case study of the Jakarta Bay status. The research framework starts by first establishing research protocol. The purpose of designing the protocol is to guide the research process so the research stays focused in addressing the research objectives. The research protocol contains a procedure to follow in an effort to maintain the reliability of the research. To obtain research validity, a triangulation method is employed as part of the research protocol. 2.3.1
The research protocol established for this research is as follows: 1.
Establishing the research procedures: ●
defining research questions, aims and objectives
defining the unit analysis: the case and boundaries
establishing fieldwork procedures: □
identifying the type of evidence (data) needed
identifying the sources of evidence
employing multi-sources of evidence
deciding the method for collecting evidence
establishing research instruments
setting a chain of evidence.
Managing data: ●
Allowing a draft of a case study report to be reviewed by key stakeholders.
With this protocol in mind, the framework for the research is designed as described below. 2.3.2
Research questions and objectives
The research gap that provides the rationale for conducting this research and the defined research aim leads to three main research questions and six sub-research questions: 1. What is ICM? 1.1. What are the principles of ICM? 1.2. What are the lessons learned from successful ICM practices? 2. What is the status of Jakarta Bay? 2.1. How is the state of Jakarta Bay coast? 2.2. How is the coastal governance in Indonesia? 2.3. What is the current management system of Jakarta Bay? 2.4. How is the state of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective? 3. What is the recommendation of Jakarta Bay management framework in ICM perspective? Accordingly, the research objectives defined can be seen in Chapter 1. Here, the objectives are presented in shorter terms and the objectives are: 1. To investigate the principles of ICM 2. To investigate the successful factors of ICM programs 3. To examine the state of the Jakarta Bay coast 4. To investigate the coastal governance of Indonesia 5. To investigate the current Jakarta Bay management system 6. To examine the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective
7. To develop an integrated management framework for managing the coast of Jakarta Bay. 2.3.3
Unit analysis: case and boundaries
The research focuses on Jakarta Bay. Jakarta Bay is defined as the area with the coastline between Pasir Cape and Karawang Cape, the coastal districts to the inland and the water to the proximity of four nautical miles from the coastline. The determination of the area follows Article 2 of Law 27/2007 regarding coastal and small islands management. The physical scope of the law covers the area of transition between terrestrial and marine ecosystems that are affected by changes in land and sea. The extent of the inland area covers the district administrative boundaries and the extent seaward is four nautical miles measured from the coastline for municipal and 12 nautical miles for provincial government. Even though some of the islands in the Kepulauan Seribu are included in the four nautical miles proximity, the islands are not the focus of this research. The case is a single case study on the status of Jakarta Bay, which includes the state of the Jakarta Bay coast, coastal governance in Indonesia, the management system of Jakarta Bay and the state of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective (see Figure 2.1). As the coastline of Jakarta Bay is situated in three municipalities; namely Tangerang Regency (Banten Province), North Jakarta City (Jakarta Province), and Bekasi Regency (West Java Province), investigation of the management system of Jakarta Bay includes the management system in the three municipalities. As municipalities in Jakarta Province are administrative municipalities with authority lies in provincial government, beside the North Jakarta City the management system of Jakarta Province is also investigated. Beside the case study of the Jakarta Bay status, literature review on ICM is also carried out which includes investigation of concepts, principles, practices and successful factors of ICM. In addition, this research examines the family planning program of Indonesia. A family planning program is not related to ICM or the status of Jakarta Bay. The examination is presented in order to obtain the factors of the program, as it is successful in significantly shifting public attitude of Indonesian people. 2.3.4
Type and source of evidence
In addressing the research objectives, various kinds of evidence or data are required that comes from multiple sources (see Table 2.1). The data required to address the first and second
objectives was obtained through literature review. The evidence was secondary data and the sources of information were mainly scholarly articles such as scientific journals and books. Evidence to address objective three was obtained from scholarly articles and government documents, which contained mainly quantitative data. Interviews with the coastal community were also conducted to complement and corroborate the secondary data. The coastal community included residents and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Bermis housing areas, Penjaringan District. The reason the area was selected was because residents in Bermis represented the fishers (the group that had lived in the area for some time and experienced the direct impact of the environmental quality of Jakarta Bay). Data to address objectives four and five was obtained mainly from documents produced by the government. Table 2.1
Research objectives and source of data Objectives
1 2 3
To investigate the principles of ICM To investigate the successful factors of ICM programs To examine the state of Jakarta Bay coast
To investigate coastal governance of Indonesia To investigate the current Jakarta Bay management system To examine the state of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective To develop an integrated management framework for managing the coast of Jakarta Bay
Source of data Scholarly articles Scholarly articles Scholarly articles, government documents Government documents Government documents Survey, interview Findings of the above investigation (research objective 1 to 6)
Surveys and interviews were conducted to meet objective six, with the source of the data is as listed in Table 2.2. The source of the information was sectoral offices that had activities directly related to the physical form of Jakarta Bay or related to problems occurring in the bay. For example, many business establishments existed in the coastal districts of Jakarta Bay that generated a significant amount of tax. However, Tax Offices were not included as respondents because the duty was not directly related to the physical form of the bay. On the other hand, Housing Offices (Building and Housing Office in Tengerang Regency, Housing and Local Government Building Office in North Jakarta City and in Jakarta Province) were involved as respondents because illegal settlement was a problem in the area. Further discussion regarding related sectoral offices is presented in Chapter 6 as a part of the Jakarta Bay management system.
Government offices associated with the Jakarta Bay management framework
NO 1. 2. 3. 4.
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
22. 23. 24. 25.
1. 2. 3. 4.
26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
40. 41. 42. 43.
1. 2. 3. 4.
OFFICE NATIONAL LEVEL Ministry of Environment Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries National Planning Bureau Oceanographic Research Centre of Indonesian Institute of Sciences JAKARTA PROVINCE Building Supervision and Control Cleanliness Cooperatives, Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises and Trade Deputy Assistant for Environment Development Planning Agency Environmental Management Agency Fire and Disaster Management Health Affair Housing and Local Government Building Industry and Energy Marine Affairs and Agriculture Nexus Public Works Seaport Unit Social Affair Spatial Planning Tourism and Culture TANGERANG REGENCY Building and Housing Environmental Agency Fisheries and Marine Resources Spatial Planning NORTH JAKARTA CITY Agriculture and Forestry Building Supervision & Control Cleanliness Cooperatives, Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises and Trading Culture Environmental Agency Housing and Local Government Building Industry and Energy Marine Affairs and Fisheries Nexus Public Works for Water Governance Social Services Spatial Planning Tourism BEKASI REGENCY Agriculture, Horticultural and Forestry Environmental Management Agency Livestock, Fisheries and Marine Affairs Spatial Planning and Settlement
METHOD I I I I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I
S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I
I = interview, S = survey
Related government offices from the three municipalities adjacent to the coastline of Jakarta Bay (Tengerang Regency, North Jakarta City and Bekasi Regency) and Jakarta Province were
surveyed and interviewed. Related ministerial offices were also interviewed (see Table 2.2). As the top hierarchy in the sectoral management system, they are important sources of information on management practices of regional governments and development direction. In addition, two former government officers were also interviewed for the knowledge of coastal issues in the past. They were former minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and former head of Environmental Management Agency of Jakarta Province. 2.3.5
Data collection methods and research instrument
The data collection methods used in this research were surveys and interviews. Both methods were utilised to address research objective six regarding the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective. The approach addressing the objective is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
State of Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective
Adoption of ICM actions in the management system
Examination of the management system in ICM principles
Aim: to examine the accomplishment of the current management in an ICM perspective
Aim: to analyse the management system against ICM principles and the features in the management system that might enable or hinder in employing an ICM approach
Source of data: related sectoral offices of Jakarta Bay authorities at regional level Method: openended questions
Method: Likert scale inquiry
Source of data: sectoral offices relate to the management of Jakarta Bay, from ministerial to municipal level Method: semi-structured interview
Figure 2.2 The approach in conducting field research
Step 1 was conducted through a survey using a questionnaire which consisted of open-ended questions and a Likert scale inquiry. The open-ended questions aimed to identify the state of the Jakarta Bay management practice in general, therefore the questions were related to the current management practice which consisted of problems occurring in the bay, regulations to manage
the bay, regulations enforcement conducted by each respondent (sectoral office), impediments in regulation enforcements and visions regarding Jakarta Bay management in the future. Table 2.3 No
Questions list for the Likert scale enquiry
Assessment of the environmental issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done
Regular environmental quality monitoring
Development of the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plans
Adoption of sustainable development principles as the goal for the Jakarta Bay strategic plan Assessment of the social issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Involvement of relevant private sector, residents, NGOs and scientists in developing Jakarta Bay strategic plan
5. 6. 7.
Implementation of the Jakarta Bay action plan
Involvement of other relevant government sectors in developing the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plan Assessment of the institutional issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Dissemination of information about the Jakarta Bay management program to the community at the bay regularly
9. 10. 11.
Regular social condition monitoring
Establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for managing the bay
Establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism
Establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism for Jakarta Bay Adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in local government development plan
Option of Answers
In significant progress
Underway but impeded
Attempted but stopped
The Likert scale inquiry aimed to identify the accomplishment of the Jakarta Bay management practice from an ICM perspective. The questions in the questionnaire consisted of actions regarding the management of Jakarta Bay, which were derived from indicators for assessing progress in ICM initiatives established by Olsen (2003b). The indicators were developed from the five steps of the ICM cycle that Olsen adapted from GESAMP (1996). The questions are listed in Table 2.3. The respondents evaluated their office’s performance in relation to management conduct about Jakarta Bay from 2010 to the first quarter of 2011. The time frame was selected to provide a sufficient period to assess programs related to Jakarta Bay management. As the field research was conducted from January to March 2011, the time frame is a year before (2010) to March 2011. The respondents chose one suitable evaluation result from the provided answers. The options for answering each question were ‘completed’, ‘in significant progress’, ‘underway
but impeded’, ‘attempted but stopped’, ‘initiated’ and ‘not established’. The full questionnaire content used for the survey is presented in the appendix section. A Likert scale is a type of psychometric response scale widely used in a survey where respondents are expected to specify their level of agreement to a statement (see Brill, 2008, pp. 428-430). The expression of agreement (in this research called as answering options) is labelled as a Likert response set which consists of Likert items. In processing the survey result, the Likert items are rated or scored as numbers (see Trochim, 2006). In this research, the item ‘completed’ is rated 5, ‘in significant progress’ is 4, ‘underway but impeded’ is 3, ‘attempted but stopped’ is 2, ‘initiated’ is 1 and ‘not established’ is 0. Step 2 was carried out by a semi-structured interview. The interview aimed to analyse the management system against ICM principles and the features in the management system that might enable or hinder employing an ICM approach. The questions in the interview were related to the principles of ICM, which were about inter-sectoral, inter-level and inter-spatial integration, integration of science into management and adaptive management approaches). The obtained evidence was mostly qualitative data. The method used to triangulate the qualitative data was comparing data obtained from different government offices. 2.3.6
Maintaining a chain of evidence
Maintaining a chain of evidence is a strategy to strengthen the reliability of information in the case study. It can be carried out by allowing an external observer to follow the derivation of any evidence from the preliminary research question to the case study conclusion. Staff supervisors wished to play the role of external observers. 2.3.7
Managing data and data interpretation
Data in this research was arranged as follows:
Data selection: the purpose was to select information and focus on the research objectives.
Data processing: the process consisted of categorising and aggregating. A manual process of categorising and aggregating was guided by research objectives. Data obtained from the questionnaire was processed manually using Excel software, while data obtained from the interview was processed manually using Microsoft Word.
Linking data to the research objectives: the categorised aggregate data was linked to the related research objectives.
Data interpretation: two strategies were applied to interpret the findings: developing a case description and applying both qualitative and quantitative data. Developing a case study description was conducted by following the research objectives.
Several styles of reporting can be chosen to convey a case study research: formal, portrayal, conclusion-led, interpretative or storytelling. As this research is an academic endeavour, a formal reporting style was chosen. Formal reporting interprets data into a manuscript that is organised in chapters. It starts with an introductory chapter which contains the nature of the research followed by the adopted methodology and theoretical framework, findings and interpretation chapters, and ends with discussion and recommendation chapters. The structure of chapters for this research report (thesis) has been described in Chapter 1. 2.4
This research aims to investigate the applicability of an ICM approach within the existing Indonesian governance system focusing on Jakarta Bay. The research contains several objectives. To achieve the objectives, literature review on ICM is conducted and the status of Jakarta Bay is investigated utilising a case study approach. The type of evidence in the case study is primary and secondary data. Primary data is obtained through interviews and surveys, which the source of data is government officers and the coastal community. The government offices involved are sectoral offices that relate to activities in Jakarta Bay at national, provincial and municipal level. The secondary data is obtained from government documents, research reports and scholarly articles.
Chapter 3 Integrated coastal management: concept and practice 3.1
This chapter presents a literature review on ICM and ICM practice. It is written to address the research objectives regarding the principles of ICM and the lessons learnt from ICM practice. ICM is perceived as a better approach for managing the complexity of coastal issues compared to the single sector approach. However, implementing the concept is a complex task and demands commitment. Sorensen (1997) labels ICM as ‘a long swim against the current’ approach (1997, p. 3). It will not be effective unless adequate will and significant continuous effort is employed to implement the approach. Nonetheless, Chua (2008, p. 87) considers the approach attainable and Chua et al. (2006, p. 317) perceive it as a viable mechanism for achieving sustainable development. Implementing an ICM approach may demand considerable commitment; however, by undertaking the commitment there is the prospect of maintaining the environmental quality of coastal areas and facilitating the achievement of sustainable development. 3.2 3.2.1
Concept of ICM Background
A coast - the place where the sea meets the land - is geographically unique. Coastal areas represent approximately 20% of all land area in the world (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 269) but contribute significantly to public welfare. Coasts are home to a large number of people and hold abundant resources. As stated in Chapter 1, the coasts are home to 41% of the world’s population (Martínez et al., 2007, p. 254) with population density in coastal areas 2.5 times higher than the average global population density (Small & Nicholls, 2003, p. 591). In terms of resources, Martinez et al. (2007, p. 261) estimate the total value calculated for the ESP provided by coastal ecosystems of the world, including natural (terrestrial and aquatic) and humantransformed ecosystems represents 77.5% of world global value calculated by Costanza et al. (1997, p. 256), which is 33,268×109 $US per year. This is a high economic value of coastal resources.
The high economic value of coastal resources invites exploitation and generates problems. Problems in coastal areas are often complex, involve various activities and are cross-sectoral in terms of management, which makes an effective coastal management approach critical to employ. The traditional single sector management is not effective in addressing the complexity of coastal problems (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 16). To address the complexity, a management system must exercise an inter-sectoral approach and employ a sustainable development concept. ICM offers a framework that facilitates an integrated approach and employs a sustainable development concept. 3.2.2 220.127.116.11
What is ICM? Philosophy
An integrated approach is needed to address problems in coastal areas. There are two main reasons why the approach is needed: (1) activities on the coast and in the ocean as well as in the hinterland can affect the ocean and coastal environment, and (2) one coastal user can adversely affect another (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 18). In a rapidly growing world, intense activities occur in the hinterland and on the coast that put the environmental quality of coastal areas as well as coastal resources at stake. The concept of ICM emerged when the difficulties in using a single sector approach in addressing complex issue of coastal areas became more noticeable (The World Bank, 1996, p. 1). The integrated approach is different to the single sector approach because it attempts a more comprehensive approach. The approach takes account of all sectoral activities that affect a coastal area and its resources and also deals with economic and social issues as well as ecological and environmental concerns. A paradigm shift from a sectoral to a more comprehensive approach began in the United States and then progressed worldwide mainly by actions conducted by the UN. The concept of coastal management began with the establishment of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1965 (Chua, 2006, p. 14). The UNCLOS was signed in 1982 and came into force in 1994. Although the convention did not identify an ICM approach, it was proclaimed as an ocean constitution that set a new regime for the governance of the ocean (Chua, 2006, p. 88; Nichols, 1999, p. 390). In the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, an agreement was signed to address growing concern about the linkage between development and the environment. The conference produced the Rio Declaration on Environmental and Development document. The document, known as Agenda 21,
contains 40 chapters of action plans to guide national and international actions on the environment and development. Chapter 17 of the declaration, in particular, called for the sustainable development of oceans and coasts and urged action for ICM. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg. The summit generated a further call to take action in the implementation of Agenda 21; this led to the Millennium Development Goals, the eight international development goals to achieve by 2015. One of the goals was to ensure environmental sustainability. ICM was again emphasised in the summit on the Plan of Implementation 29 (Chua, 2006, p. 88; Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 41). This provides the umbrella policy at international level for the sustainable development of oceans and coasts and ICM. Agenda 21 is an extensive document that encompasses numerous activities and provides policy guidance across diverse interests in environment, developmental and social issues that are faced by humankind. The UN claims that Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of actions to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the UN system, governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment (The United Nations, 1992a). The claim is supported by its 2,500 recommended actions in 115 program areas (Cicin-Sain, 1993, p. 12). Since the document was established, sustainable development has become a part of the rhetoric for politicians, governments, NGOs and academics. However, 20 years after the conference, sustainable development remains a major challenge in regards to its implementation. Sustainable development aims for long-term use of resources. The general goal of sustainable development is ‘to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, cited in Cicin-Sain, 1993, p. 15). The goal emphasises the wise use of resources so that they can be used by future generations. Chua (2006, p. 76) interprets the term of sustainable development as meaning ‘current economic growth is not at the expense of future generations’ (p. 76). Chua’s understanding implies more than the use of resources but looks into a broader scope of economic growth. Understanding Chua’s definition and relating it to the situation of developing countries makes implementation of sustainable development appear more challenging. Various activities in developing countries, including conservation efforts, are inevitably funded by loans that become a burden for the next generation. The balance between the benefit of the developments and the long-term loans needs to be assessed. Otherwise, it will be at the expense of future generations. Nonetheless, sustaining natural resources is important.
The wise use of natural resources by the current generation is advantageous not only for current users but also for future generations. 18.104.22.168
The underlying philosophy of ICM is sustainable development. Agenda 21, Chapter 17, stresses the significance of oceans and coasts as a life support system and the opportunity represented by oceans and coast for sustainable development (The United Nations, 1992b). Humankind now, in the past and in the future, will continue to depend on oceans and coasts. The use and exploitation of these areas will continue. Therefore, guidance is imperative to allow appropriate utilisation of coastal resources to support life and economic growth, subject to the constraints of resources and space availability. The concept of sustainable development in managing coasts should be translated into operational frameworks and provide guidance for sustainable coastal development. ICM is defined as ‘a process that unites government and the community, science and management, sectoral and public interests in preparing and implementing an integrated plan for the protection and development of coastal ecosystems and resources’ (GESAMP, 1996, p. 2). Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 39) define ICM as ‘a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources’. There are also other definitions, such as by Kenchington and Crawford (1993, p. 110), Harvey and Hilton (2006, p. 42) and Chua (2006, p. 375). The definitions call for integration between governments, communities, scientists and the public. The definitions also indicate that ICM is a process in developing and implementing plans and that the ultimate goal of ICM is for the development and protection of coastal ecosystems and resources. Integration is the state-of-the-art meaning derived from the ICM concept. Its interpretation by scholars, however, is diverse. Biliana and Knecht (1998, pp. 45-46) and English (2003, pp. 5-6) interpret integration as comprising five areas: inter-sectoral, inter-governmental, spatial, sciencemanagement and international integration. Harvey and Hilton (2006, p. 43) and Sorensen (1997, p. 9) explore further. Besides the five areas of integration, their interpretation includes integration with public stakeholders of the coastal area. Chua (2006, pp. 97-98) sees integration in three broad categories: system, function, and policy integration. System integration means spatial and temporal dimensions of the coastal resource systems. Function integration concerns the linkages among various management actions. Policy integration seeks for consistency of national and
local government policies and national and local development plans. Within his three broad categories of integration, Chua (2006) also recognises the integration of coastal actors: different levels and sectors of governments, scientists and the public, similar with other scholars. The dimensions of integration in ICM in term of coastal actors and physical features can be summarised as (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, pp. 45-46; English, 2003, pp. 5-6; Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 43; Sorensen, 1997, p. 9):
Inter-sectoral or horizontal integration: among different sectors involved
Inter-governmental or vertical integration: among different levels of government, from local to national
Spatial integration: between the land and ocean
Science-management integration: among the different disciplines in coastal and ocean management
International integration: among nations
The definitions of ICM by scholars advocate that ICM is a process. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 39) perceive the process of ICM as continuous and dynamic. Chua (2006, p. 95) sees continuous process as an ICM program is managed in an iterative ‘plan, implement, assess and re-do’ manner. The iterative manner is necessary to ensure that lessons are learnt and adopted into the program. The World Bank (1996, p. 6) identifies the ICM process as dynamic as it is expected to address unanticipated events and emergent coastal issues. To undergo the process, an ICM program must unite all coastal stakeholders, build a strong political coalition among the stakeholders and develop integrated policies as the legal basis for the effort. Developing an understanding among stakeholders, particularly on the importance of sustainable coastal development, is an important step in the process. The entire process of ICM suggests that there is no instant solution for addressing coastal problems. The sustainable development concept provides a socially advantageous goal. There are three major emphases of sustainable development: economic development to improve the quality of life of people, environmentally appropriate development and equitable development (Cicin-Sain, 1993, pp. 16-17). ICM as a derivative approach of a sustainable development concept highlights the societal goal as well. The overall goal of ICM is to improve the quality of human life, particularly for the communities that depend on coastal resources, while maintaining biodiversity
and productivity of the coastal ecosystems (GESAMP, 1996, p. 2). The three elements of sustainable development (that are implied in an ICM program) indicate that development in coastal areas should aim at improving the quality of human life in an equitable manner. Coastal areas are not only intended to serve certain groups of people at a certain time. It should also aim to serve intra-societal and inter-generational needs in an equitable manner. Further, the growth of coastal areas should minimise the societal costs (FAO, 1998), particularly the cost in the future. 22.214.171.124
What does ICM do?
The purpose of ICM is to guide present and future developments using an integrated approach. This implies that activities in coastal areas need to be screened to meet sustainable development goals. In terms of littoral resources, ICM aims to preserve the functional integrity of coastal systems and the health of the environment. ICM also aims to correct environmental mistakes made in the past. This can be translated as the mistakes made in environmental policy and in the operational level of environmental management (Clark, 1997, p. 199). On an operational level, an ICM program has a purpose to strengthen the capacity building of coastal governance (Chua, 2006, p. 14). The effort aims to foster the efficiency and effectiveness of coastal governance in order to achieve the sustainable use of coastal resources and of services generated by the ecosystem. The purposes of ICM are converted into six main functions (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, pp. 4647). These are land-use planning, promoting of economic development, resources stewardship, conflict resolution, public safety protection and public lands and waters proprietorship. The function of ‘land-use planning’ is designed for present and future uses of coastal areas and provides a long-term vision. Land-use planning classifies sections of land for particular uses. This process is also known as zoning by other scholars (see Clark, 1997, p. 201). The zoning scheme also functions as a screening mechanism for activity permits in coastal areas. ‘Promoting economic development’ means to endorse appropriate uses of coastal areas with the constraint of sustainable development. ‘Resources stewardship’ anticipates the protection of functional integrity of the coastal systems and the health of the environment and ensures sustainability of uses. ‘Conflict resolution’ aims to harmonise and balance existing and potential future uses and to address conflict among users. ‘Public safety protection’ means to provide protection from natural and artificial hazards. The function of ‘public lands and waters proprietorship’ implies the
government who typically holds sole ownership of the lands and waters is expected to manage the littoral resources wisely and with a good economic return for the community.
Figure 3.1 Relationship between coastal areas and coastal resources systems (Scura et al. 1992, cited in Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 17)
The coast represents the interface between the land and the sea. In regard to the coast, Scura et al. (1992) highlight that ‘concern and interest are concentrated on that area in which human activities are interlinked with both the land and the marine environments’ (cited in Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 17) as illustrated in Figure 3.1. An ICM initiative should manage both coastal lands and waters where human activities occur because activities in one area may affect the other. It implies that diverse activities and issues need to be addressed by an ICM initiative. The coastal activities include fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, non-renewable resources extraction, tourism, recreation, transportation, residential, industry and commercial. The issues related to the activities may include economic benefit, natural resources degradation, pollution, land or water use conflicts and destruction of life and property by coastal hazards. These issues can be the triggers of an ICM initiative. An ICM initiative might address multiple issues or focus on limited ones. In practice, ICM initiatives are adaptable in focus (Clark, 1997, p. 192). They can concentrate on fisheries as in the Philippines, on land use as in the United States or on coastal hazards as in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the extent of ICM effort can vary. The extent of offshore and onshore depends on the area’s unique situation (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 46). As pollution is carried by rivers and causes degradation of the coastal environment, some ICM
efforts include watershed management in upstream areas (Chua, 1998, p. 607). An ICM effort may adopt family planning where people are congested in coastal areas (The World Bank, 1996, p. 4). The diversity and intensity of the issues addressed by an ICM initiative depends on the unique situation of an individual place. 126.96.36.199
How does an ICM work?
To make an ICM work, it is necessary to see the water and the land as a single interacting unit and to design the ICM program to fit the relevant area. The ICM concept is rooted in well-known and standard approaches (Clark, 1997, p. 200). However, the process of ICM can be complex because it must accommodate various aspects and address various problems. Moreover, as the philosophical umbrella of ICM is sustainable development and there is no exact balance between development and environmental protection, naturally ICM becomes a dynamic process that must be continuously readjusted. Despite the complexity, to make ICM an initiative, it is necessary to be realistic (Cicin-Sain, 1993, p. 35). In order to design a realistic ICM initiative and fit the context of the relevant area, it is essential to follow the principles of ICM (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 52). By employing the principles of ICM, the initiative is expected to work and achieve its objectives. 3.2.3
Developing an ICM framework
In designing an ICM initiative, it is important to learn from previous practices. This is because coastal management is a young endeavour and we do not know all the answers (Olsen, Tobey, & Hale, 1998, p. 612). It is believed that progress towards effective coastal management and sustainable forms of coastal development occur incrementally by analysing and learning from the experience. A learning-based approach where new initiatives are built upon existing experiences is suggested (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 611). Sorensen (2002) noted that approximately 698 ICM efforts have been practised worldwide in about 30 years with different levels of accomplishments. He highlighted that little has been learnt from the rich experience of almost three decades of practice. One of the causes is the limited facility to exchange information among ICM practitioners and specialists. Consequently, the numbers of ineffective and successful programs are unknown. There are possibilities that avoidable mistakes are continuously being repeated because new ICM initiatives fail to use successful elements from previous practice (Sorensen, 2002, pp. I-4). In more recent times, numerous ICM practitioners and scholars have provided information about ICM practice through books and journal articles. The practitioners and scholars examine ICM
initiatives and discover the elements that contribute to an effective ICM development and implementation and that work towards a more sustainable form of coastal development. With information on how to develop an effective ICM initiative available in the media, a model of an ICM initiative can be built from past successes. One thing to bear in mind, as suggested by Christie (2005, p. 227), is that the suggestions in the media do not constitute a ‘silver bullet’ that works in every context. The ingredients of an effective ICM initiative depend on the context of the area of concern. What can be done in designing an ICM initiative is to follow the principles of ICM that have been obtained from past practice and to ensure iterative management is embedded.
Figure 3.2 ICM cycles of development (Olsen, 2003, cited in Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 43)
ICM is an adaptive management system and is responsive to emergent issues. The underlying approach to the management system is ‘learning by doing’ (Chua, 2006, p. 95). Therefore, it is iterative and requires some time to generate effective outcomes (Harvey & Hilton, 2006, p. 43). The system is represented by a cyclical approach (GESAMP, 1996, p. 6; Olsen, 2003b, p. 357). One cycle of ICM comprises several inter-connected steps and at each step ICM operates through a series of actions (Olsen, 2003b, p. 356). Each cycle, according to Olsen (2003b, p. 356), is termed as one generation and consecutive cycles process progressively towards a more sustainable form of coastal development and deals with a bigger scope of issues (see Figure
3.2). For the first generation, it is advised to focus on a few and relatively small-scale issues and areas where management policies and ICM programs can be implemented (GESAMP, 1996, p. 7). ICM initiatives worldwide develop their framework in different ways (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 58) and adapt ICM policy with different variations, but the central idea is to follow the cyclical approach (Olsen, 2003b, p. 356) and to move towards a more sustainable coastal development. The steps in an ICM cycle are: (1) issue identification and assessment, (2) program preparation, (3) formal adoption and funding, (4) implementation and (5) evaluation. The timeframe that is required to develop an ICM program and to achieve the desired results depends on the geographical scope, the intensity of environmental issues, the complexity of the management issues and the institutional and financial capacity of the local government (Chua, 1998, p. 606). To complete one full generation of an ICM process requires eight to 15 years (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 616). Steps 1, 2 and 3 are mainly devoted to planning (Olsen, 2003b, p. 357). Step 1 is essentially a process of collecting and prioritising information with the aim of identifying the environmental, societal and institutional context where an ICM initiative will take place (GESAMP, 1996, p. 5). This step is critical because it provides the foundation for the following steps. Despite the importance of this step and the range of information that must be collected and assessed, it is suggested to carry out step 1 within a period of six to 18 months (GESAMP, 1996, p. 6). Chua (1998, p. 607) suggests that the timeframe to conduct coastal environmental profiling and to establish environmental management plans should be no more than two years. He states, however, that this is often difficult. Practical experience shows this is not achievable unless experienced coastal management experts are in place. Step 2 consists of a consultative and planning process to consider and assess different options for action (GESAMP, 1996, pp. 7, 11). The main objectives are to develop a management framework and express it in tangible terms and to define the specific objectives of the program clearly. This process may take several years. At this step, providing baseline data and establishing indicators for assessing progress are essential. Step 3 is the process of ‘bargaining and accommodation’ (GESAMP, 1996, p. 9). In this step, budget and sources of funding must be considered and defined. The programs will be scrutinised
and may need revision. Formal adoption of programs will normally require a high-level administrative decision. Step 4 is the implementation process. Bridging planning steps (1, 2 and 3) to implementation process is critical (Olsen, 2003b, p. 357). At this step of the ICM process, it is not only about the management plans becoming operational. It is also about exposing a new culture of management to the community (GESAMP, 1996, p. 10). Enforcement is an essential element in implementation process and requires a constant supply of reliable and readily interpretable monitoring data. Table 3.1
Indicators for the five steps of an ICM cycle Steps
1. Issue identification and assessment
2. Program preparation
3. Formal adoption and funding 4. Implementation
5. Evaluation (selfassessment and external evaluation)
Indicators An assessment of the principal environmental, social and institutional issues and their implications Identification of the major stakeholders and their interests Selection of the issues upon which the ICM initiative will focus its efforts Definition of the goals of the ICM initiative Active involvement of stakeholders in the assessment and goal setting process Scientific research on selected management questions Boundaries of the areas to be managed defined Documentation of baseline conditions Definition of the action plan and the institutional framework by which it will be implemented Development of institutional capacity for implementation Testing of behavioural change strategies at pilot scales Active involvement of stakeholders in planning and pilot project activities Formal endorsement of the policies/plan and provision of the authorities necessary for their implementation Funding required for program implementation obtained Behaviours of strategic partners monitored, strategies adjusted Societal/ecosystem trends monitored and interpreted Investments in necessary physical infrastructure made Progress and attainment of goals documented Sustained participation of major stakeholder groups Constituencies, funding and authorities sustained Program learning and adaptations documented Program outcomes documented Management issues reassessed Priorities and policies adjusted to reflect experience and changing social/environmental conditions External evaluations conducted at junctures in the program’s evolution New issues or areas identified for inclusion in the program
Source: Adapted from Olsen (Olsen, 2003b, p. 359)
Step 5, where the evaluation process takes place, is the step where greatest learning should occur. Evaluations can only be carried out if the program objectives have been stated in explicit terms. Indicators for assessing progress are identified in step 2 and are monitored during the implementation step (GESAMP, 1996, pp. 10-11). If an ICM initiative is to proceed to the next generation, this step is the linkage to a more sustainable form of coastal management. Therefore, activities at this step should also focus on preparing the first step in the next ICM cycle. Olsen (2003b, pp. 356-359) constructs indicators to use for evaluating ICM development progress and learning (see Table 3.1).These indicators are correlated with the actions required to be carried out at every step of the ICM process. Therefore, in developing an ICM initiative, these indicators can be used as the targets to achieve at every step of ICM cycle. For example, progress indicators in the first step of an ICM process are: (1) assessment of the principal issues and their implications, (2) identification of the major stakeholders, (3) issues selection for an ICM initiative to focus on, (4) definition of the goals and (5) involvement of stakeholders. In designing an ICM initiative, these five indicators serve as the aims to accomplish using an ICM initiative. In this research, these indicators are used as the evaluated actions of the Jakarta Bay management system. The drivers that trigger the need for ICM show discrepancies. It could be a biophysical issue, a socio-economic issue or a combination of both. In South-East Asia, those issues may occur but ICM programs are mostly initiated (and funded) by donor agencies (Chua, 1993, p. 82). This leads to the question: in the case where donor initiatives are absent, who should initiate ICM efforts? Despite problems confronted in coastal areas, the decision to initiate an ICM is preferably made at a higher political or national level. When the decision is made at such a high level, this often has great implications for the areas being managed (GESAMP, 1996, p. 5). However, obtaining a government’s decision to undertake an ICM initiative could be problematic. Nevertheless, in the end, the decision to develop an ICM initiative is a political one and generally needs a measure of political will (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 126). In designing a suitable ICM initiative for an individual area, Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 122) suggest examining the area using these four key variables: (1) the country’s level of development, (2) the concentration of people in the coastal area, (3) the type of coastal and marine ecosystems and (4) the type of political system. The first three variables set the context of the problems and the opportunities provided in the area of concern (the what), as well as the
goals and objectives of an ICM initiative (the why). These variables are used to recognise the general context for ICM and to identify the driving forces and assist in defining its objectives. The fourth variable deals with the questions of how and by whom ICM can be effectively carried out (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, pp. 122-123). Understanding the type of political system variable is important in addressing basic questions such as: who must be convinced to establish the ICM program, who will design, implement, monitor and enforce the program and whose behaviour is it necessary to change to make the initiative effective. 3.2.4
Principles and elements of ICM
Guiding principles for developing ICM initiatives Based on an agreement for environment and development
Interrelationship and integration principle: the need to see an interrelationship of issues and sectors and environment and development and to address them in an integrated manner. This principle is the opposite of a sectoral and fragmented approach Intergenerational and intragenerational equity principle: the requirement to consider the needs of other users, particularly concerning the benefits of development, in present and future time The right to develop principle: it is a basic right for every human being Environmental safeguard principle: the stewardship principle for the environment. This principle relates to prevention from environmental harm through anticipatory measures Precautionary principle: this principle allows for making decisions in situations where there is a possibility of harm to the public or to the environment in the absence of scientific confirmation Polluter pays principle: to make the party responsible for generating pollution responsible for paying for the damage to the environment Transparency principle: the need of openness to the public in making decisions. This principle encourages the participation of stakeholders in decision-making process Based on the characteristics of the coasts Based on the public nature of the coasts and oceans: the coasts and the oceans have traditionally been thought of as a public domain Related to the biophysical nature of the coastal area: this principle recognise the distinctive biophysical nature of the coastal area, which requires a special planning and management approach Related to the use of coastal and ocean resources: this principle recognises that resources are limited and relates to management conflicts in coastal areas Source: Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, pp. 53-57)
An ICM approach contains certain principles and elements. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, pp. 5257) identify two broad categories of principles to guide the development of an ICM initiative (see Table 3.2). The first principles are based on international agreements for environment and development, particularly agreements from the UNCED. The second principles are related to the characteristics of the coasts and oceans. Learning from the extensive experience of ICM practices in East Asia, Chua (2006, p. 94) discovers that ICM has established certain hierarchical
principles. He sees the application of hierarchical principles to ICM practices as: (1) fundamental approach, (2) operational strategy and (3) tools and instruments (see Table 3.3). Each domain contains several elements. For example, in the fundamental approach, the base tier includes integration and interrelationship principles, adaptive management and ecosystem-based management. The principles and elements of ICM are discussed in the following sections. Table 3.3
Application of hierarchical principles to ICM practice
Tools and Instruments
Elements Integration and interrelationship principles Adaptive management Ecosystem-based management approach Environment protection Sustainable livelihood Vulnerability/resilience thinking Effective governance Institutional arrangements Multi-stakeholders’ participation Functional partnership/networking Knowledge management Capacity development Financing arrangements Monitoring and evaluation Scaling up Coastal strategy and implementation Governance analysis Coordinating mechanisms Risk assessment Environment impact assessment (EIA) Stakeholder analysis Cost benefit analysis Participatory tools (negotiation, conflict resolution, arbitration) Legal/regulatory instruments (land- and sea-use planning, marine resource allocation, codes, standards, etc.) Economic instruments (charges, subsidies, quotas, fines, incentives, etc.)
Source: Chua (2006, p. 95)
Integration and interrelationship principles
As stated previously, integration in an ICM includes several aspects. The integration principle is the expression of the need to establish the relationship between issues and sectoral offices and between the environment and development. The integration principles are:
Vertical and horizontal integration. Sorensen (1997, p. 6) labels vertical and horizontal integration as ‘the first, last and always keystones’ (p. 6) in planning and implementing an
ICM initiative. Vertical integration is integration among different levels of government from national to local level. Horizontal integration is integration among different sectors.
Spatial integration is seeing the three geographic components—the ocean, coast and land— as one entity (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 45). This aspect of integration considers how activities on the coast and in the ocean as well as in the hinterland can affect the ocean and coastal environment. Consequently, in developing land-use planning, coastal areas and ocean are incorporated into the land areas and all components are seen as one entity.
Science-management integration is integration among the different disciplines (natural, social, political, legal, management and technical) into coastal management. Policy and management decisions require scientific information and experts’ advice to generate appropriate policy and management interventions and ensure the effectiveness of an ICM program (Chua et al., 2006, p. 311). Scientific input is essential in every step of the ICM process (Chua, 2006, p. 120). ICM encourages the incorporation of science into its program framework to facilitate developing scientifically sound programs.
Stakeholders’ involvement. Stakeholder participation is an essential element in an ICM initiative. Chua (1998, p. 606) uses the term ‘stakeholders’ to mean all sectors of the society at the local level that are directly or indirectly affected by the exploitation and use of the coastal resources. White et al. (2005, p. 274) argue that stakeholders’ involvement is a key to ICM sustainability.
Policy integration. An ICM initiative consists of policy, planning and management. To achieve integration in planning and management, policy integration should first occur (Cicin-Sain, 1993, p. 23) as a foundation and guidance. In the guideline for integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry and fisheries management by the FAO (1998), it is suggested that sustainable development is not merely the combination of sustainable sectoral development. For example, sustainable agricultural development is not the merging of sustainable agriculture, sustainable fisheries and sustainable forestry. This is because, each sector independently considers its sole sector interest and may possibly disregard issues affected by other sectors and internal issues can affect other sectors.
Adaptive management is ‘learning by doing’ (Walters and Holling, 1990, cited in Chua, 2006, p. 95). This acknowledges the argument that knowledge about resource systems and how to manage them is mainly uncertain and incomplete. Therefore, adaptive management emphasises
an iterative approach to ‘plan, implement, assess and re-do’. Chua (2006, p. 95) points out that the purpose of this approach is to ensure that lessons are learnt and that management adapts accordingly. 188.8.131.52
In an ICM concept, coastal governance is regarded as ‘the process by which the full range of laws, policies, plans, institutions and legal precedents address the issues affecting coastal areas’ (Chua, 2006, p. 104). Governance in this context is not only government and politics, but also includes coastal stakeholders. To establish effective coastal governance, constituents need to work together to address the issues affecting coastal areas. The first is the legal constituent, the second is the institution and management framework and the third is the coastal stakeholders. The fundamental policies, laws and regulations must first be justified and serve as the legal base for formulating plans and programs. Stakeholders’ involvement should start at an early stage by reviewing the ICM concept (The World Bank, 1996, p. 8). Effective governance also requires sound management skills to be able to address complicated issues and facilitate an adaptive learning approach (Chua et al., 2006, p. 305). The process, which includes issues identification, the need to address the issues, regulations and guidance to justify actions and developing plans and programs, must fully be understood by stakeholders. Stakeholders need to have a shared vision and the same platform to start an ICM journey. A shared vision incorporates the values, concerns and aspirations of coastal stakeholders and unifies stakeholders to set the goals (Chua et al., 2006, p. 305). It is important to have the same platform to minimise stakeholders’ conflicts and facilitate effective management measures. 184.108.40.206
Institutional arrangements should be in place to implement programs. This responsibility does not need to be carried out by a new agency that is established to take over responsibilities from the sectoral government offices (Chua, 2006, p. 114). Olsen et al. (1998, p. 619) suggest that the new ICM initiatives should develop upon existing governance structures and constituencies, wherever possible. Chua (2006, p. 114) states that institutional arrangements in an ICM context means the existing institutional arrangements should be better integrated through a coordinating mechanism involving related government offices and other stakeholders.
A coordinating mechanism can be carried out by a formal entity or merely a working mechanism. Several arrangements are feasible, including: (1) coordination carried out by a national planning agency, (2) formal establishment of a coordinating agency, (3) establishment of a coordinating committee and (4) appointing a lead agency from the line agencies or ministries (The World Bank, 1996, p. 8). Based on the experiences of Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Chua (2006, p. 310) proposes that a coordinating mechanism is carried out by a permanent, formalised or institutionalised entity. If the tasks are imposed on a representative of a local sectoral office, most probably the tasks will be executed as part of its everyday function and it will be difficult to oversee the tasks involving various sectors and levels (Chua, 1993, p. 89). The establishment of a coordinating agency does not substitute a sectoral management system (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 9) but operates with respect to the sectors and their functions. The main objectives of a coordinating agency are to: (1) promote and strengthen inter-sectoral collaboration, (2) minimise inter-sectoral rivalry and conflicts, (3) lessen overlapping and duplication of sectoral functions, (4) mitigate inter-sectoral conflict resolution, (5) provide stakeholders consultation, (6) monitor and evaluate the progress of ICM implementation and (7) put the results from evaluation into operation (Chua et al., 2006, p. 309; The World Bank, 1996, p. 8). It is particularly effective if the coordinating mechanism is placed at the local level (Chua et al., 2006, p. 309). The important aspects of the coordinating agency are to hold appropriate legislative authority and that the functions are clearly described (Chua, 1993, p. 89). The forms of the coordinating agency can vary. It can be an interagency council, an authority, a task force or a committee. 220.127.116.11
Multi-stakeholders’ participation is important in an ICM initiative. Stakeholders are defined as ‘all sectors of the society at the local level that are directly or indirectly affected by the exploitation and use of the coastal resources’ (Chua, 1998, p. 606). Stakeholders are sectors of society at a local level; however, in many cases, higher-level government offices are involved in an ICM process to some degree. Stakeholders’ participation is essential to ICM development and is the key for achieving a sustainable ICM initiative. The purpose of stakeholders’ participation is the active involvement of stakeholders in the ICM process. Involvement does not simply occur. The possibility of stakeholders’ involvement in the ICM process increases if they see the potential
benefit for them from the project. In fact, participation and desired benefit are the main factors of ICM sustainability (Pollnac & Pomeroy, 2005, p. 249). In contrast, if stakeholders perceive that an ICM project may threaten them; their support and participation are unlikely to be obtained. The involvement of the most powerful private enterprises is often difficult as in many cases they take advantage of the ‘anything goes’ conditions (for example, corrupt government) and perceive the equity and transparency that are attached to ICM projects as a threat (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 615). If these issues are resolved, it is possible that the private sector can become economic contributors to ICM policies (White et al., 2005, p. 278). In this manner, government and local stakeholders can build partnerships with the private sector to gain mutual benefits. The level of stakeholder participation is influenced by political, cultural and socio-economic circumstances. In some cases, social and political contexts are too fragile and unstable for a participatory approach to formulate and implement coastal management policies and programs (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 614). When participation is possible, stakeholders’ participation needs to be designed effectively otherwise it may slow the project’s progress. One stakeholder that plays a dominant role in decision-making may negatively affect the progress of an ICM program (White et al., 2005, p. 278). Moreover, stakeholders should be involved in the ICM process from an early stage (The World Bank, 1996, p. 8). It is important that stakeholders understand coastal issues that have occurred in their area and that the purpose of the ICM program is to address the issues. In this manner, a feeling of ‘ownership’ with respect to the project will occur and generate the conducive atmosphere for change (Pollnac & Pomeroy, 2005, p. 249). This is an important aspect of effective stakeholders’ involvement. 18.104.22.168
The experience of ICM projects in Sri Lanka and Costa Rica showed that the central government held authority, thus the local government offices were weak. To make local governments play more meaningful roles, their capacity should be strengthened (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 614). Similar experiences occurred in South-East Asia, where the involvement of local governments created setbacks in terms of technical expertise (Chua, 1998, p. 609). It is necessary to strengthen the local government capacity, as it is proven that ICM programs carried out with the involvement of local government are implemented more readily (Chua et al., 2006, p. 318). This result is associated with the local government as a legal entity that holds authority to manage coastal areas and as being the entity that understands local issues.
Training local government officials and local project staff should be the earliest priority of an ICM project (Chua, 1998, p. 609). Capacity building programs that use local experts familiar with the local issues seem to be more effective and sustainable. Non-local experts should be used only when the expertise is not available locally (Wescott, 2002, p. 565). Capacity building is recognised as a significant part of an ICM initiative; nevertheless, it remains a challenge. It seems that investment in capacity building is not an attractive venture for politicians, global institutions and private corporations when compared to a monumental or short-term gains project (Wescott, 2002, p. 568). The benefit of capacity building, conversely, occurs after the medium to long-term period of exercise. 22.214.171.124
How to finance an ICM initiative is a critical and challenging question, particularly in regards to how to obtain a sustainable financing mechanism. Adequate financial resources must be available for both the planning and implementation phases. ICM experience in the East Asian Seas Region showed a difficulty of obtaining a continuous supply of financial support. The lack of funds created failures in program implementation and was repeatedly used as justification for discontinuing the program. To overcome this, donor sponsored initiatives in several countries in the region incorporated the program into national programs before the external funds halted (Chua, 2006, p. 116). Besides the regular government budget, other financing options need to develop. Chua (2006, pp. 117-119) proposes to pursue options such as fees and taxes, publicprivate sector partnerships, product and service fees. 126.96.36.199
Monitoring and evaluation
The purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to determine the level of program implementation and to discover the extent of the objectives’ achievement. It monitors the environmental situation in the area of concern and measures the response and effects of policy and management interventions (Chua et al., 2006, p. 312). This exercise is often ignored (Chua, 2006, p. 122), even though it is an important component to refine ICM development. The result of monitoring and evaluation feeds the needs assessment for the next cycle of the ICM process. In every cycle, this exercise should be carried out regularly during both the planning and implementation phase (Chua, 2006, p. 122). Performance indicators (for example the ones developed by Olsen (2003)) can be used as the tool to assess the ICM progress.
188.8.131.52 Two-track approach Acknowledgment of the need of an ICM effort may take place at community, local government or national government level (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 134). Even if the initiator of ICM comes from a national government level, initiative from the community also plays an important role in the ICM process. A top-down and bottom-up approach is effective for an ICM process. An integrated approach of top-down and bottom-up is necessary to monitor the balance of economic growth and environmental effects. English (2003) argues that in this climate of economically driven globalisation, sustainable development is difficult to achieve. International corporations and elite groups are more concerned about generating revenue than guarding the environment. At the same time, they hold the power to influence environmental policy at a national and international level. Therefore, sustainable development initiatives should also come from community and grass root levels (English, 2003, p. 5). However, this can be challenging when the community is poor, have insignificant education levels or sitting in a repressive political situation. 184.108.40.206 Boundaries and scope The geographic boundary for an ICM initiative ideally encompasses a stretch of coast and the adjacent ecosystems that are associated by common natural features or by the occurrence of particular human activities (GESAMP, 1996, pp. 4-5). Where appropriate, the boundary falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the local government (Chua, 1998, p. 607). Nevertheless, for the initial phase of an ICM, it is practical to limit the management boundary to a practicable level. Senior administration should focus on one or two management issues. A frequent mistake is to undertake too many issues at the same time or try to find all the information required for all the management issues (Chua, 1998, p. 607). It is an advantage to follow Cicin-Sain and Knecht’s (1998, p. 135) suggestion of ‘starting small if necessary’. 220.127.116.11 Communication An ICM initiative is a complex program involving various stakeholders. To achieve ICM objectives, the concerned stakeholders need to work together and have strong communication measures. Communication barriers are common between different levels of government and also between policy makers, law enforcers, scientists, the general public and other concerned stakeholders (Chua, 2006, p. 122). The barriers need to be broken. To do this, communication among stakeholders becomes the key exercise. Communication, along with education, is also an
important exercise in order to build the same vision and platform among stakeholders in the initial phase of an ICM process (Chua et al., 2006, p. 308). This exercise is also an important measure to make all concerned stakeholders understand that an ICM project requires a timeframe to process and that the tangible result of an ICM initiative will not occur in a short time (Chua, 1998, p. 606). This needs to be done to avoid unrealistic expectations of immediate results. A tool that can be adopted to carry out the communication process is a communication plan (Chua, 2006, p. 122). A communication plan is developed and carried out during the design, development and implementation of an ICM program. The plan should contain strategic approaches to reach each specific target and build stakeholders that are more informed. 18.104.22.168 Educational outreach It is common in South-East Asian countries, where food security, eradication of poverty and availability of employment are the top priorities in the national agenda, that the public is less aware or concerned about the adverse environmental effects of unregulated economic development. This is particularly so when politicians and economic managers still have the attitude of ‘development first and clean up later’ (Chua, 1998, p. 609). Environmental education is the key measure to address this issue. The important element in environmental education is the consideration for future generations. A new social paradigm like ICM that promotes sustainable development needs endorsement among society. Education and social movements are essential factors in developing this new paradigm (English, 2003, p. 17). Chua (1998, p. 609) points out that in ICM implementation, creating public awareness should be a continuous process to educate the community, help generate support and promote civil advocacy for environmental protection and sustainable development. 3.2.5
The sustainability of ICM programs remains a challenging issue. Scholars argue about the aspects that impede ICM program sustainability. One aspect that becomes an impediment is the availability of funding. Most ICM initiatives are donor-driven and the initiatives come to an end with the termination of the funding from the donors (Chua et al., 2006, p. 319), while Olsen (2003b, p. 358) considers that the availability of funding is not a primary issue, but the capacity of the institutions that are directly involved in integrated and adaptive forms of management is. Based on the ICM experience in Asia, Christie et al. (2005, p. 479) discovered the impediments to adopt the aspects associated with ICM sustainability. The aspects include: generally weak
institutional capacities at all government levels, competing concerns within each level of government for budget and personnel, lack of common understanding about the need or the importance for ICM and lack of monitoring and evaluation in any program, let alone ICM (Christie et al., 2005, p. 479). Chua (2006, p. 305) acknowledges that the institutional capacity and effective governance system in the ICM process are important, but he also considers that the availability of funding is a dominant aspect for ICM sustainability. It can be seen that the impediments for sustainability vary. They might be related to the unique situation of each area. However, it can be summarised that the availability of funding and the institutional capacity play a significant role in ICM program sustainability. Conversely, based on the experiences of ICM projects in Indonesia and the Philippines, Christie (2005), Christie et al. (2005), Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005) and White et al. (2005) also discovered the factors that contributed to ICM sustainability. They found that the factors tended to vary from one case to another and each factor may involve different intensities. The identified factors for ICM sustainability are: (1) measurable environmental gains, (2) stakeholder participation in the decision-making process, (3) economic returns and livelihood, (4) legal and policy framework, (5) law enforcement capacity, (6) durable institutions beyond leadership changes, (7) private sector role, (8) capacity improvement and (9) education and awareness. 22.214.171.124
Measurable environmental gain
Tangible results from coastal management programs such as biophysical improvements and beneficial gain to the community from the improvement is a factor that contributes to ICM sustainability (Christie et al., 2005, p. 479; White et al., 2005, pp. 273-274). However, what is considered a tangible result may vary among stakeholders. Fishers are mainly interested in improved environmental quality that increases fish yield while environmentalists are more interested in conservation. Measurable environmental gains are important factors in ICM sustainability but this factor alone is inadequate. 126.96.36.199
Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005, p. 249) discovered that it takes both community participation and desired benefits to affect ICM sustainability. The purpose of community participation is active involvement in the ICM process. Active involvement does not simply occur. It is influenced by
perceived economic benefits, sharing of benefits and continuance of benefits after the project completion. ICM experiences in Indonesia and the Philippines recognised the important value of stakeholders’ participation in the decision-making process of ICM. In these cases, participation started at the early phase to allow the participants to understand the extent of the coastal issues and the concern for management measures. In spite of its important contribution, designing participation must be strategic and involve qualified stakeholders. Otherwise, it may slow the planning process and make the program more expensive, at least in the short term. Stakeholder participation then hinders the initiative progress instead of assisting it. Aiming at effective participation, therefore, means considering the following factors: (1) who should participate, (2) what to expect from participants, (3) the level of authority participants have and (4) the involvement arrangement to ensure the most effective and efficient use of participants’ time (White et al., 2005, p. 274). Participation that contributes to ICM sustainability must also be equitable (Christie et al., 2005, p. 479). Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005, p. 249) note that local level participation in program development and implementation is a factor in promoting desired changes. Participation measures create an ownership feeling towards ICM programs in community members and this assists program sustainability. 188.8.131.52
Economic returns and livelihood
One factor that is recognised as a basic ingredient of ICM program sustainability is the improvement of economic returns and income generation. White et al. (2005, pp. 275-276) discovered that the perceived economic benefit improvement through an ICM program increases stakeholder support towards the program. However, this is challenging. When the participants’ expectations of gaining economic benefit fail to eventuate, it may derail the program. How to share the benefits may also become a conflict among stakeholders. 184.108.40.206
Legal and policy framework
White et al. (2005, p. 276) identify the legal and policy framework as ‘extremely important’ in achieving ICM objectives and in sustaining support for the initiatives. Significant parts of the legal and policy framework require adequate national legal authority, delegating authority to the local government and an efficient and transparent legal and institutional system at the local government level.
Designing ICM programs that fit with the local system allows the planning and implementation process to run smoothly. White et al. (2005, p. 276) found that in the Philippines, the ICM initiatives were carefully arranged in line with the local planning, legal and revenue generation programs. Thus, the government did not need to make many changes except to start allocating resources towards the initiatives. Moreover, since the objectives of both the programs and the government were the same, the ICM program indicators were also arranged in line with the national government development indicators. In this manner, ICM initiatives were planned and implemented with less effort. 220.127.116.11
The level of local stakeholder participation in designing and implementing ICM programs contributes to effective law enforcement. Reciprocally, effective law enforcement increases the accomplishment of the programs in terms of participation and the success in achieving environmental quality improvement and income generation. However, to sustain the ICM initiatives, law enforcement must be legitimate and imposed equitably. White et al. (2005, pp. 276-277) discovered that in the Philippines, small-scale illegal fishers were prosecuted regularly but enforcement officials ignored illegal pollution discharged from sugar mills. As a result of this inequity in prosecution, the coastal inhabitants became frustrated with the ICM program. 18.104.22.168
Durable institutions beyond leadership changes
ICM implementation needs political will and leadership. However, a change in leadership often puts the continuity of ICM policies at risk. ICM policy implementation may be disrupted when leaders are replaced. Loss in ICM progress may occur because effective management requires the newly elected officials to understand, support and continue to implement ICM policies and programs. More importantly, significant risks arise when supportive leaders are replaced by less supportive ones. To ensure ICM policy implementation goes beyond leadership changes, White et al. (2005, p. 278) suggest: (1) stakeholders participation in ICM planning and implementation to assist building a constituency that government leaders cannot ignore, (2) building advocacy among stakeholders and (3) building support among a broad range of community leaders. 22.214.171.124
Private sector role
Private sector support plays a strong role in the ICM process. Marine tourism and commercial fishery companies in the Philippines showed this in a constructive manner (White et al., 2005, p.
278). It is expected that private sectors support ICM policies if they see the policies are advantageous to their interests. The role of the private sector should be carefully designed. In one case in the Philippines, the dominant role of the private sector in decision-making processes became a negative influence on ICM progress. The owners of private companies, in this case, were insensitive to other coastal users who had different interests. 126.96.36.199
Before designing an ICM program, analysis of the capacity of local governments and stakeholders to hold responsibilities and complete tasks must be undertaken first. If the result shows insufficient capacity, an improvement program should be carried out. Capacity improvement can be done through training and facilitating the improvement process by learning by doing (White et al., 2005, pp. 278-279). The purpose of these exercises will enable the ICM programs to improve the capacity of local governments and stakeholders and, at the same time, ICM programs will be implemented. 188.8.131.52
Education and awareness
Educating multiple stakeholders at different levels of involvement throughout the ICM process has a direct positive effect on ICM sustainability. Education and awareness allow personnel to accomplish their tasks and understand the tasks’ rationale and logic and help in building constituency among policy makers for ICM. White et al. (2005, p. 279) discovered that a more successful ICM program invests heavily in the information, education and communication process. ICM programs’ sustainability is multifaceted. Various aspects contribute to it and each factor may involve different intensity depending on the unique circumstances of an individual area. To be effective in designing an ICM program, these aspects must be crafted to be relevant to the area. 3.3
This section discusses ICM practice in Indonesia and two ICM programs that are considered as successful and investigates the enabling factors of each successful program. The successful programs are in Sanur, Indonesia and Xiamen, China.
ICM practice in Indonesia
Indonesia is one country that has attempted to carry out an ICM program. With the essential objective to optimise the utilization of coastal areas and their resources on a sustainable basis, the government of Indonesia, supported by multinational and bilateral donors and NGOs, initiated some coastal management projects with an integrated approach. From 1987 to 1999, over 40 ICM projects were implemented in Indonesia (Bengen, 2001, cited in Pollnac & Pomeroy, 2005, p. 236). Some projects chronologically by starting date are:
The Segara Anakan Project (SAP), Cilacap: 1984–1992. The project was a part of the Coastal Resources Management Project (CRMP), which was supported by USAID and implemented by the Directorate General of Fisheries. The aim was to establish a land-use zoning scheme that satisfies the different resource users; to preserve ecologically important areas of coastal forest, estuarine and marine ecosystems; and to settle land-use conflicts. Included in the project were training in aquaculture, mangrove management, environmental education, livelihood activities for women and small loans for aquaculture. A significant outcome was a comprehensive ICM plan (White et al., 2005, p. 283).
The Bunaken National Park Management Project (BNP), Manado, North Sulawesi: 1991– 1996. The project was implemented through the Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP) I of USAID. Bappenas (National Development Planning Board) and Ministry of Forestry were the leading agency to implement the project. Main activities included development of participatory national park management plans, communication and education programs (Pollnac & Pomeroy, 2005, p. 237). The project was not self-described as ICM, but included activities such as multi-sectoral planning, livelihood generation, protected area establishment, private–public sector collaboration, ecotourism development, education, zoning and enforcement in coastal and marine areas (White et al., 2005, p. 283).
Marine Resources Evaluation and Planning (MREP): 1993-1998. Funding was partly supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The purpose of the project was to improve the marine and coastal planning and management capacity in some provinces and to develop and strengthen the marine and coastal information system. The project consists of ten marine and coastal management areas (MCMAs) and three special marine areas (SMAs) programs. The MCMAs were under provincial responsibilities, with the provincial planning agency (Bappeda) expanding their scope of responsibility for marine and coastal resources management planning. The SMAs were a national interest that managed primarily by the
national environment agency (Bapedal) (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, pp. 402-403; Nontji & Setiapermana, 1996, p. 63)
The Segara Anakan Conservation and Development Project, Cilacap: 1996–2004. The project was funded by an ADB loan and implemented by the Directorate General of Regional Development, Ministry of Home Affairs. Main objectives included water resources management and sedimentation control, rehabilitation and management of mangroves through community participation, capacity building and education (White et al., 2005, p. 283).
Proyek Pesisir or Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP), North Sulawesi, East Kalimantan and Lampung Province: 1997–2003. It was a USAID funded project, which emphasised the institutional reform in Indonesian governance structures towards decentralization by strengthening coastal resources planning and management. Included in the project was parallel activities to foster the development of national coastal policy (Dahuri & Dutton, 2000, pp. 3-4; White et al., 2005, p. 284).
Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP): 1998–2013. Funding was from the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the ADB, Australian Aid and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The project was a national program and was designed to rehabilitate damaged coral reef habitats and encourage community-based coral reef management at 35 sites in Indonesia. The main goal was to protect, rehabilitate and sustain marine ecosystem use throughout Indonesia (White et al., 2005, p. 284).
Southeastern Coast of Bali, Bali Province: 2000-2005. The project was a grant from GEF/UNDP/IMO through Regional Programme for Partnership in Environmental Management for Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). The project was managed through Bapedal, representing national government, and Bapedalda, representing Bali Provincial Government, as well as other partners Bali-Fokus (NGOs), Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association (BORDA, a German NGO), JICA, Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC), the World Bank and several local non-government and government offices. The purpose of the project was to assist local government to develop building capacity of itself and other stakeholders, in protecting and managing the environment and resources in coastal area of Bali. The program including integrated solid waste management, sewage treatment and disposal and coral reef rehabilitation (Chua, 2006, p. 171)
Marine and Coastal Resources Management Project (MCRMP): 2001-2006. Funding partly from the ADB and managed by the Marine and Fishery Affairs Department in cooperation with the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping (Bakosurtanal) and the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI). The project was designed to foster the capacity building of national and local government to manage coastal resources in an integrated and sustainable manner. The project was implemented in fifteen provinces & forty-two districts (Maarif, 2008). The above shows that ICM initiatives have been carried out in several places in Indonesia. The initiatives focus on different aspects such as the state of coastal resources and capacity building, but mainly emphasize the protection of ecological resources. The Southeastern coast of Bali ICM project covers several municipalities, one of which is Sanur Beach, Denpasar City. This program is considered as successful, and detail is provided below. 3.3.2
Successful ICM program of Sanur, Indonesia
Publications regarding the Sanur ICM program after its implementation phase are limited. The PEMSEA, as the sponsor of the Sanur ICM program, published one article in Tropical Coasts (Sudiarta, 2012), the publication media of PEMSEA. Such limited information makes confirming the achievement of the Sanur ICM program difficult. However, news from the PEMSEA website (2010) and a field visit to Sanur Beach strengthened the findings of the article. Information about the Sanur ICM program in the following sections has been sourced mainly from Sudiarta’s (2012) Tropical Coasts article. The city of Denpasar is the capital city of the Bali Province, Indonesia. The revenue of the city comes mainly from tourism and the central tourism industry is located in the coastal area of Sanur (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 47). Sanur has a white sandy beach that extends to approximately 7 km, with an ecosystem consisting of coral reef, seagrass beds and fish breeding areas. The tourism industry and the population of Denpasar City had experienced rapid growth that had put significant pressure on the coastal environment, resulting in environmental deterioration in the coastal area. Problems included pollution, coral reef destruction, beach erosion and deterioration of ecosystems. In 2000, an ICM initiative was started in the form of a collaborative program between the GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Building, PEMSEA and the government of the Bali Province (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 47). According to information on the PEMSEA website (2010), the initiative was an ICM PEMSEA demonstration site that initially covered 219 km of the Bali Province coastline. In 2010, the initiative was scaled up to cover the entire 430 km of provincial coastline.
Accomplishments achieved by the Sanur ICM program include development of an effective governance system and improvement of environmental quality. In terms of a governance system, the program established an ICM policy that facilitated the establishment of a management framework (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 51). The management framework consisted of a coordinating mechanism, plans, programs and financial support. In terms of environmental quality, the program achieved beach nourishment, coastal ecosystem restoration and pollution reduction (p. 50). More importantly, the program was able to promote paradigm shifts from a sectoral to an integrated approach in addressing coastal management problems and increase stakeholders’ awareness towards sustainable coastal development (p. 51). A number of enabling factors are present in the Sanur ICM program that makes the program run effectively. These factors influence and are related to each other. The factors include nesting the program in the socio-cultural and economic conditions of the Balinese, strong political will from the mayor, adequate commitment from local government, intensive involvement of stakeholders, incorporating some plans of the program into the city development plan, adequate law enforcement, setting coastal tourism as a main driver, the presence of visible economic returns and a manageable scope and boundary of the program. These factors are discussed in the following paragraphs. The program is effectively nested in the socio-cultural and economic context of Bali. The Balinese culture is strongly influenced by their religious beliefs (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 46) and obedience of the general society to traditional leaders (p. 51). The dominant ethnic group in the Bali Province is the Balinese and they believe in Hinduism (approximately 66% of total population, see Pemerintah Daerah Kota Denpasar, 2010). They believe that the marine and coastal areas are sacred (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 46); hence, many religious activities take place in the area. This makes connecting beliefs with the coastal conservation program a welcome idea among the community. It also makes belief a powerful driver for coastal conservation. Another socio-cultural character of the Balinese is the strong attitude of society towards traditional leaders. The society in general obeys the traditional villages and respects traditional leaders. Programs that require community participation utilise these circumstances to make the community more involved. In addition, the economic environment of Sanur influences the program. The main earning of the city was from the tourism industry and it was located in Sanur (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 47). It was in the best interest of local government, local people and tourism-actors (mainly private sector) to
achieve sustainability of resources used and long-term protection of tourism assets. The local government and the tourism-actors were able to see the potential economic return of the ICM program and these visible economic returns generated commitment among related stakeholders towards the program. It can be seen that employing a sustainable tourism approach is an acceptable idea for the community and becomes an influential driver of the program’s accomplishment. The Sanur case shows that the mainly private sector tourism industry is a major stakeholder. Even though the private sector contributes to the deterioration of the ecosystem, they are not left out. Instead, the ICM program mobilises and works with them to achieve conservation objectives. Further, the Sanur ICM program shows the ‘dual-sided coin’: economic development and conservation activity proceeding at the same time. Strong political will of community leaders is another enabling factor of the Sanur ICM program. The mayor of Denpasar City showed a strong political will towards the program since the beginning (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 51). The political will was demonstrated in the local policy and management framework to support the ICM program. This included the establishment of coordinating mechanisms for ICM, providing financial support, developing integrated land-use and coastal zoning plans and the establishment of strategic plans and programs (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 51). The political will was also demonstrated in environmental investment, such as in a conservation project, sewage treatment plant, pollution control program and solid waste management (pp. 53-54). Incorporating the ICM program with programs from the city development plan is an effective approach in Sanur. This approach is an important way to obtain financial support from the city. Some parts of the ICM program already existed in the city development plan (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 50). These included the beach conservation and solid waste management program. What the ICM program did was strengthening the integration effort and, therefore, accelerated plan implementation. The establishment of the ICM program was followed by adequate law enforcement regarding pollution control. The enforcement effort was strengthened by stakeholders’ involvement. A coordinating team was also established that functioned to strengthen law enforcement in addressing environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation (p. 52). The team consisted of government officials, traditional leaders, academics and NGOs. The effort produced a significant reduction of pollutant discharge.
Intensive involvement of stakeholders occurs throughout the program. The Sanur ICM program successfully increased stakeholders’ awareness and participation in the integrated beach conservation program. The government was able to integrate with the community, NGOs, academics and the private sector throughout the ICM program. The support from stakeholders could not be separated from public education and the flow of information towards the stakeholders. The improvement of public awareness was conducted through the traditional villages (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 56). As a result, stakeholders intensively supported the program and were involved in numerous ICM activities. The Sanur ICM program successfully sets a manageable scope and boundary. The length of the beach was approximately 7 km, which contained about 6 km of eroded beach (Sudiarta, 2012, p. 53). The decision to rehabilitate 100% of the city coastline was proven as a manageable scope. As well as the conservation program that covered the beach and its related water-ecosystem, in the hinterland, a solid waste and sewerage management program covered the whole city area. Denpasar City has an area of 127.78 km2 and was inhabited by a population of 788,445 in 2010 (BPS Kota Denpasar, 2010, p. 8). The development of a solid waste treatment plant was a collaborative effort with the neighbouring municipalities. Establishing a solid waste treatment plant and providing a solid waste and sewerage management program are big tasks, financially and socially. By establishing it as a collaborative effort, the responsibility is shared and provides fewer burdens on the individual municipality. This was effective in Sanur. The management framework of the Sanur ICM program designed the scope and boundaries to a manageable level. Deciding on a manageable scope and boundaries is a critical step for successful ICM program implementation. 3.3.3
Successful ICM program of Xiamen, China
Several ICM programs have been initiated in East Asia since 1986. The earliest projects were from 1986 to 1992, involving eight sites in eight different countries. From the eight projects, only two projects reached the implementation phase: Batangas Bay in the Philippines and Xiamen in China (Chua, 1998, p. 599). Both sites in 1993 were selected as ICM demonstration sites, cofunded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The objectives were to test and verify the effectiveness of the ICM approach (Chua, 2008, p. 88). The two areas were small fishing villages. They shared similar development and management problems but had different political and cultural settings. The two projects were implemented by local government and were guided by the
ICM cycle (Chua, 2008, p. 88). From the two projects, Xiamen is considered to have had a more remarkable achievement. In about 12 years, Xiamen has made significant achievements in terms of environmental quality improvement and socio-economic development (Chua et al., 2006, pp. 313-314). From being a polluted area with uncontrolled development, it became a model for ICM implementation nationally, regionally and internationally.
Figure 3.3 Location of Xiamen, China (Chua, 2008, p. 88; Google Map, retrieved 18
Political and cultural setting of Xiamen Setting
1 2 3 4
Socialist system Centrally controlled but with a certain degree of autonomy Government machinery led by a mayor and party machinery led by a Communist Party secretary. Government operation must be led by the party principles and decisions. The mayor is generally a deputy secretary of the party No religious influence
Source: Chua (2008, pp. 88-90)
Xiamen is an island (Figure 3.3) that has a land area of 1,565 km2, a sea area of 390 km2 and a coastline of 234 km. It was inhabited by a population of 1.25 million in 1995 and 2.25 million in 2005 (Chua, 2008, pp. 88, 92). Xiamen was a fishing village that, after a political dispute ending in the late 1960s, became an autonomous economic zone with substantial authority to enact municipal legislation and practise a liberal economic program. Since the 1980s, Xiamen has experienced rapid economic development with an accelerated GDP growth generated by port development and electronic and manufacturing industries. As a sustainable development plan and city planning were not in place, the environmental state rapidly deteriorated. Habitats were destroyed, natural resources were over-exploited and much of the natural resources were eroded. Domestic sanitation facilities and industrial waste treatment were not available, thus human sewage and industrial waste flowed into rivers, lagoons and coastal seas (Chua et al., 2006, p. 314). From 1986 to 1992, Xiamen became a part of the ICM projects in Southeast Asia, developed through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations/United States Coastal Resources Management Project. In 1993, the Xiamen program was selected as an ICM demonstration site, which was part of the ICM projects developed through the GEF/UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)/IMO (International Maritime Organization) Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas. The program was launched in early 1994 (Chua, 1998, p. 599; 2008, pp. 88, 90). Since then, the Xiamen Municipality has adopted an integrated approach dedicated to sustainable development. As a result, the environmental quality improved and now Xiamen holds several prestigious awards nationally and internationally (Chua et al., 2006, p. 316). The awards include National Sanitary City, National Garden City, Model City for Environmental Protection, China’s Outstanding Tourist City, one of the Top 10 Liveable Cities in China and the UN Habitat’s Scroll of Honour Award in 2004. In addition, the city survived the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s and continued to maintain an average GDP growth of 18.3% (Chua et al., 2006, p. 314). The starting point to such a transformation and to the commitment for sustainable development was strong political will from the mayor (Chua, 2008, p. 99; Chua et al., 2006, p. 314). The mayor had a strong belief in sustainable development and took a personal interest to ensure the progress of Xiamen economic development without compromising the environmental quality. This strong political will and commitment did not stop with his time in power. It has been sustained beyond leadership change as the next mayors also shared the same commitments.
Table 3.5 Cycle
Xiamen ICM cycle
2008– on going
Main achievements 1.
Essential information on the elements of coastal governance acquired: policy, strategic action programs, legislation, institutional arrangement, financing, stakeholder consultation, information management and capacity development 2. ICM programs formulated Implementing activities identified in their action plans
Focused on geographical and functional scaling up of ICM practices
Funding sources GEF : about half to two-thirds Local government: the remaining Local government: almost 90% GEF: the remaining No data
Source: Adapted from Chua (2008, p. 90)
Enabling conditions in Xiamen Enabling conditions
New environmental legislation The initiative induces the enactment of a new environmental legislation. Local administrative ordinances The initiative establishes administrative ordinances. Legislative conflicts between national agencies are harmonised through the ordinances. Zoning system A legal basis for zoning schemes is established. Coastal permit system The initiative financial arrangement uses a permit system from the use of coastal waters. The city developed a sea-use zoning scheme. Integrated law enforcement Local government sets up an integrated law enforcement arrangement. Management framework The authority of the initiative has a sound management framework that enables it to accommodate ICM dynamics and to facilitate the cyclical ICM process. The management framework is crafted in the designing phase and is incorporated with planning and program development. Incorporation of the management framework and program development processes in the design phase The design of the initiative affects the outputs, particularly in cases where there is no flexibility in response to the operational needs. To generate the aimed results, the management framework and the planning and program development processes are incorporated in the design phase. Permanent coordinating mechanism The initiative survives replacement of three local leaders. One key into its sustainability is the permanent form of the coordinating mechanism. It is permanent as the mechanism is formalised and institutionalised. Local government ownership Local government ownership of the initiative is strong.
(Chua et al., 2006, p. 315) (Chua, 1998, p. 609; Chua et al., 2006, p. 315) (Chua, 1998, p. 609) (Chua, 2006, p. 117) (Chua, 1998, p. 604) (Chua, 1998, p. 607)
(Chua, 1998, p. 607)
(Chua et al., 2006, pp. 309310) (Chua, 1998, p. 609)
Long-term strategic environmental management plans Long-term strategic environmental management plans (SEMP) are established.
(Chua, 1998, p. 604)
Specific issue-oriented action plan The project management focuses on solvable issues that needed immediate attention. This is followed by developing an issue-specific action plan. Environmental quality indicators Environmental indicators are set up. The purpose of the setting is to monitor the achievement of environmental improvement. All the indicators are measurable and attainable. Expert panel An interdisciplinary expert panel is built into the management structure. The expert panel provides regular technical advice to the local government and carry out research to narrow down information gaps. Link to university staff University staff are closely involved in program development and provide technical expertise in the training of local officials. Community watch A well-informed public serves as a deterrent to those who misuse the natural resources. Stakeholders consultative facility To facilitate stakeholders involvement, the ICM authority provides a stakeholders’ consultative platform that enable stakeholders to engage with the ICM process. The consultative platform provides an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the ICM process and to be involved in program development and implementation.
(Chua, 1998, p. 607) (Chua, 1998, p. 607) (Chua, 1998, p. 607) (Chua, 1998, p. 609) (Chua, 1998, p. 609) (Chua, 2008, p. 99)
The political will of the Xiamen leaders was adopted into actions through a sound management framework. The framework successfully promoted policy reforms, enacted new environmental legislation, built a coordinating mechanism and enacted local legislation and administrative ordinances (Chua, 2008, p. 99; Chua et al., 2006, p. 315). The environmental legislation posed as the legal umbrella for the initiative to conduct its actions and local ordinances, providing a harmonisation mechanism in addressing legislative conflicts between inline national agencies (Chua, 1998, p. 609). The new environmental legislation included the establishment of a legal basis for a zoning scheme (Chua, 1998, p. 609).The city then developed a sea-use zoning scheme. The scheme played an important role in managing activities on the coast and sea, addressing conflict between users, and generating funds. The scheme and other regulations were enforced by an integrated law enforcement set up by the local government (Chua, 1998, p. 604). Using these legal instruments, the authority was able to take action fearlessly. In the case of conflict between oyster farmers and navigational activities in which the farming blocked navigational channels, the authority relocated or removed the farming mediums and freed the channels (Chua, 2006, p. 117). This has significantly facilitated port development in the area and in turn boosted economic gain.
The authority of the Xiamen ICM initiative had a sound management framework that enabled it to address ICM dynamics and facilitate the cyclical ICM process. The management framework was crafted in the designing phase and incorporated with planning and program development (Chua, 1998, p. 607). In terms of addressing coastal issues, the project management focused on solvable issues that needed immediate concern. This was followed by developing an issuespecific action plan (Chua, 1998, p. 607). Developing an issue-specific action plan is one of Xiamen’s achievements that other initiatives were unsuccessful in developing. However, to implement this issue-specific action plan was challenging as it required substantive financial and human resources (Chua, 2008, p. 91). Xiamen also accomplished long-term SEMP (Chua, 1998, p. 604). This process could not be separated from the role of scientists. A multidisciplinary expert group was integrated into the management framework to provide scientific support as a part of the coastal development and management program (Chua et al., 2006, p. 311). The management approach effectively facilitated the expert team so they were constantly involved during the process of planning and implementation of major ICM development programs. The Xiamen ICM initiative has survived the replacement of three local leaders (Chua, 2008, p. 99). The key to its sustainability was the permanent form of the coordinating mechanism (Chua et al., 2006, pp. 309310). It was permanent because the mechanism was formalised and institutionalised. The sound management framework has enabled the Xiamen ICM program to accomplish significant achievements. The Xiamen program achievements can be seen in the following list (Chua et al., 2006, pp. 314-315):
Conducting environmental profiling to identify and prioritize major environment and management issues
Formulating the Xiamen Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)
Establishing an interagency coordinating committee
Establishing a scientific advisory panel
Enacting new environmental legislation and administrative ordinances
Developing and implementing a sea-use zoning plan and permit system
Establishing an integrated law enforcement unit
Installing six sewage treatment plants for nutrient reduction
Implementing solid waste management program
Cleaning up the Yuandang Lagoon
Conducting an integrated environmental monitoring program
Protecting endangered species through protected areas
Opening water stocking for fish and shrimp fingerlings in the coastal waters
Undertaking management-related scientific studies
Incorporating ICM into the regular government program
Reducing multiple use conflicts
Redesigning and landscaping coastal roads
Banning sand excavation and rehabilitating sandy beaches
Establishing the ICM Regional Training Centre to facilitate local officials training
Obtaining ISO 14001 certification of the Gulangyu Island
Establishing a major environment rehabilitation project for Maluan Bay
Addressing trans-boundaries pollution issue that occurs from upstream municipalities of the Jiulongiang river system.
The Xiamen experience shows that stakeholders’ involvement is important in the ICM process. To facilitate stakeholders’ involvement, the program provided a stakeholder consultative platform (Chua, 2008, p. 99). The consultative platform provides an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the ICM process and to be involved in program development and implementation. It is important for stakeholders to understand the principles, processes, strategies and approaches of ICM. Partial understanding may hinder the achievement of ICM objectives. In the case of NGOs, Xiamen provides a unique context. NGOs are present at Xiamen, but mainly in the form of government-controlled specialised organisations (Chua, 2008, p. 93). They are associated with the machinery system employed by the government. In this situation, NGOs are the government’s associates instead of critical partners. The Xiamen program was not free from obstacles. The program experienced financial constraints (Chua, 2008, p. 91). However, it successfully generated funds from the sea-use zoning scheme (Chua, 1998, p. 604). The scheme was used as a permit system and to obtain the permit a fee needed to be paid. The funds were also obtained from a regular city budget and a public-private sector partnership (Chua, 2008, p. 94). The program was successful at overcoming the obstacles. 3.4
Integration is the principle of ICM. The principle is the expression of the need to establish the relationship between issues and sectoral offices and between environment and development. The
integration principle includes vertical and horizontal, spatial, science and management, stakeholders and policy integration. Besides this, ICM also contains the elements of adaptive management, effective governance, institutional arrangement, a coordinating mechanism, multistakeholders’ participation, capacity development, financial arrangement, monitoring and evaluation, two-track approach, boundaries and scope, communication and educational outreach. To design an ICM program it is necessary to adopt the integration principle and the elements of ICM. The intensity of adoption depends on the unique circumstances of the area where the program is implemented. To understand the unique situation of the area, one can begin by examining the type of social and political system of the area. Questions—such as Who needs to be convinced to establish the ICM program? Who will design, implement, monitor and enforce it? and Whose behaviour is it necessary to change to make the initiative effective?—can be used to start the examination.
Chapter 4 State of the Jakarta Bay coast 4.1
Jakarta Bay was once in a pristine state. The coastal strip contained a white sandy beach with coconut trees and uncontaminated sea water, was fringed with mangrove forests (Suherman, 2003, p. 32), sprinkled with thriving coral reefs (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236) and layered by seagrass (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 902). Fish were easy to obtain (Djamali & Parino, 2008, p. 161) and the beach was accessible to the public (Suherman, 2003, p. 32). However, a remarkable change has occurred and the pristine appearance has now disappeared. The white sandy beach now presents in limited areas situated in private locations with no free access for the public. The Cilincing area once was beautified with a sandy beach and coconut trees, but became severely eroded. The sandy beach has vanished, the land has retreated and a dike now borders the coastline. Mangrove forests have decreased significantly as a result of conversions for various purposes. Coral reefs are damaged and some coral cays have disappeared due to erosion as a result of coral mining. The quality of the bay water is significantly reduced due to pollution. The bay has acted as a recipient of pollutants conveyed from the mainland via rivers. A change has occurred and the most dramatic is the coastal ecosystem itself. It has deteriorated and habitats are degraded. Jakarta Bay plays an important role in Jakarta and even in Indonesia. It is the gate to the capital city of Indonesia from the sea, and the port in Jakarta Bay serves national and international sea traffic. Besides the seaport, there are many other establishments such as residential areas, industries, recreational areas and commercial and office buildings. Extensive urban development has taken place in the coastal area of Jakarta Bay. Besides the use for transportation, the water of the bay plays an important role for the community. Fishing and mussel farming are essential occupations for local people and seafood is an important part of the diet of local people and people in Jakarta. Extensive urban development is occurring in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Van der Meij et al. (2010, p. 11) labelled the Jakarta Bay a perfect location to study human effects on coastal ecosystems considering the immense anthropogenic effects from the Jakarta Metropolitan Area.
The area holds a large population and has an uncontrolled growth of urban area (Texier, 2008, p. 362). The region produces the highest GDP in the country, indicating a fine achievement in economic development. These circumstances threaten the environment, including the Jakarta Bay coastal environment. This chapter focuses on an examination of the current state of the Jakarta Bay coast which includes:
Policy enforcement and educational measures.
Within these aspects, coastal issues are also identified. Examining the status of the coast is the first step towards developing an ICM framework. The identified problems are addressed by management measures described in the Jakarta Bay ICM framework in Chapter 8. 4.2 4.2.1
Physical profile Geography
Jakarta Bay is located in the north-west part of Java Island, Indonesia. The bay faces the Java Sea to the north and is located between 106° 33′–107° E longitude and 5° 48′ 30″–6° 10′ 30″ S latitude (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). The total length of the Jakarta Bay coastline is about 149.1 km and covers a water area of approximately 595.4 km2 (Arifin, 2005, p. 1). Geographically, the bay is situated between Pasir Cape in the west and Karawang Cape in the east. The width of the mouth of the bay is approximately 35.4 km, while the part that protrudes furthest from the line connecting the two capes is approximately 16.1 km (Setyapermana (1980) in Muchtar, 2008, p. 102). The official position of the coastline has not yet been defined (Interviewee 35, 2011). Administratively, the coastline of the bay is situated in three municipalities in three provinces. At the west is the Tangerang Regency, which is part of the Banten Province, in the middle is North Jakarta, part of the Jakarta (Special Territory of Capital) Province, and to the east is the Bekasi Regency, part of the West Java Province (see Figure 4.1). The length of
the coastline that is administratively under the North Jakarta/Jakarta Province is about 72 km (Arifin, 2011) or around 48.3%.
Figure 4.1 Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu (Cleary, Suharsono, & Hoeksema, 2006, p. 3658)
The inland region that is bordered by Jakarta Bay is an agglomeration of 13 municipalities. The region occupies a coastal plain that has varied elevations from 0 to 1,000 m above sea level and
is one of the most developed basins in Indonesia (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). The region is known as Jabodetabek or the Jakarta Metropolitan Area and has a population of 28 million.1 North of the bay lies an archipelago named Kepulauan Seribu. Kepulauan Seribu is a regency under the Jakarta Province. The islands form a chain stretching from the south-east to the northwest seaward direction. According to Ongkosongo and Sukarno (1986, p. 56), the complex covers an area 30 km wide, between 5°47’ latitude south and 5°24’ latitude south-east to the west direction and 80 km long between 106° 23’ longitude east and 106° 37’ longitude east south to the north direction. The official number of islands in the Kepulauan Seribu as published by the government of Indonesia is 110 (Republik Indonesia, 2001). 4.2.2
The Jakarta Basin configuration is part of a zone named the Northern Zone, which consists of low hilly areas of folded tertiary strata and coastal lowland that borders the Java Sea (Engelen and Kloosterman, 1996, cited in Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). The lowland section has five main landforms that consist of: (1) paleo-channels that existed perpendicular to the coastline, (2) swamp and mangrove area landforms that are found in the coastal fringe, (3) beach ridge landforms that lie in an east–west direction along the coast, (4) marine origin landforms that occupy the northern area bordering the coastline and (5) volcanic and alluvial landforms in the southern part of the basin (Rimbaman and Suparan, 1999, cited in Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). Coastal and deltaic deposits are the major physical characteristics at the surface (Delinom, 2007, p. 43). Historically, the alluvial plain bordering Jakarta Bay started to grow seaward at the foot of the Pleistocene fluviovolcanic Bogor fan around 5,000 years ago. Verstapen (1988, p. 573) explains that the current setting of the bay could be partially explained from the radial drainage pattern on the fan that supported fluvial deposition to the west and east at the expense of the sedimentation directly north of it. Several rivers flow to Jakarta Bay from the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Ongkosongo (2008, p. 1) states that four major rivers have essentially shaped the coastline of Jakarta Bay. The west flank, the Pasir Cape area, has been formed by sedimentary material from the Cisadane River. The The population in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area has been derived from several sources. They are: Statistical Bureau of Jakarta Province (2010), Statistical Bureau of Tangerang City (2010), Statistical Bureau of Tangerang Regency (2010b), Statistical Bureau of Tangerang Regency (2010a), Statistical Bureau of Bogor City (2010), Statistical Bureau of Bekasi City (2010), Statistical Bureau of Depok City (2010), Statistical Bureau of Bogor Regency (2010) and Statistical Bureau of Bekasi Regency (2010a). 1
south section of the bay was formed mainly as a result of sediment input from the Ciliwung River. The flank in the east, Karawang Cape area, was formed particularly by sediment input from the Citarum River located in the north part of the cape and sediments from the Bekasi River located in the south of the cape. Ongkosongo (2008, p. 1) further explains that the outline of the Jakarta Bay today was formed as a result of differences in the growth rate between the west flank, the middle section and the east flank, which has had average speeds of 2.9 m/year, 1 m/year and 4.2 m/year respectively since approximately 6,600 years ago.
Figure 4.2 Main rivers that shaped the coastline of Jakarta Bay and a comparison of the Jakarta Bay coastlines between 1883/1885 and 1976 (Adapted from Ongkosongo, Ilahude, & Praseno, 1980)
Rivers and estuaries
As described previously by Ongkosongo (2008, p. 1), four major rivers essentially shaped the coastline of Jakarta Bay. Of the four rivers, three flow to Jakarta Bay: the Ciliwung River in the middle section, and the Citarum and Bekasi rivers in the east flank. The Citarum and Bekasi rivers are situated in the West Java Province. Besides the Ciliwung River, several other rivers and canals run to Jakarta Bay in the Jakarta Province (see Figure 4.3). In total, the coastline of Jakarta Bay contains 16 estuaries and canal mouths (see Figure 4.4). Waterways play an
important role in the environmental quality of Jakarta Bay as they become the passage of pollutants from the mainland to Jakarta Bay.
Figure 4.3 The 13 waterways that flow through the Jakarta Province (modified from Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2010; Susanti, 2009)
The Ciliwung is the largest river system in Jakarta Province. It flows through the West Java Province before reaching Jakarta Province. The river is 97 km in length with a catchment area of 476 km2. The catchment area uses are: urban 32.8%, forest 9.8%, paddy field 9.4% and other agricultural purposes 48%. The catchment area is categorised as the most densely populated area. Based on the 2000 census the population reached 4.088 million (UNESCO, 2004). Some parts of the river have narrowed due to the establishment of settlements on the riverbanks, while other areas have widened due to erosion. The settlements along the river are increasing every year, causing vegetated areas, particularly in the upstream, to gradually decrease (Saudale, 2013). In the Jakarta Province slum areas (illegal housing) are located along the riverbanks,. About 400 industries are also present along the river (Susanti, 2009, p. 16). Community Care for Ciliwung (cited in Saudale, 2013) discovered, in the period of 1990 to 2011, that 354 hectares of dense forest and 755 of bush forest have disappeared from the upstream areas, while settlement
areas have increased from 1,287 hectares to 2,170 hectares. The group also discovered that in 1910, 187 species were found in the river, while in 2012 the species remaining numbered 20. The 167 species that became extinct did so for reasons associated with the high pollution level of the river.
1. 5. 9. 13.
Tahang Angke Cakung Drain Bekasi
2. 6. 10. 14.
Dadap Karang Tiram Mati
3. 7. 11. 15.
Kamal Marina Ancol East canal Bendera
4. 8. 12. 16.
Cengkareng Drain Sunter Irigation/Cikarang Gembong
Figure 4.4 Estuaries and canal mouths in Jakarta Bay (modified from BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 3; Google Map, retrieved 22 February 2013)
Citarum is the longest river in the West Java Province (Heriyanto, 2010) with 269 km in length and a catchment area of 6,080 km2 (UNESCO, 1995). In 1983, the river basin uses were: urban 32%, forest 20%, paddy field 30% and other agricultural purposes 18% (UNESCO, 1995). The river had three dams that were used for hydropower. The hydropower plants produced electricity of approximately 2,600 mW that supplied the Java and Bali islands. Besides being a major source of water supply for the three hydro water plants, the Citarum River also provided raw drinking water to 25 million residents of West Java and Jakarta Province. The river was also used for fisheries and irrigation of 420,000 hectares of farmland in at least eight municipalities in West Java. The river was polluted and experienced sedimentation starting upstream. The agricultural and industrial activities along the river disposed untreated waste to the river (Yogantara, cited in Heriyanto, 2010). This made the river even more polluted on the way to Jakarta Bay.
Jakarta Bay lies in a region that has a humid tropical climate and is affected by monsoons. The annual rainfall varies between 1,500 and 2,500 mm (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). The climate profile of Jakarta Bay in 2010 can be seen in Table 4.1. The maximum rainfall usually occurs in January and February when the west monsoon takes place. In 2010, the rainfall in January was 572.2 mm and in February it was 359.3 mm, while the average was 191.3 mm/month. This is when flooding usually occurs. Table 4.1
Climate profile of Jakarta Bay in 2010 Variable
Temperature range Average maximum temperature Average minimum temperature Average humidity Average air pressure Average wind speed Monthly rainfall range Monthly average rainfall Total rainfall in a year Solar irradiation
°C °C °C % mb knot mm mm mm %
22.2—35.0 32.1 28.2 77.9 1,009.8 4.39 21.1—572.2 191.2 2,294.5 38.46
Source: Tanjung Priok meteorological station, Jakarta Bay (in BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara, 2011, pp. 5-6)
The Jakarta Bay water is shallow and the waves are relatively calm. The average depth is 15 m (Arifin, 2005, p. 1). The shore surface has a slope of around 7° that shows the presence of relatively low wave energy in the area (Ongkosongo, 2008, p. 2). The tidal range varies between 27 and 97 cm. The rate of occurrence of a tidal range greater than 50 cm is 86%, while that for a tidal range less than 50 cm is 14% (Hehanussa & Hehuwat, 1980). Hadi et al. (2005, p. 169) carried out a computer simulation regarding waves in the Java Sea. The wave height and peak period during west monsoon varied between 0.44 to 1.83 m for two to five seconds respectively, while during east monsoon it was between 0.35 to 1.06 m for two to five seconds respectively, indicating high-energy waves are not present in Jakarta Bay. 4.2.5
The coastal area of the Jakarta Bay is an urban region that is extensively developed. Many establishments have been built, such as residential, recreational, commercial and office buildings, sea port, industrial and warehouse establishments. Some areas have also been reclaimed to
Remarks: Sandy beach
Pond with patchy
Figure 4.5 Coastal use of Jakarta Bay (Adapted from BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 5; Google Earth, accessed on 12 March 2013) 76
allow more coastal development. Conflict occurs in using the coastal area, such as competing for space between static fishing and farming and navigation activities (Cordova et al., 2012) and between fishers and recreational activities (Interviewee 11, 2011). 4.2.6 184.108.40.206
Physical issues Accretion and erosion
Accretion occurred on the coast of Jakarta Bay. Between 1873 and 1938, the Citarum delta in the eastern flank moved seaward by approximately 3 km (Verstappen, 1953, cited in Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). The delta moved back after the completion of the Jatiluhur Dam in the upstream of the Citarum River in 1970, at the same time the delta at the adjacent river, the Bekasi, grew (Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). While the eastern flank experienced accretion, erosion occurred in the Cilincing area at the southern section of the bay. The coastline in the Cilincing area retreated about 50 metres from 1873 to 1938 and retreated more than 600 m between 1951 and 1975 (Pardjaman, 1977, cited in Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). A total of 750 m of erosion occurred by 1982 and 2.25 km2 of surface area was lost along this section of the coast (Verstappen, 1988, p. 575). Verstappen (1988, pp. 578-579) recorded aerial photographs of the area in 1948 and 1982, as shown in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7. The photographs illustrate the extent of the coastline change during those periods. The photographs also show that in 1948 the environment was still semi-natural and the population was not as dense as in 1982. Bird and Ongkosongo (1980) and Verstappen (1988, p. 580) agree that the remarkable coastline change was caused mainly by the excavation of sand. Following the sand excavation, inundation inevitably occurred. The area comprised a series of parallel beach ridges with intervening swales; the swale behind would be inundated every time a beach ridge vanished (Verstappen, 1988, p. 580). The Cilincing area now is bordered by a dike. Erosion not only occurred on the coastline of the Jakarta Bay but also on some of the Kepulauan Seribu following coral extraction, sand mining and destructive fishing practice (Ongkosongo & Sukarno, 1986, p. 69; Verstappen, 1988, pp. 584-586). Stoddart (1986, p. 80) discovered that two islands in the Kepulauan Seribu, Air Kecil and Ubi Kecil, disappeared due to severe erosion.
Figure 4.6 Aerial photograph of the Cilincing area in 1948, scale :12,500 (Verstappen, 1988, p. 578)
Figure 4.7 Aerial photograph of the Cilincing area in 1982 with the 1948 coastline added for comparison, scale 1:12,500 (Verstappen, 1988, p. 579)
Figure 4.8 Part of Cilincing coastline in 2011 (picture by Sofiyah)
The continual use of groundwater is a threat to Jakarta Bay’s sustainability. The growing development and population in Jakarta demands a vast amount of water, while the coverage of the piped water supply reaches only 44% of the population (Ali, 2011). The remaining population mostly relies on groundwater (Karen, 2007, p. 862) as does the industrial sector (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3130). The 44% coverage is almost constant compared with the coverage of the piped water supply 17 years before. In 1994, Adi (cited in Djaja, Rais, Abidin, & Wedyanto, 2004, p. 3) reported that 60 to 70% of the Jakarta population and the majority of industries and other activities depended on groundwater supply, indicating that groundwater extraction has occurred for a long time. Considering that the population of Jakarta is immense, the water extracted is also large. In general, the level of groundwater in Jakarta, both shallow and deep water, has decreased (Delinom et al., 2009, pp. 3136-3140) which is associated with excessive groundwater extraction (Onodera et al., 2009, p. 3215; Shimada, 2011, p. 304). The continuing high usage of groundwater certainly poses a threat to its sustainability.
The groundwater level in Jakarta Bay has decreased significantly and this needs addressing. Compared to other parts of Jakarta, groundwater levels from a shallow to 250 m aquifer around Jakarta Bay has decreased the most (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3140). Industrial areas, seaports and the airport are located in this area, suggesting a high groundwater extraction rate (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3140) while the alternative of other sufficient water supply sources are not available (Shimada, 2011, p. 302). Therefore, effects such as sea water intrusion, contaminant transport and land subsidence occurred following the excessive extraction of groundwater (Shimada, 2011, p. 308). Jakarta has been criticised because, unlike other big cities in Asia such as Tokyo, Taipei or Bangkok that have succeeded in managing their groundwater and avoided groundwater disasters, Jakarta has not established a sufficient groundwater management framework (Shimada, 2011, p. 291). The transport of chemicals to groundwater is also a threat to groundwater sustainability. In the Jakarta Bay area chloride concentration in the groundwater of 300 m of depth is relatively high, nitrate-N concentration in shallow groundwater less than 50m is relatively high and manganese concentration in groundwater of 200 m depth is also relatively high (Onodera et al., 2009, pp. 3215-3216). Similarly, nitrate-N concentration of about 11.45 to 12.50 mg/l in shallow water is found in Jakarta Bay (Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3137). This is accompanied by the decrease of groundwater flow, suggesting that intrusion of sea water has occurred and also the transporting of contaminants from shallow groundwater to deep groundwater (Onodera et al., 2009, p. 3216). The nutrient’s contamination source in Jakarta’s groundwater is mainly sewage (Umezawa et al., 2009 p. 3230). It is also suggested that nitrate-N may penetrate the shallow groundwater from the natural leaching of nitrates, nitrogenous fertilizer run off, domestic waste and industrial waste and also possibly from air pollution through rainfall and dry fall (Delinom et al., 2009, pp. 3136-3137; Onodera, 2011, p. 161). 220.127.116.11
Land subsidence in Jakarta was first observed in 1926 (Djaja et al., 2004, p. 5) and continues to occur. The subsidence shows a discrepancy attributed to location and time. In general, from 1982 to 2010 the observed subsidence rates were approximately 1 to 15 cm/year with a projected maximum of 20 to 28 cm/year in particular locations (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1758). The observed rate of subsidence in Jakarta Bay is considered the highest compared to other places in Jakarta. Table 4.2 show the observation from 2007 to 2010 in three near shore locations of the bay. It
shows subsidence rates between 7 to 28 cm/year with an average rate of 14 cm/year (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1765). Research conducted by Djaja et al. (Djaja et al., 2004, p. 12) shows a positive correlation between the level of subsidence and the depth of the groundwater table from 1997 to 2001, indicating that land subsidence is directly attributed to groundwater extraction. However, the Jakarta Mining Office (1999) suggests that groundwater extraction contributed only about 17.5% to total subsidence occurring between 1950 to 1999 (cited in Hutasoit & Pindratno, 2004, p. 144). Hutasoit (2001) reports that subsidence is also generated by overpressure conditions attributed to natural compaction (cited in Hutasoit & Pindratno, 2004, p. 144). In general, scholars agree that several factors are recognised as the trigger of the subsidence: excessive groundwater extraction (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759), the load of buildings (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759; Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3140; Hutasoit & Pindratno, 2004, p. 144) and the natural compaction of alluvium soil (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759). With the current rate of subsidence, in the next 18.6 years of the spring tide cycle, North Jakarta will most likely be inundated worse than in 2007 (Brinkman & Hartman, 2008, pp. 6-7). Table 4.2
Rate of subsidence (cm/year) in three locations in Jakarta Bay
Time 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010
Sampling Area Pantai Indah Kapuk
-18 -11 -7
-15 -10 -8
-28 -14 -15
Source: Abidin et al. (2011, pp. 1765-1766)
Flooding is a long-standing issue in Jakarta and causes significant loss. Jakarta is a low-lying area, therefore geographically receptive to flooding. The source of flooding is from the sea (tides), upstream rivers and heavy rainfall. The magnitude of flooding is aggravated by subsidence, swift run off, ineffective retention of ponds and a poor drainage system. Economic losses due to flooding are significantly high, particularly in Jakarta Bay. The international port Tanjung Priok and the access road to the international Soekarno Hatta airport are located in the area. Untung (2013) predicted the total loss of the January 2013 flood in the Jakarta Province was approximately USD 1.5 billion. Economically, the most important loss was the reduction of confidence from investors as floods are frequent and repeatedly generate economic impact.
Flooding from tides is a regular occurrence in Jakarta Bay. Past natural resources exploitation, such as for sand mining (Verstappen, 1988, p. 580) and mangrove clearance (Pramudji, 2004, pp. 389-391), has significantly reduced the natural protection. The current man-made protection is inadequate. With utilities such as housing developing to the intertidal line, further vulnerability is added to the area. In November 2007, a large part of Jakarta Bay was flooded because of a very high tide. According to Brinkman and Hartman (2008, p. 6), the high tide was associated with the 18.6 years spring tide cycle. As subsidence in the Jakarta Bay area takes place at a significant level, it increases the depth and duration of the flood. Ward et al. (2011, p. 902) considers that the continuing subsidence and sea level rise have exaggerated the situation. Brinkman and Hartman (2008, p. 7) estimate that a 80 to 100 cm maximum tide in the next 18.6 spring tide cycle would generate a devastating flood in the area. The occurrence of sea level rise and the18.6 spring tide cycle in Jakarta Bay is still debatable and needs more research. Nonetheless, the floods from the tide pose a significant threat to the residents of the bay and needs addressing. Following the flood in November 2007, the governor at the time proposed an idea to build a seawall off the coast of the Jakarta Bay (Priliawito & Aquina, 2011a). The seawall then was formally adopted in the spatial plan of RTRW 2030. The purpose of the development was to protect the coast from sea level rise, as stated in Article 14 Verse 16 of Jakarta Province regulation 1/2012. The wall is planned to lie 2 km off the coast, with the area in between the coast and the wall planned to be reclaimed (Government of the Netherlands, 2011) and the width of the wall being 60 m (Asril & Soebijoto, 2001). This idea is considered imprudent. The rationale to halt flooding from sea level rise by building a seawall offshore is weak. A scientific finding shows that subsidence contributes more than sea level rise to the inundation of North Jakarta (Radjawane, Hadi, & Suciati, 2008, p. 140). The purpose to reclaim the area between the old coast and the seawall is to control sea level rise, groundwater depletion, subsidence and others (Article 108, Verse 2a). The justification of addressing subsidence with the development of the seawall and reclamation of the area between the coast and the wall is also weak. Scientific findings show that subsidence is triggered by excessive groundwater extraction, natural compaction of alluvial soil and building loads. All three events occur on the mainland. How can an offshore wall address the subsidence? Further, if the reclamation program is not accompanied with an adequate water supply plan, the possibility of extracting groundwater is great and will lead to more subsidence. The seawall idea indicates the politicisation of disaster and the presence of a gap between science and policy. The rationale to build the wall is inadequate. This is coupled with the
reclamation plan, which at the time was a controversial issue. This suggests that the governor utilised the sea level rise, flood and subsidence issue to force the reclamation program to continue, which indicates a measure of politicising a disaster and disregarding scientific perspectives. Flooding from rivers is a frequent occurrence as well. The capacity of the rivers is significantly reduced by the presence of unmanaged garbage and sedimentation. Coupled with forest clearing and poor watershed management in the hinterland, during the rainy season the rivers often overflow and flood the adjacent areas (Nugroho, 2013, cited in Siregar, Surbakti, & Wuragil, 2013). With the absence of a riparian buffer, many houses are built on riverbanks and this adds vulnerability to flooding and complicates the normalisation process of the rivers. There is ineffective water retention management (Yoga, 2013, cited in Maharani, 2013). Houses are built in the area of the Pluit dam of Jakarta Bay and illegal settlements and houses are quickly spreading. This decreases the capacity of the dam and adds to the possibility of flooding and the vulnerability level of the area. 18.104.22.168
The reclamation program in Jakarta Bay is a long-standing issue. The important benefit of reclamation is the availability of land, as land is scarce in Jakarta. The program is to reclaim the coastal area at the front of the current coastline, except for the Bekasi Regency area (outside the Jakarta Province). The reclaimed area will be formed as several islands. The primary use of islands in the west and middle is for luxury housing and business purposes, and in the east for ports and industries. However, the program is considered to lack a comprehensive review of social and environmental effects. The program has been the subject of lawsuits between the Ministry of Environment and the government of the Jakarta Province with its counterparts. Some issues in dispute includ the ecosystem sustainability of Jakarta Bay and the origin of materials used for reclamation. Besides the issues raised by the Ministry of Environment, some concerns remain. An important concern is whether the fishers will be allowed to fish near the new coastal area. Currently, the fishers are not allowed to fish in water where the inland is owned by the private sector. To maintain a world-class appearance and with the absence of zoning regulation, will 5 to 10 GT capacity of boats be allowed to fish? The fishers mainly from Jakarta (54% in 2010 – see Table 4.12) use 5 to 10 GT boats. Other concerns are: How will the authority address the potential 83
problem of subsidence? How will water be provided for the new area? What is the plan for addressing the current level of pollution? The data shows that the level of subsidence in the reclaimed area is at the most critical rate and extracting groundwater is not an option as it will lead to more subsidence. Currently, pollution is concentrated in the coastal water and the reclamation plan is not accompanied by a management plan to address pollution. If the pollution problem is not addressed, the world-class waterfront city will look excellent on the surface but rife with environmental problems below. 22.214.171.124
Sea level rise and inundation
Sea level rise in Jakarta Bay is still under discussion. Nonetheless, several scholars consider it to have taken place in Jakarta Bay and that it poses a threat to the coastal plain and the small islands of Kepulauan Seribu. The threat includes inundation and the disappearance of small islands. Hadi et al. (2008, p. 110) assembled a sea level rise rate from several studies as shown in Table 4.3. The rates range from 4.38 to 8.00 mm/year. Table 4.3
Sea level rise rate in Jakarta Bay
Sea level rise rate (mm/year)
Researcher and research time
Tanjung Priok, Jakarta Tanjung Priok, Jakarta Jakarta
Tanjung Priok, Jakarta
Ongkosongo in Priyambodo, 2005 Meliana, 2005
Calculation basis Tide levels from 1925 to 1988 Tide levels from 1998 to 2002 n.a. Tide levels from 1925 to 2003
Source: Hadi et al. (2008, p. 110)
Using a digital elevation model (DEM) and applying several assumptions, such as no alteration in current land-use pattern, linear land subsidence rate, no disaster occurring and exclusion of short-term variation in sea level rise, Radjawane et al. (2008) calculated the magnitude of inundation associated with sea level rise, land subsidence and flood in North Jakarta. They discovered that subsidence was the main factor for inundation. Subsidence contributes 85.2 to 91.3% to inundation, sea level rise contributes 6.0 to 10.6% and flood (from rainfall) contributes 2.7 to 5.1% (Radjawane et al., 2008, p. 140). The depth of inundation is influenced 58.27 to 63.72% by subsidence, 5.83 to 15.24% by sea level rise and 26.50 to 30.45% by flood (p. 142). The areas that are threatened by inundation are Penjaringan, Pademangan, Tanjung Priok, Koja
and Cilincing. Penjaringan is the most vulnerable area as it is predicted to have the most extensive coverage and the deepest inundation (p. 135). Radjawane et al. (2008, p. 142) also conclude that in 2050 almost all the North Jakarta area would be inundated, with the area covered by water 11,260.70 to 12,015.08 hectares (p. 140) and the average depth of water would be 1.82 to 2.11 m (p. 142). Considering the area of North Jakarta is 14,666 hectares (BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara, 2010, p. 6), the projected inundated area is 77 to 82%. 4.3
Water quality is a major concern in Jakarta Bay as the water is highly polluted. Pollution sources come from the hinterland, the coast and the sea. Inland pollutants are transported by waterways (rivers and canals) and run off with evidence that pollutants are carried from inland waters. A large bundle of fresh water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) along with garbage has been found in the Kepulauan Seribu (Willoughby, 1986, p. 158), trace metals are concentrated in the water within a proximity of 5 km from the shoreline and there is a higher concentration of heavy metals in estuaries (Arifin, 2008, pp. 214-215). A higher concentration of total organochlorins is also found around the estuaries (Munawir, 2005, p. 20). There is also evidence that waste is generated in Kepulauan Seribu (Willoughby, 1986, p. 158) from ships where garbage and oil are discharged directly into the surrounding water (Interviewee 27, 2011). 4.3.1
Jakarta Bay has 16 estuaries of rivers and canals. The rivers flow over an agglomeration of 13 municipalities, which have insufficient domestic waste water treatment facilities. The rivers and canals transport domestic wastewater into the bay, as well as industrial waste and garbage, resulting in poor water quality in Jakarta Bay. One of the components that cause the poor quality of seawater is the nutrients. The phosphate and nitrate concentration showed in Table 4.4 prove that Jakarta Bay water is eutrophic and over time the nutrient concentration level has become remarkably higher, particularly for phosphate. The overall maximum value of nitrate concentration is high and historically shows an inconsistent trend, while the overall maximum value of phosphate concentration from 1964 to 2007 multiplied more than 18 times. Jakarta Bay water is considered to have an extreme nutrient concentration (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1231). Higher concentrations of nutrients were found during the wet season and at sampling points closer to the
coastline (Muchtar, 2008, p. 105), suggesting the influence of a land-based pollution source. During the wet season, nutrients that were more concentrated were washed away by rain and conveyed by surface waters to the bay. The water strip 3 to 5 km from the coastline was in a hyper-eutrophic condition: between 5 to 10 km was eutrophic, while at a distance of more than 10 km the nutrient concentration was better (Arifin, 2008, p. 211) providing more evidence that the source of nutrients came from the inland area. The absence of a domestic waste treatment facility with a consistently increasing population has become a main source of land-based pollution (Arifin, 2005, p. 7). A report from the Ministry of Environment (2003, cited in Arifin, 2005, pp. 3-4) claimed that the rivers annually transported about 3.2 billion m3 of waste water, which consisted of 67.3 million m3 of domestic waste and 216 thousand m3 of liquid waste from agro-industries. Table 4.4
Level of concentration of PO4-P and NO3-N in surface waters of Jakarta Bay
PO4 – P (µg/L)
NO3 – N (µg/L)
33.25 – 94.05
16.12 – 43.40
4.75 – 277.40
1.24 – 432.76
15.20 – 191.90
25.42 – 149.42
0.95 – 257.45
0.62 – 335.42
2003 2004 2007
11.40 – 269.80 24.70 – 296.40 72.20 – 1,708.10
18.60 – 214.52 29.76 – 75.64 3.72 – 86.16
Source (Instutute of Marine Research, 1971, 1973a, 1973b in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1233) (Ilahude & Liasaputra, 1980, p. 10) (Tjutju, 1988 in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1233) (Siswanto, 1992 in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1233) (LIPI, 2003 in Muchtar, 2008, p. 109) (LIPI, 2004 in Muchtar, 2008, p. 109) (LIPI, 2007 in Muchtar, 2008, p. 109) (KNLH RI, 2004)
This circumstance has led to eutrophication and hypoxia in Jakarta Bay water (Arifin, 2005, pp. 34). Thirteen cases of mass fish deaths were reported from 2004 to 2011. Ten cases were induced by eutrophication (Merdeka Online, 2006) and other cases were associated with a mixture of domestic, industrial and shipping waste (Berita Jakarta Online, 2009; Kompas Online (Mdn), 2011; Koran Tempo Nasional, 2010). In one case, phytoplankton was found at more than 107 cells/m3, which is categorised as booming, and dissolved oxygen in the sea floor was measured at less than 2 ppm (Yuliastuti, 2005). In this case, the mass fish death is associated with oxygen deficiency and also implies that eutrophication has occurred. 4.3.2
Persistent organic pollutants
The residues of persistent organic pollutants, such as organochlorins and poly aromatic hydrocarbons, are found in Jakarta Bay. The residues of pesticides are found not only in the
water, but also in the sediment and in fish. The residue concentrations of total organochlorins found around the estuaries are higher than in other areas of seawater of Jakarta Bay (Munawir, 2005, p. 20). This indicates that the residues are transported by rivers and canals into the bay. An examination of concentration of organochlorins in water and sediments in 2003 show a range from undetectable to 30.61 ppt and from undetectable to 51.22 ppb respectively (Munawir, 2005, p. 15). The figure obtained for soluble pesticides in seawater has exceeded the threshold limit, which is 10 ppt (KNLH RI, 2004). Poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are also reported to be found in Jakarta Bay’s water and sediment. In sediments, the concentration of PAH was around 10 to 550 µg/kg dry sediments. High concentrations of PAH were found within 4 to 5 km from Tanjung Priok, the main port in Jakarta Bay, indicating pollution associated with port and shipping activities (Williams, Rees, & Setiapermana, 2000, p. 284). The Cleanliness Office of Jakarta received a report that ships anchored in the bay dispose garbage and oil into the water (Interviewee 27, 2011). Therefore, the origin of persistent organic pollutants is not only coming from the hinterland but also from marine activities, in this case, sea transportation activities. 4.3.3
A significant number of Jakarta Metropolitan Area inhabitants have the attitude of littering (see Texier, 2008, p. 367). It is not clear about the origin of the attitude, whether the attitude has existed since early times, or it developed later due to the lack of affordable waste disposal facilities. Garbage spreads and large volumes of garbage accumulate in various places. Garbage from inland is transported by waterways that flow through the Jakarta Metropolitan Area and enter the bay through several mouths. In the estuary of the Angke River, accumulated garbage was once about 20,428 to 28,453 m3 (Ramadhani, 2012). An estimated 135.84 tons of garbage is disposed into rivers from Jakarta daily. Approximately 36.09 tons (27%) ends up in Jakarta Bay and around 6 to 9 tons are transported to the area of Kepulauan Seribu per day. The coastal area itself generates garbage at about 86.71 tons/day, while the authority of Jakarta Bay can only manage to clear about 20 tons/day (23%) (Heryati & Purnawan, 2011, p. 12). The performance of the authority in managing garbage is reportedly hindered by the technical, institutional, financial, political and socio-economic situation (Pasang, Moore, & Sitorus, 2007, p. 1929). The accumulation of garbage contributes significantly to the decline of environmental quality in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu and is associated with the deterioration of coral reefs (Tomascik et al., 1997b), mangroves (Suherman, 2003, p. 33) and with the asphyxiation of benthos (Uneputty and Evans, in preparation in Uneputty & Evans, 1997, p. 654) in the area.
The concentration of heavy metals is another serious issue in Jakarta Bay. They are found in water, sediments and mussels. The types of heavy metals found are mercury, lead and cadmium. Estuary areas in Jakarta Bay are reported to contain significant heavy metal levels (Arifin, 2008, p. 215). Arifin also reports that trace metals are concentrated in water within 5 km of the shoreline of the Jakarta Bay (p. 214). This suggests the origin of the trace metals is the inland area. The high level of trace metals in Jakarta Bay is associated with the absence of adequate waste treatment plants or no waste treatment at all, particularly for small industries. The inland of Jakarta Bay has 2,050 industries, which consist of 147 large and medium industries and 1,903 small industries (Arifin, 2005, p. 4). The level of pollution indicates that those industries directly discharge their waste into the rivers and the polluted water is transported into the bay. The trace of metals is also found in mussels that are farmed in the bay. A study shows that from 2002 to 2005 the mussels contained 22.22–46.47 µg Pb/g of dry green mussels and from 2002 to 2003 the mussels contained 0.12–2.70 µg Cd/g of dry green mussels (Arifin, 2008, p. 230). In addition, the mussels showed organ abnormalities and malformations (BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006), indicating an effect of intense exposure to heavy metals. The measurement of the heavy metal accumulation in the sediments from 1900 to 2006 shows that anthropogenic metal accumulation began in the 1920s, increased significantly from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, and then decreased or was constant from the end of the 1990s to 2006 (Hosono et al., 2011, p. 297). Hosono et al. (2011) interpret the decreasing trend from the 1990s to 2006 as a result of strict environmental regulation enforcement. However, this interpretation should be examined further as Hosono et al. associated the trend with what occurred in other countries in Asia, instead of evaluating other factors attributable to local conditions. In contrast, Arifin (2005, p. 7) argues another cause for the declining of trace metal concentration. He highlighted the possibility of suspended matter and phytoplankton biomass absorbing the trace metals and the role of green mussels in acting as the main route of metals uptake from seawaters and suspended particulate matter.
Coastal resources Coral reef
The reef complex in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu was once flourishing. The coral reef species in the area were richer compared to the species in the coasts of Sumatra and Singapore (Sluiter, 1888, cited in van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 4). Based on the conditions in the early 1900s, the reef was labelled as flourishing (Rachello-Dolmen & Cleary, 2007, p. 824) and thriving (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). In the complex, there may have been as many as 700 individual reefs and 342 reef platforms in which 110 were vegetated cays (i.e. islands) and had a size larger than half an acre (Tomascik et al., 1997b, pp. 702-704). However, the flourishing reefs have not survived. A major ecosystem change took place and as a result the reefs were functionally dead, species richness decreased and species composition changed significantly. In 1929, at a depth of 15 m, a living coral reef could be found in Jakarta Bay, while in the 1990s there were no coral reef communities considered functional found. Consequently, the systems were no longer able to provide the various resources and amenities they had contributed to 65 years before. Benthic heterotrophic community had replaced the animal-algal symbiotic associations, the characteristic of coral reef ecosystems (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1238). A similar situation occurred in Kepulauan Seribu. In 1929, 96 coral species from the Nyamuk Besar island were recorded and the reefs were dominated by Montipora digitata (‘ramosa’) and M. Foliosa species (Umbgrove 1939 in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236), while in the 1990s the island contained only two reefs that had some coral colonies, only 16 species remained in very low abundance and the two species of Montipora had disappeared (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). Moreover, a large moat of Acropora aspera that existed in 1928 had disappeared as well (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). In addition, species richness had decreased and species composition had changed significantly. In 1920, the total number of stony coral species reached up to 190, while in 2005 there were 105 species confirmed. In 1920, the Acroporidae were important contributors to reef species numbers but they have become heavily reduced since then. In 1920, the Milleporidae or fire corals were commonly found in the bay but in 2005 they appeared to disappear (van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 10). The cause of such change is not from natural circumstances. Reefs have survived from fluxes of sediments or an El Niño event. Coral reefs in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu were well adapted to the seasonal fluctuation of land-derived sediments and the related supply of nutrients 89
as the reefs grew and developed in marine depositional environments (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). The 1982 to 1983 El Niño Southern Oscillation Event caused severe bleaching of the shallow reefs in the Java Sea, including in Jakarta Bay and the Kepulauan Seribu area. The event resulted in the mortality of mass coral reefs and the change of their species composition (Cleary et al., 2006, p. 3667; van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 11). Nonetheless, within five years the Acropora species in the Kepulauan Seribu already showed signs of recovery (Brown and Suharsono, 1990, cited in van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 11). This situation suggests that factors other than the natural ones made reefs deteriorate, and the other factors are the impact of anthropogenic activities. The distance from the mainland influences the state of the reefs in Kepulauan Seribu. The state of reefs in the area of Kepulauan Seribu showed a positive correlation between the extent of living reefs and the distance of the islands from the coastline (Hutomo & Adrim, 1986, p. 140; Moll & Suharsono, 1986, p. 123). The further the reefs’ location from the coastline, the healthier they are. High quantity of Acanthaster planci was found in Kepulauan Seribu and this was associated with the anthropogenic activities (Darsono and Soekarno, 1994, cited in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 725). The evidence indicates that the deprived condition of coral reefs is associated with pollution as a result of anthropogenic activities on the mainland. This was why the state of coral communities in the area, which once was thriving, then was labelled as the case ‘par excellence’ of the terminal phase from anthropogenic impacts (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). Pollution is not the only factor which contributed to the demise of coral reefs in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu. Another factor is coral mining which took place in the areas. In 1931, it was estimated around 8,500 m3 of coral was removed from the reefs of Jakarta Bay and around 20,000 m3 was removed from the reefs of Kepulauan Seribu. The removed corals were used for road works and construction in Jakarta (Verwey, 1931, cited in Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 1236). Coral mining using explosives and crowbars occurred frequently (Hardenberg, 1939, cited in van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 4). The process of extraction caused rapid erosion of the coral cays. As a result, two islands, Air Kecil and Ubi Kecil, completely disappeared (Ongkosongo & Sukarno, 1986, p. 69). The island of Ubi Kecil in 1753 was a forested wooden island (Umbgrove, 1947, cited in Verstappen, 1988, p. 586). The two islands disappeared by 1983 (Stoddart, 1986, p. 80). Another island, Ubi Besar, was also rapidly being eroded as the reefs were extracted around it. However, Ubi Besar Island remains (Ongkosongo & Sukarno, 1986, p. 69).
What has happened to coral reefs in Jakarta Bay is an example of development pressure. The Jakarta Metropolitan Area has the largest conurbation cities in the world situated adjacent to a coral reef complex (van der Meij et al., 2010, p. 3). Unsustainable development in the region directly influences the complex. Verstappen (1988, p. 586) states that the last three decades of urbanisation have put great pressure on the coastal environment in Jakarta Bay and the environment has been unable to endure such pressure without compromise. This statement is hard to dispute. 4.4.2
Indonesia once had vast mangrove areas. The scope was approximately 4.25 million ha or 20% of the world’s mangrove areas. Approximately 69% of the forest was found in Papua, and stretched around 2.94 million ha of its coastal strip. The remaining area of 1.31 million ha was distributed among more populated islands such as Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan. In these islands, the forests had been heavily exploited for many purposes, such as obtaining forest products, agricultural land use, human settlements and aquaculture development (Choong, Wirakusumah, & Achmadi, 1990, p. 45). According to the Indonesian Statistics Bureau (2009, p. 93) the mangrove areas in Indonesia were 2.24 million ha, consisting of forest and non-forest area. The largest mangrove areas were found in Papua with an extent of 1 million ha or 45% of total Indonesian mangrove areas.
Figure 4.9 The position of Mauk and Angke (Google Map, retrieved 15 November 2013)
The extent of mangrove areas in Jakarta Bay is decreasing. The mangrove areas in Java are found along the northern coast and in a few vicinities on the southern coast (Choong et al., 1990, p. 47). Jakarta Bay was previously fringed by mangroves, interrupted by river mouths and some sectors of sandy beach (Verstappen, 1953, cited in Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). The mangroves concentrated on the estuaries of the Ciliwung, Bekasi and Citarum rivers. The areas also surrounded the estuary of the Cisadane River, outside the western flank of Jakarta Bay (Sukardjo, 1979). A belt of mangroves once existed from Mauk in the Banten Province to Muara Angke in North Jakarta (Sukardjo, 1979) (see Figure 4.9). An up to date map shows that the straight distance between the two places is approximately 33 km (Razak, 2010, p. 35 & 42). It is not clear, however, how far from the 33 km is mangrove vegetated. Nonetheless, the area had mostly been converted into tambaks (brackish ponds) (Sukardjo, 1979). Many mangrove areas in other places were also converted. In 1960, the extent of mangroves on the coastline of North Jakarta was 1,334.6 ha; in 1996 this declined to 428.6 ha and in 2002 the amount remaining was 232.8 ha (Table 4.5). Therefore in 42 years, from 1960 to 2002, the mangrove areas reduced by almost 83% (Pramudji, 2008, p. 63). The latest data shows that the vegetated2 mangrove areas in Jakarta Bay are about 92.43 ha. This consists of Angke Kapuk Reservation Forest 31.33 ha, Muara Angke Wildlife Sanctuary 2.5 ha, Angke Kapuk Tourism Forest 29.95 ha and the greenbelt along toll road 28.65 ha (Dinas Kelautan dan Pertanian Provinsi Jakarta, 2010, p. 6). The areas are located mainly in the Angke zone. These presumably are the areas of the mangroves belt from Mauk to Muara Angke that existed before. Based on 2009 land use of Jakarta Province in RTRW 2030, the coastline of the Jakarta Province covered by mangroves is approximately 5 km (Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2012, p. 158); as a comparison the length of the Jakarta Province coastline is 72 km (Arifin, 2011). Table 4.5 Year
The extent of mangrove areas in North Jakarta Extent, ha
Source (Pramudji, 2008, p. 63) (Dinas Kelautan dan Pertanian Provinsi Jakarta, 2010, p. 6)
The causes of the mangrove area reduction are various. A one-year field observation by Sukardjo (1979) in Marunda, Jakarta Bay showed that villagers took an average of 40 kg of wood/day/ha from the forest. This activity occurred particularly in the dry season. The wood was used as firewood. The villagers who cut the mangroves were economically poor. Mangroves in this area were also converted into tambaks (Sukardjo, 1979). Cutting down of mangroves still occurs in Many publications present larger areas of mangrove. For example, the Angke Kapuk Tourism Forest is said to have an area of 99.82 ha. This is the total area of the tourism forest, which includes built-up areas. The vegetated area is only 29.95 ha. 2
2013. In the adjacent mangrove areas that include Muara Gembong, Bekasi Regency, mangroves were cut for construction materials and for firewood for use in a crematorium. This conduct left only 100 ha of mangrove area from 400 ha several years before (Ambari, 2013). Further, aside from cutting, mangrove areas also decreased as the indirect effect of sand mining in adjacent coastal areas (Pramudji, 2004, p. 391; Suherman, 2003, p. 33). Some mangrove areas were also cleared and converted into residential areas, recreational areas, highways and ports. However, the primary reduction of mangrove areas was a result of conversion to tambaks (Pramudji, 2008, p. 61). Tambaks are part of coastal inhabitants’ culture in Indonesia. According to Choong et al. (1990, p. 52), tambaks building began approximately 600 years ago in Indonesia and the country was considered a pioneer in constructing the tambak system. Tambaks are not only associated with the decrease of mangrove areas, but also lead to erosion. Completely clearing the area of mangrove forests and constructing tambaks right to the edge of the sea resulted in the alteration of stream flow. This led to a reduction in the drainage of lowlying lands and increased salt intrusion. As the vegetation that acted as a buffer to wind and waves was removed, erosion occurred on the coastline (Burbridge, 1982, p. 49). Significant levels of erosion occurred in the area of Marunda and this was attributed to the clearance of mangrove forest (Alikodra, 1996, p. 32). The problem of the extent of mangrove areas in Jakarta Bay is exacerbated by the mangroves’ quality. The state of mangroves in the Angke zone was estimated to be 80% degraded. This is due to several circumstances (Suherman, 2003, p. 33): low quality of sea water, the distance from tides because of the occurrence of new land mass as a result of sedimentation induced by the presence of garbage and the presence of plastic garbage and dangerous contaminants that destroyed and disrupted the grow of mangrove shoots. 4.4.3
Coral reefs in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu have received substantial attention while studies about seagrass are limited. Seagrass beds in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu were grown throughout the reef complex and were correlated with lagoon environments and reef flats. Eight seagrass species were found in the area. In the reef flats intertidal zone, seagrass were found at a depth of 2 m with coverage of less than 10%. In the reef flats sub-tidal zone, an extensive mono-specific seagrass community was also found (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 902). The current state of the seagrass in the area is unknown. 93
Sandy beaches now only exist in limited areas in Jakarta Bay. Once, the beaches existed in several sectors (Verstappen, 1953, cited in Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980). The Cilincing was a sandy beach area before the excavation of sand took place and left the area severely eroded (Bird & Ongkosongo, 1980; Verstappen, 1988, p. 580). Today, the remaining sandy beaches in Jakarta Province are limited and lie within private property, which is a recreational area. The public must pay to enter the area. The total length of the coastline in the recreational area is 3 km (Silalahi, 2012, p. 92). In total, the sandy beaches are approximately 1.25 m in length with an average of 22 m in width and are situated in several locations (field observation, 2010–2011). Note that the length of sandy beaches includes the coastline of on artificial small bay that juts inland, while the total coastline in the recreational area does not include the bay coastline. The remaining coastline of Jakarta Bay consists of built-up areas, ponds, vacant areas and mangroves. In the area of Tengerang Regency is a sandy beach that borders ponds with the sea. According to Google Map accessed on 30 June 2013, the length of the beach is approximately 2.9 km and the average width is approximately 10 m (see Figure 4.5.). 4.4.5
The fish in Jakarta Bay have become more scarce and smaller in size. Between 1975 to 2006, more than 250 species of fish were found in the area, consisting of pelagic and demersal fish (Djamali & Parino, 2008, pp. 160-161). Among them were 128 reef fish species consisting of edible fish and ornamental fish. In terms of the number of fish, the area experienced decline. The declining number is associated with the death of coral reef communities in Jakarta Bay and with the continuous deprivation of reefs in Kepulauan Seribu. In more recent times, the edible fish in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu became scarce and difficult to obtain compared to the situation 40 years before; the current fish were shorter and smaller (Djamali & Parino, 2008, p. 161). The scarcity is associated with overfishing practices (BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 12) and pollution (The head of Indonesian Traditional Fishers Association, 2012, cited in Prihadiyoko & Suprihadi, 2012). 4.5
The economic profile of the three municipalities and the three provinces is shaped by the manufacturing industry. The industry plays a significant role in the attainment of revenue, as it is
the highest source of revenue in all areas except for the Jakarta Province. The contributions of other revenue sources are different in each area, and are reviewed in the following sections. Table 4.6
The gross regional domestic product of the three municipalities at current market prices (in million Rupiahs)
Tengerang Regency1 North Jakarta
Bekasi Average GRDP of provinces4
*Preliminary figure Source: 1. (BPS Kabupaten Tangerang, 2010c, p. 223), 2. (BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara, 2011, p. 286), 3. (BPS Kabupaten Bekasi, 2010b, p. 302), 4. (BPS RI, 2012d)
Between the three municipalities, the North Jakarta City obtains the highest of the gross regional domestic product (GRDP), followed by the Bekasi Regency (see Table 4.6). The North Jakarta City revenue is even slightly above the average GRDP of all provinces. The revenues of the three municipalities are mostly obtained from manufacturing industries. The Bekasi Regency, in particular, receives approximately 79% of its revenue from the industry; while the Tengerang Regency and the North Jakarta City receive approximately 55% and 42% respectively (see Table 4.7). Table 4.7
The percentage of the revenue based on sources in the three municipalities
Source of revenue
North Jakarta City3
Agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishery
Mining and quarrying
Electricity, gas and water supply
Trade, hotel and restaurant
Transportation and communication
Real estate and business services
Source: 1. (BPS Kabupaten Bekasi, 2010b, p. 302), 2. (BPS Kabupaten Tangerang, 2010c, p. 223), 3. (BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara, 2011, p. 286)
The GRDP of the three provinces and comparison to the average national GRDP
GRDP at current market prices (in million Rupiahs) 1 Jakarta 757,696,594 862,089,737 2 West Java 689,841,314 771,593,860 3 Banten 152,556,216 171,690,414 Average 141,016,341 160,419,908 Indonesia 4,653,539,246 5,293,856,970 Comparison to the average national GRDP (times) 1 Jakarta 5.4 5.4 2 West Java 4.9 4.8 3 Banten 1.1 1.1
982,540,044 861,006,348 192,218,910 182,454,366 6,020,994,080 5.4 4.7 1.1
*Preliminary figure Source: (BPS RI, 2012d)
At the provincial level, between the three provinces, Jakarta obtains the highest GRDP (see Table 4.8 and Table 4.9). In fact, the Jakarta Province achieves the highest GRDP in the country (BPS RI, 2012d), with 5.4 times the average GRDP of the provinces. The West Java Province obtains the second highest between the three provinces and in the country (BPS RI, 2012d), with 4.7 to 4.9 times the average GRDP of the provinces. The Banten and the West Java Province obtains its revenue mostly from manufacturing industries, with approximately 43% and 38% respectively, while the Jakarta Province obtains its revenue mostly from the real estate and business services (approximately 28%). Table 4.9
The percentage of the revenue sources of the three provinces in 2010 Source of revenue
West Java Province3
Agriculture, livestock, forestry & fishery
Mining and quarrying
Electricity, gas and water supply
Trade, hotel and restaurant
Transportation and communication
Real estate and business services
Source: 1. (BPS Provinsi Banten, 2011, p. 485), 2. (BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta, 2012), 3. (BPS Provinsi Jawa Barat, 2011, pp. 509-511)
There are several other stakeholders besides the authority of Jakarta Bay. The prominent stakeholders include residents, fishers, mussel farmers, various enterprises, NGOs and universities. Each stakeholder is discussed in the following sections. 4.6.1
There are 10 districts bordered by the coastline of Jakarta Bay (see Figure 4.10). Two are in the Tangerang Regency: Teluk Naga and Kosambi. Five are in North Jakarta City: Penjaringan, Pademangan, Tanjung Priok, Koja and Cilincing. Three are in the Bekasi Regency: Tarumajaya, Babelan and Muara Gembong. In the Tengerang Regency, there are six other coastal districts but they are not bordered by the coast of Jakarta Bay. The population of the 10 coastal districts of Jakarta Bay is 2,115,095 in 2010 (Table 4.10). Table 4.10 Population and density of the municipalities and the coastal districts of Jakarta Bay in 2010 Population
Tangerang Regency1 Teluk Naga District Kosambi District
2,838,621 138,467 131,747
North Jakarta City2 Penjaringan District Pademangan District Tanjung Priok District Koja District Cilincing District
1,645,312 306,351 149,596 375,195 288,226 371,376
Bekasi Regency3 Tarumajaya District Babelan District Muara Gembong District
2,629,551 109,249 209,375 35,513
Total population number in coastal districts
Source : 1. (BPS Kabupaten Tangerang, 2010a), 2. (BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara, 2010), 3. (BPS Kabupaten Bekasi, 2010a)
Figure 4.10 Coastal districts of Jakarta Bay
The community along the coast of Jakarta Bay is heterogenic in ethnic group, culture and economic situation. Historically, ports in Jakarta Bay became the gateway for people from other places to come to the area now known as Jakarta. In the 14th to 16th centuries, Sunda Kalapa, a port in the mouth of the Ciliwung River was busy. The port was visited by merchants from other islands such as Sumatra, Celebes and even Moluccas in the far east of Indonesia. The port was also visited by ships from other places in Asia, including the Portuguese dwelling in Malacca. Some of the merchants then inhabited the area and established settlements (Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta, 1996, pp. 37-40). The settlements in the area are now varied. These include unplanned, planned for middle-income and below, and planned for luxury. Further, illegal settlements and slum areas are also present (field observation, 2011). There is no recent data regarding the composition of ethnic groups in the area. In 1996, the Museum and Historical Affairs Office of the Jakarta Province published the percentage of ethnic groups that lived on the coast of the Jakarta Province. The predominant ethnic groups in the area include Javanese (Central and East Java, 21.5%), Indramayu/Cirebon (northern part of West Java and Central Java border, 16%), Bugise (South Celebes, 15%), Sudanese (West Java, 13%), Bantenese (western part of West Java, 12.5%) and Chinese (9%). The original ethnic group of the area, Betawi, was only 2.5% of the population (Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta, 1996, p. 91). According to field observations in 2011, the area is still inhabited by a multi-ethnic population.
The economic level of the community is diverse. High-income to low-income communities inhabit the area and the gap is significant. The high-income community lives in a well-designed urban area. Most of them belong to, using the terms of Leisch (2002), a gated-community. Walls and gates secure the residential areas and security guards man the gates. Only selected people are allowed access to the residential areas. The middle class and the low-income community are multi-ethnic and are spread across the area. The low-income community live in planned and unplanned housing areas and some of them live in illegal areas. Examples of illegal housing areas are the reclaimed riverbanks and areas around the dam (field observation, 2011 and 2013). Many luxury residential areas are built on reclaimed wetlands. The wetlands consisted of swamps and mangrove forests (Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta, 1996, p. 17). The new residential areas have been established since the 1960s (Gunawan, 2010, p. 369) to address the demand for luxury housing and reduce the population pressure of elite residential areas in Central and South Jakarta, which were established by the Dutch colony. The luxury residential areas on the coast of Jakarta Bay generate a social gap among the community. This situation makes reclamation a sensitive issue. It is associated with ecological, technical and social issues. It is an ecological issue as the reclamation area has a rich mangrove ecosystem and so it reduces the extent of mangrove forest. It is a technical issue as the reclamation generates flooding of the neighbouring areas. The reclaimed areas were polders used since the Dutch colony to keep water and to prevent flooding (Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta, 1996, p. 17; Gunawan, 2010, pp. 315, 369). It is a social issue as the area is utilised as exclusive residential areas while there are low-income people surrounding it. This suggests to the public that reclamation is for wealthy people. However, this is not true. Some of the reclaimed areas are used for the public, including a residential area for fishers that was established in the 1970s, a power plant and a fishport. 4.6.2
Fishers are among the oldest inhabitants of Jakarta Bay. The bay marine environment was once rich with natural resources including fish. Fish were in abundance and easy to obtain but now they are more scarce and smaller (Djamali & Parino, 2008, p. 161). Besides the scarcity problem, fishers in Jakarta Bay now face other problems. These include pollution, limited boat capacity, limited capital, extreme weather and users’ conflicts. These problems threaten the sustainability of traditional fishing and need addressing.
Fishing methods are two-fold: the first is static fishing and the second is by boats. The static fishing method utilises equipment called bagan or lift-nets (see Figure 4.11). This method attracts fish by lights. A bagan is made from wood or bamboo scaffolding poles plugged into the sea floor in shallow marine water. In the middle of a bagan a net is placed to capture fish. Included in a bagan is a shelter for the fishers to reside temporarily. The second method is fishing by boats. The boat fishers from Jakarta Bay are mainly traditional fishers. Traditional fishing involves fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using a relatively small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels, making short fishing trips, close to shore and fish mainly for local consumption (FAO, 2005). The fishers from Jakarta Bay are limited in sailing capacity. The boats of fishers from the Tangerang Regency predominantly utilise outboard motors and the boats from Jakarta are mainly 5 to 10 GT (54% in 2010) in capacity (see Table 4.11). The capacity of the boat causes limitations in sailing and obtaining fish.
Figure 4.11 Bagans in Cilincing (picture by Sofiyah, 1 August 2010)
Ministerial Regulation 2/2011 regarding fishing lines regulates several aspects including the categorisation of seas. The decree categorises the Java Sea as a shallow sea (less than 200 m deep). The decree also regulates the fishing distance. How far fishing vessels can sail depends on the capacity of the vessels and the capacity of capturing equipment. For example, boats without a motor are allowed to sail in shallow water, such as the Java Sea, up to 3.7 km from the
coastline. The fishers in North Jakarta City mostly use boats less than 10 GT and sail between 9 to 13 km from the coastline (Interviewee C4, 2011). Pollution that occurs in Jakarta Bay creates difficulties for traditional fishers to obtain fish. Pollution often causes fish and mussels in the coastal water to die and the number of fish at less than 9 km has declined (Interviewee C1, 2011; Interviewee C2, 2011; Interviewee C3, 2011). This means the fish in the waters close to the coast are scarce (The head of Indonesian Traditional Fishers Association, 2012, cited in Prihadiyoko & Suprihadi, 2012). In late 2010, the fishers failed to sail for four months due to heavily polluted water, while the boat capacity was not enough to sail further (Interviewee C4, 2011). In addition, pollution from garbage also raises problems. Garbage often jams the fans of boats (Interviewee C1, 2011). Table 4.11 Statistics related to fishing in the Tangerang and Bekasi Regency, 2008 Number of Fishers (households)
Regency Tangerang Bekasi
Type and Number of Boats (units) No motor 28 -
Total 12,084 713
Outboard motor 2,449 -
0-5 GT 64 -
5-10 GT 34 -
10-15 GT 1 -
Total 2,576 675
Fish Prod. (tons) 18,654 1,757
Source: (BPS Kabupaten Bekasi, 2010b, pp. 212-213; BPS Kabupaten Tangerang, 2010c, pp. 166, 171, 172)
Table 4.12 Statistics related to fishing in North Jakarta Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Fishers (people) Owners
4,653 4,103 2,768 2,366 2,602
16,881 15,131 17,447 16,581 16,394
Type (GT) and Number (units) of Boats
21,534 19,234 20,215 18,947 18,996
406 430 460 435 535
1,209 1,276 1,858 1,427 1,721
10-20 554 659 430 210 247
379 354 596 485 280
39 34 51 108 68
653 760 564 450 310
Fish Prod. (tons)
4,523 4,609 3,959 3,115 3,161
25,863 31,764 24,669 19,766 18,685
Source: (Suku Dinas Peternakan Perikanan dan Kelautan Jakarta Utara, 2010, pp. 15-16, 19)
The scarcity of fish is not only caused by pollution but also by bigger capacity fishers. Larger capacity boats and trawlers are also fishing in Jakarta Bay (Interviewee C4, 2011; Prihadiyoko & Suprihadi, 2012) and this generates unfair competition with traditional fishers to obtain fish. Another problem faced by the fishers is extreme weather (Interviewee C2, 2011; Interviewee C3, 2011; Interviewee C5, 2011). In early 2011, the Indonesian government declared 473,983 fishers in 41 municipalities in 20 provinces failed to sail due to extreme weather (Grahadyarini, 2011). In January 2011, extreme weather stopped almost all traditional fishers in Jakarta Bay. The catching season continued to be delayed for the next four months due to the weather (Suwandi, the head of Traditional Fishers' Union, 2011, cited in Kompas Online (Lkt), 2011). 101
Farmers in Jakarta Bay are one of two types: those utilising tambaks or brackish water ponds and those utilising rafts that are placed in the sea. The rafts are usually made from bamboo and used for mussel farming. Mussel farms are situated at Kosambi (Tengerang Regency), Pejaringan and Cilincing (North Jakarta City). Tambaks are situated at Teluk Naga and Kosambi (Tengerang Regency), Penjaringan and Cilincing (North Jakarta City) and Tarumajaya and Babelan (Bekasi Regency). The green-mussel farmers face several issues nowadays. These include pollution, contaminated mussels, limited capital and users’ conflicts.
Locations Figure 4.12 The locations of static farming and fishing (adapted from Arifin, 2005, p. 2)
Green-mussel farming started in 1977 and experienced a boom in the early 1980s. The production of mussels decreased after this time (see Table 4.13). The growing time became longer, from six to seven months to eight to 11 months (BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006, p. 9). This was due to water pollution. Many industries in Jakarta Bay discharge untreated liquid waste into the water. According to a report issued by the Ministry of the Environment in 2011, at least 21 big industrial companies in Jakarta Bay discharge untreated liquid waste into the bay (Syafputri, 2012). This conduct affects the green-mussel farming directly and indirectly. The direct effect is
the death of mussels (Prihadiyoko & Suprihadi, 2012) and unhealthy mussels. The indirect effect is the farming ban that is issued by the government of the Jakarta Province. The cause of the banning policy is two-fold. The first is for health reasons and the second is competition for space. The health reasons are associated with the mussels’ ability to absorb heavy metals from surrounding water (Siregari, 2010). Research showed that from 2002 to 2005 the mussels in Jakarta Bay contained 22.22–46.47 µg Pb/g dry green mussels and from 2002 to 2003 the mussels contained 0.12–2.70 µg Cd/g dry green mussels (Arifin, 2008, p. 230). The mussels also showed organ abnormalities and malformations (BPLHD DKI Jakarta, 2006). Another reason behind the farming ban is that the farming equipment (rafts) obstructs vessel traffic in the area. The policy also applies to fishing utilising static equipment (Siregari, 2010). During field research in 2010 to 2011, the static equipment and the rafts still existed. Table 4.13 Statistics related to green-mussel farming in North Jakarta and Tangerang North Jakarta Number of Farmers (people) Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Owners 587 60 719 461 406
Workers 1,233 175 2,359 1,545 1,356
1,820 235 3,078 2,006 1,762 Tangerang
1,608 630 2,612 1,419 1,307
Number of Farmers (households)
Production (tons) 243,500 90,780 53,140 35,768 34,056 Production (tons) -
Average production per raft (tons) 151.4 144.1 20.3 25.2 26.1 Average production per bagan (tons) -
Source: (BPS Kabupaten Tangerang, 2010c, pp. 166, 172; Suku Dinas Peternakan Perikanan dan Kelautan Jakarta Utara, 2010, pp. 17-18)
In 2009, the government publicised the idea of a banning policy on static farming and fishing through the media. It was announced that the policy would be implemented in 2010 (Republika Online, 2009). With the issuance of a banning policy, the government of the Jakarta Province gave compensation to the affected fishers and farmers in 2010. Every bagan demolished is to be compensated by some funds. However, according to the Head of the Traditional Fishers Association at Marunda (Siregari, 2010), the fishers and farmers experienced great loss. The value of a demolished bagan is four to six times larger than the compensation paid by the government. Further, the government is criticised for the lack of guidance regarding how to start other occupations as the fishers only know fishing or farming. The policy was not enforced
effectively as static farming still exists. In late 2011, through the Fisheries Offices of the Jakarta Province, the government suggested that the farmers move the farming to Banten or East Java Province, where water quality is better than Jakarta Bay (Wresti, 2011). However, the suggestion could not be followed up as relocation is expensive (Interviewee 18, 2011). 4.6.4
Along Jakarta Bay coastline exists a variety of companies, from home industries to large corporations. These companies are established on the coast of Jakarta Province (the middle section of Jakarta Bay). The some are government owned, but they are mostly owned by private companies. However, data regarding the number and the type of companies is not available. Related government offices at the municipal and provincial level of the Jakarta Province claimed that such data has not been gathered yet due to the change in management structure that took place in 2008 where several sectoral offices were separated and some were merged with other offices (Interviewee 1, 2010; Interviewee 14, 2011). User conflict occurs between the private sector and other users of Jakarta Bay. An example is that fishers are forbidden to enter certain water areas where private companies own the inlands (Tim Ekspedisi Pesisir Jakarta, 2007). User conflict also arises regarding access to beaches. In May 2012, several individuals filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Central Jakarta. They sued the government of the Jakarta Province, a company called PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Public Work. The main reason behind the lawsuit was the absence of free entry for the public to access Ancol Beach in Ancol, Jakarta Bay. This is the first time the public sued the Indonesian government over the right for public space on a beach. Since 1966, a local government company, PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, has managed Ancol Beach. The company occupies approximately 3 km of the coastline and manages sandy beaches approximately 1,250 m length in North Jakarta City that are spread over several places. The beaches are situated in a recreation park. In addition to the beach in Ancol, North Jakarta has beaches in Cilincing and Marunda. However, the only sandy beaches and well-maintained beaches are at Ancol, while the beaches in Cilincing and Marunda are bordered by dikes and filled with garbage. A representative of PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol claims that the levy for entry is only small and that if there is no fee, the Ancol beaches will experience the same decline as the Cilincing and Marunda beaches. In addition, by paying the levy, the public could enjoy other tourism facilities in the park. Every year, the company contributes revenue to the Jakarta 104
Provincial Government of around Rp100 billion (Silalahi, 2012), or about 0.012% of the GRDP of Jakarta Province in the year 2010 (BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta, 2011). 4.6.5
NGOs became a noteworthy component of the Indonesian social structure after the reformation in 1998. The number of NGOs initiated by the community multiplied, including NGOs related to marine areas and activities. Some organisations work at national level, some at local. Several of the organisations have official offices with staff, while the others are more informal or have less intense activities (field observation, 2011). The NGOs very often express their opinions through the media. Mostly the opinions are claimed to be representative of general people. However, not all government officers believe that NGOs represent the interests of the public (Interviewee 18, 2011). Below is a list of NGOs with interests in coastal and marine affairs of Jakarta Bay. Table 4.14 List of NGOs with interests associated with the coastal and marine affairs of Jakarta Bay 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Name Indonesian Center for Environmental Law Aliansi Petani Indonesia Serikat Petani Indonesia Koalisi Rakyat untuk Keadilan Perikanan Himpunan Nelayan Seluruh Indonesia Kontak Tani Nelayan Andalan Persatuan Nelayan Tradisional Indonesia Serikat Nelayan Tradisional Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Yayasan Lembaga Hukum Indonesia Indonesia Human Right Committee for Social Justice Konsorsium Pembaharuan Agraria Jakarta Green Monster Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim
ICEL API SPI KIARA HNSI KTNA PNTI SNT Walhi YLHI IHCS KPA JGM PK2PM
Area of interest Environmental law Farmers Farmers Fisheries Fishermen Fishermen Fishermen Fishermen General environment General law Human right Land Mangrove Marine affairs
Source: (Kompas Online (Ich/Naw), 2011), (Kompas Online (Lkt), 2011), (Prihadiyoko & Suprihadi, 2012), Field observation (2010–2011)
The role of NGOs has proven significant in the case of the undertaking right provided by Law 27/2007. Some people and NGOs rejected the right. Nine NGOs and five individuals under the name of Koalisi Tolak Hak Pengusahaan Perairan Pesisir (Refusing the Coastal Undertaking Right Coalition) filed the rejection formally with the court (Bayu-Aji, 2010). The Constitutional Court granted the petition and as a result, articles regarding the undertaking rights in Law 27/2007 were cancelled. A focal point of one of the NGOs claimed that the Constitutional Court’s decision was a victory for fishers (Kompas Online (Ich/Naw), 2011). This instance is a new
development in the political and social sphere of Indonesia. It shows a governmental system more open to other development stakeholders. In this case, NGOs played a significant role. 4.6.6
Universities have been involved in previous ICM projects in Indonesia. A project funded by USAID and the CRMP (Coastal Resources Management Project) worked with centres within universities. A centre in a university is a division that has a duty to conduct research in a specific area and provide community services. Usually a centre is the gateway for the university to collaborate with other institutions. In the CRMP’s experience, the centres could be the agent for identifying, managing and incorporating university-based research and knowledge into the ICM process. The CRMP’s experience also found the challenge of centre sustainability within the university. One of the biggest barriers was the reward system for academics, who were typically more concerned about research and publication over providing community services (Olsen, 2003a, p. 50). No university has a department focus on marine or coastal management in Jakarta Province, Tangerang and Bekasi Regency. However, several universities in the area have research centres in environmental fields. An ICM initiative in Jakarta Bay can utilise the services from these universities. An advantage of working with universities is generally universities in Indonesia provide a neutral ground concerning development. Academics examine occurrences from scientific points of view and free from political or other non-academic agendas. 4.6.7
The aspect to note regarding coastal stakeholders is the ‘social contract’. The contract will assist the effectiveness of an ICM initiative. The culture of having a ‘social contract’ between the community and the government regarding development is not well rooted. During the Soeharto era, whistle-blowers were accused of behaving in a subversive manner towards the government. The community were forced to be silent and then became apathetic. After almost 15 years of reform, the community now have the freedom to express their opinion. The number of media has also multiplied. This assists the community to channel their opinion. While some parts of the community still have apathetic behaviour (Effendy, 2011; Rusmiwari, Purwatiningsih, Hardyanto, & Aminulloh, 2012), others monitor the government and actively convey their opinion through the
media. However, the ‘social contract’ between the community and the government is still at an early stage. 4.7
Policy enforcement and educational measures
The environmental and social problems in Jakarta Bay are in some way related to policy issues. They are connected to regulations that were enacted too late, such as the sand mining regulation, poor enforcement of the available regulations, such as pollution control, and the absence of certain regulations, such as addressing groundwater depletion. However, policy enforcement is the foremost critical issue. Many policies and regulations exist but their objectives are not achieved satisfactorily. Table 4.15 List of regulations regarding environmental quality protection Regulation type and number Law 32/2009 Law 18/2008 Law 5/1985 Government Regulation 82/2001 Government Regulation 19/1999 Minister of Environment Regulation 51/2004 Minister of Environment Regulation 112/2003 Minister of Environment Regulation 51/1995
Reference Environmental protection and management Solid waste management Industry Water quality management and water pollution control Marine pollution and destruction control (supported by Minister of Environment Decree 51/2004) Marine water quality standards Domestic wastewater quality standards Effluent quality standard for industrial activity (revised by Minister of Environment Regulation 122/2004)
There is a specific law regarding environmental protection and management. Some derivative regulations that have specific objectives are also available (see Table 4.15). These include regulations regarding water pollution control, solid waste management, marine pollution and control for marine degradation and seawater quality standards. Besides the requirements for environmental protection based on the specific regulation aimed to protect the environment, Law 5/1985 regarding industry also sets requirements for pollution prevention. With the availability of those regulations, the quality of the environment is expected to be conserved and protected. However, in reality, the quality of the Jakarta Bay environment is poor. This indicates that the enforcement of those regulations is poor. More importantly, this encourages less compliance from business activities in managing and disposing waste. The environmental and social problems in Jakarta Bay in some way are also related to educational measures. Environmental education is a substantial problem in the current
management system of Jakarta Bay. Legally, Law 27/2007 regarding coastal management and Law 32/2009 regarding environmental protection oblige the governments to educate the public regarding the management of coastal areas and environmental management. The laws require government at central and local levels to carry out the education. However, implementing the task is impeded by problems such as limited institutional and financial capacities (Interviewee 27, 2011). 4.8
The coast of Jakarta Bay is a busy area. The area facilitates various utilities, such as ports, business, residential and recreational areas and protected forest. The bay is the end of 16 waterways that consist of rivers and canals. The waterways flow from the region of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. The region is a home to nearly 28 million people in 2010, a substantial number of people that put significant pressure on the environment. The ecosystem of Jakarta Bay has degraded. This is the result of unsustainable anthropogenic activities in the region. Problems occurring include environmental quality degradation, coastal use conflict and social problems. Examples of environmental quality problems include clearing mangroves, degrading quality of coral reefs, pooling of garbage and water pollution. Examples of coastal use conflicts include coastline preservation and settlement, static fishing and navigation, fishers’ access and private-owned land. Social problems include limited fishing capacity of fishers and limited farming capacity of mussel farmers. The environmental problems in Jakarta Bay are related to the policy and management framework. The most crucial problem is the inadequacy of law enforcement. Some policies that call for environmental protection and sustainable development are present but as the enforcement is poor, the environment remains unprotected. Problems in Jakarta Bay are related to multi-sectoral activities, in which to address the problems require inter-sectoral management measures. In the next chapter, coastal governance of Indonesia is examined. This includes the coastal policy framework and the governmental structure.
Chapter 5 Coastal governance in Indonesia 5.1
This chapter discusses coastal governance in Indonesia. The aim of investigating the system is to examine the detailed structure of Indonesian coastal governance framework from the context of where the Jakarta Bay management system sits and to identify the applicability of ICM approach in the governance system of Indonesia. Included in this investigation are the examination of policy framework and the structure of government. Coastal stakeholders are also a part of coastal governance, but the topic is discussed in Chapter 4 as a part of social profile of Jakarta Bay coast. Understanding the governance system is also important to craft a suitable ICM initiative. Understanding the level of development, the political and governmental system of the targeted area is the first step to designing a suitable ICM initiative (Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 122). More importantly, coastal governance performs best when carried out as part of a nested system that operates simultaneously at levels ranging from local to national (Olsen, 2003a, p. viii). Therefore, investigating the Indonesian coastal governance has three objectives. The first is to understand where the current management system of the Jakarta Bay is nested, the second is to examine which of the ICM principles work or do not work and the third is to design a suitable ICM approach. 5.2
Definition of governance
Governance is defined as the arrangement that comprises objectives, policies, people and institutions through which management is exercised to address societal issues. The components involved in governance are policy framework, management systems and stakeholders that are employed towards specified objectives (see Figure 5.1). The definition is based on that of Olsen (2003a, p. 15): ‘governance sets the stage in which management occurs by defining—or redefining—the fundamental objectives, policies, laws and institutions by which societal issues are addressed’. Management is described as ‘the process by which human and material resources are harnessed to achieve a known goal within a known institutional structure’ (Olsen, 2003, p. 15). The two terms indicate that governance is not only government, but also the policy 109
and management framework. The management framework implies human and material resources are utilised to achieve specified goals that are carried out within an institutional structure. In an ICM context, coastal governance is regarded as ‘the process by which the full range of laws, policies, plans, institutions and legal precedents to address the issues affecting coastal areas’ (Chua, 2006, p. 104).
Coastal Governance Policy framework: Laws Regulations Guidance
Management framework: People Institutions Resources Plans
Coastal stakeholders: Governments Scientists Coastal inhabitants Etc.
Development objectives Figure 5.1 The constituents of coastal governance
The nature of the Indonesian coastline
Through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 Indonesia was recognised as an archipelagic country (Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, 2007). The country consists of 13,466 islands (Karsidi, 2011, cited in Yun, 2011) with 95,181 km of coastline (Rompas, 2009, cited in Antara News, 2009). The total area of water is approximately 5.8 million km2 that comprises 2.3 million km2 of archipelagic waters, 0.8 million km2 of territorial waters and 2.7 million km2 of Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone waters (Republik Indonesia, 2010c, p. II.10-21). Indonesian coasts and oceans are highly valuable, economically and environmentally. The Indonesian coastal area is one of the world’s richest ecosystems, which encompasses extensive mangrove forests, coral reefs and seagrass beds (Sukardjo, 2002b, p. 202). Indonesian mangrove coverage is extensive. Choong et al. (1990, p. 45) reported that Indonesia had approximately 4.25 million hectares of mangrove forests, which is 20% of the world’s mangrove area. The Indonesian coral reef may account for 10% to 20% of the world’s total reef area (Tomascik, Mah, Nontji, & Moosa, 1997a, p. 114) and supports a diverse array of reef types (fringing, barrier and atoll) as well as highly diverse coral assemblages (Brown, 1986, p. 3).
Seagrass is found throughout the archipelago with 12 seagrass species and seven genera recorded (Tomascik et al., 1997b, p. 844). In 2011, the coastal and ocean economic sectors contributed about 30% to the country’s GDP and employed more than 20 million people (Dahuri, 2012). This included capture fisheries, aquaculture, energy and mineral resources, marine tourism, sea transportation and maritime industries and services. Indonesian waters transport approximately 45% of the world’s goods and commodities. Approximately 65% of Indonesia’s total oil and gas production have been extracted from reserves located in coastal and offshore areas in the last three decades. The total value of Indonesia’s coastal and ocean economy is estimated at USD 1,200 trillion. The Indonesian population of approximately 238 million (2010) is growing at an average annual rate of 1.93% (1971 to 2000). In 2011, approximately 13% of the population lived under the poverty threshold (BPS RI, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). Public debt in the first quarter of 2011 was USD 214.5 billion with the ratio to GRDP at 28.2% (Setiawan, 2011). Approximately 140 million people or almost 60% of the Indonesian population live in coastal areas and 22% of them live in coastal rural areas and small islands (Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, 2007, p. iii). Despite the fact that Indonesia has an extensive coastline, more than two-thirds of its territory is water and it has highly valuable coast and ocean resources, policy and legislation to govern these resources did not exist until 2007. Before 2007, the coastal sector was perceived as a part of other sectors. Multi-sectoral legislation, such as fisheries, tourism, mining and others governed the littoral resources management. In 2007, Indonesia enacted Law 27/2007 regarding coastal and small islands management. As for ocean management, no legislation has been established yet. 5.4
National policy framework
Indonesia has extensive and complex policies and regulatory frameworks. Tomascik et al. (1997b, p. 1172) labelled it as one of the most formidable legislative frameworks in the world. After the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998, political reformation occurred that led to substantial changes in government structure and civil administration. Some achievements obtained after reformation were the enactment of acts regarding shifting some governmental authority to regional level and the fiscal balance between central and regional government. In terms of marine development, in October 1999 a new department focusing on marine, coastal and fisheries development was established. After the reformation, the hierarchy of the Indonesian legal system
went from nine tiers since 1966 to seven (see Table 5.1). The foundation of the hierarchy is the Basic Constitution of 1945 (Undang-undang Dasar or UUD 1945). The following levels in the hierarchy are established based on the Basic Constitution of 1945. The foundation for littoral and marine resources management lies in Article 33 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Constitution of 1945, which reads ‘land and water and natural resources therein shall be controlled by the State and shall be utilized for the greatest benefit of or welfare of the people’. The policy of coastal development should be based on this article. Table 5.1
Hierarchy of the Indonesian legal system according to Law 12/2011
Hierarchy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Types of regulation Basic constitution of 1945 General people assembly decrees Laws or Government Regulations Substitute for Laws Government Regulations Presidential Decrees Provincial Regulations City or Regency Regulations
The policy for coastal development is not a standalone policy, but links to other policies. The national policies that are related to coastal development can be found in development plans and other policies. In order to understand the national policy framework for coastal development, the position of coastal development in national development plans needs to be examined. Relations with other legislation affecting coastal development also need to be examined. This research is presented in the following sections. 5.4.1
Coast and ocean management in Indonesian development plans
The notion of governance works towards specified development objectives. In the Indonesian governmental system, the development goal that set the foundation for the development process is within the national long-term development plan. Since Independence Day in 1945, Indonesia has had several development plans. The first long-term development plan, the Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang (RPJP) was from 1969 to 1994, and consisted of five mid-term development plans (Repelita). After the end of Soeharto’s era, Indonesia developed the National Development Program (Program Pembangunan Nasional or Propenas) from 2000 to 2004. In 2004, with the enactment of Law 25/2004, Indonesia established a new system of development planning. The system, the National Development Planning System or Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (SPPN), recognises 10 different development plans.
Table 5.2 Time 1969-1994
Indonesia’s development plan since Independence Day Development Plan Names Long-term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang, RPJP) 1969-1974 Repelita I (mid-term) 1974-1979 Repelita II (mid-term) 1979-1984 Repelita III (mid-term) 1984-1989 Repelita IV (mid-term) 1989-1994 Repelita V (mid-term) 1994-1999 Repelita VI (mid-term) Propenas Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional (RPJPN, long-term) Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN, mid2005-2010 term) 1 Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN, mid2010-2014 term) 2
Source: adapted from Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (2009), Law 25/2000 (Republik Indonesia, 2000), Law 25/2004 (Republik Indonesia, 2004)
In the first long-term development plan, Indonesia’s development agenda aimed to meet basic needs and to improve economic development. The national planning policy emphasised terrestrial development, particularly in Java and Sumatra. Natural resources such as timber, gold, coal, oil and gas were utilised intensively to meet development objectives. Coastal and marine development and management were not considered a focus in the development plan (Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, 2007). From the Repelita I in 1969 to the Repelita V in 1994, despite the massive area of water, the extensive coastline and the wealth of coastal and marine resources, coast and marine management did not receive substantial concern from government. Strategic attention was obtained in the late 1980s. The 1988 State Policy Guidelines stated that it was necessary to improve the management of marine areas in order to increase utilisation and maintain sustainability (Dahuri & Dutton, 2000, p. 2). However it was not until 1994 in Repelita VI, that coast and marine sectors received significant attention when the national government established the coast and marine sectors independently from other institutional and economic sectors (Patlis et al., 2001, p. 2). In this Repelita, four main objectives for coastal and marine resources development were established: (1) support the expansion of coastal and marine enterprises throughout Indonesia, particularly in the less-developed Eastern Region, (2) support offshore industries, particularly oil and gas production, (3) strengthen national sovereignty and jurisdiction by mapping the continental shelves and the exclusive economic zone and (4) establish a coastal and marine geographic information network (Dahuri & Dutton, 2000, p. 2). The objectives showed that government concern with coastal and marine development focused on economic development and on geographic and jurisdictional areas. In the next national 113
development plan (Propenas, 2000–2004), coastal and marine sectors merged with other sector development plans (Law 25/2000). The next national long-term development plan was the Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional (RPJPN) 2005 to 2025, which is a part of SPPN. Law 17/2007 enacted the plan. This is the first national development plan after the reformation in 1998, which consists of several mid-term plans. In the current mid-term development plan, the marine and coastal issues are mostly established under the natural resources and environmental sections. The National Development Plan System (SPPN) is a system that unified development planning procedures to produce development plans for yearly, medium and long term periods, to be conducted by government at the central and regional levels (Law 25/2004, Article 1). The system calls for conducting development for the interest of society and to implement good governance. The system supports coordination between actors in development and the establishment of integration, harmonisation and synergy between regions, space, time and function of government units and between central and local government. The system also aims to maintain the linkage and consistency between planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring, to optimise community participation and to achieve resources utilisation in an efficient, effective, equitable and sustainable manner (Article 2). The system enforces 10 development plans, which comprise long-term (20 years), mid-term (five years) and annual plans for national and regional levels. The current national long-term development plan is the RPJPN (2005 to 2025) and the mid-term plan is the RPJMN 2 (2010 to 2014). The SPPN organises the procedure of a development plan. A development plan is processed by the development stakeholders through a forum called Musrenbang (musyawarah perencanaan pembangunan or development planning meeting). The stakeholders at national level are ministries and agencies and at local level are sectoral offices. In the forum, the draft for a development plan is discussed. The minister prepares the national long-term development plan draft and the head of Bappeda prepares the local draft (Law 25/2004 Article 10). Besides the stakeholders, the discussion should also involve the community (Article 11). The minister and the head of Bappeda decide the final development plan based on the results of Musrenbang (Article 12). The minister in this context is the head of the Ministry of Development Planning. Bappeda stands for Badan Perencanaan Daerah, the local government office that governs local development planning. Bappeda is present at provincial and municipal levels. The approved national long-term development plan is legalised by a law and the local long-term development
Table 5.3 No 1
Planning documents according to the National Development Planning System and its functions Planning Document
Long-term Development Plan (RPJP)
7 8 9 10
Regional Mid-term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah or RPJM)
Mid-term Development Plan of the Ministry/Agency. Also named as the Strategic Plan of the Ministry/Agency (Renstra-KL) Mid-term Development Plan of the Regional Task Force (Renstra-SKPD)
Provincial sectoral offices
National Annual Development Plan/Government Work Plan (RKP) Annual Regional Development Plan/Regional Government Work Plan (RKPD)
Annual Development Plan of the Ministry/Agency or Work Plan of the Ministry/Agency(Renja-KL) Annual Development Plan of the Regional Task Force/Regional Task Force Work Plan (RenjaSKPD)
Provincial sectoral offices
Function/Purpose The national RPJP is the manifestation of the goal of why the government of Indonesia was established, in the form of the vision, mission and direction of national development. The goal of the government of Indonesia is set forth in the Preamble to the Basic Constitution of 1945. The regional RPJP contains the statements of vision, mission and direction of regional development, which refers to the national RPJP. The national RPJM is a translation of the vision, mission and programs of the president, prepared based on the national RPJP. This plan includes national development strategy and public policy. The regional RPJM is a translation of the vision, mission and programs of the regional head, prepared based on the regional RPJP and with regard to the national RPJP. This plan includes strategies for regional development and public policy. The plan contains the vision, mission, objectives, strategies, policies, programs and activities in accordance with the duties and functions of the related ministry/agency. The plan is developed based on the national RPJM. The plan contains the vision, mission, objectives, strategies, policies, programs and activities in accordance with the duties and functions of the related regional task force. This includes sectoral offices and technical institutions. The plan is developed based on the regional RPJM. The plan is the elaboration of the national RPJM, which includes development priorities and the macroeconomic framework. The plan elaborates the regional RPJM, which refers to the RKP. The plan contains the regional economic framework, regional development priorities, work plans and funding scheme. The plan is developed based on the Strategic Plan of the Ministry/Agency (RenstraKL), which contains policies, programs and activities. The plan is developed with reference to the Renstra-SKPD and to the RKP. The plan includes policies, programs and activities.
Source: Adapted from Law 25/2004 (Republik Indonesia, 2004)
National Annual Working Plan
Regional Government Annual Working Plan
Regional Task Force Annual Working Plan
Ministry/Agency Annual Working Plan
Regional Long Term Development Plan
National Medium Term Development Plan
Regional Medium Term Development Plan
National Long Term Development Plan
Ministry/Agency Development Plan
Figure 5.2 Links between planning documents under the National Development Planning System
Regional Task Force Medium Term Development Plan
Source: Adapted from Law 25/2004 (Republik Indonesia, 2004) and (Republik Indonesia, 2010a, p. 11)
plan is legalised by a local regulation. The same procedure applies for developing mid-term development plans. Law 25/2004 recognises equitable development, sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable development as development principles and objectives (Article 2, Verse 1 and 4). The current development plans, both long-term and mid-term, provide an adequate legal basis for marine and coastal development and for achieving sustainable development. Further, as stated in the aims of the SPPN, an integrated development approach is also enforced in both development plans. Both plans are highlighted in the following paragraphs. The RPJPN 2005 to 2025 is the basis for the long-term development plan. The plan was enacted with Law 17/2007. The long-term plan has eight missions and two are related to sustainable development and coastal and marine development. One of the missions recognises marinebased development and capacity building related to marine issues (Republik Indonesia, 2007a, pp. 39-40). Accordingly with development missions, some development directions are set as follows: integration between land and ocean developments, controlling pollution and environmental degradation and mitigation of coastal and marine disasters (Republik Indonesia, 2007a, pp. 72-74). The plan also establishes eight long-term main objectives that are equipped with indicators. One of the main objectives is to achieve a balanced and sustainable development of Indonesia (Republik Indonesia, 2007a, pp. 41-44). The main objectives and the indicators, however, are broad and immeasurable. The RPJMN 2 (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional) 2010 to 2014 is the basis for the mid-term development plan. The plan was enacted with Presidential Decree 5/2010. The plan consists of 14 national priorities, nine area priorities and seven regional priorities. The national priorities include bureaucratic and governance reform, quality of life improvement, environmental and disaster management. The mid-term plan endorses a marine development strategy and supports a marine-based sector. The plan promotes conducting marine development with an integrated approach with concern to bio-physic aspects, natural diversity, mineral and energy resources, fisheries, transportation, tourism and industry (Republik Indonesia, 2010b, pp. I-71). Some of the plan’s strategies are to enforce regulations related to environmental marine quality conservation, to control domestic and industrial waste discharge in Java, to control erosion in the watershed in order to avoid siltation in ports and to minimise the risk of pollution and destruction of marine habitat by the exploration and exploitation of offshore oil and gas (Republik
Indonesia, 2010b, pp. I-74). The plan also directs preparation of a work plan that cuts across governmental sectors for addressing several issues, including the development of marine areas. This cross-sectoral policy intends to address the increasingly complex development problems that are difficult to address utilising a fragmental approach (Republik Indonesia, 2010b, pp. I-72). The last two paragraphs show that the current development plans pay significant attention to sustainable development, coastal and marine development and the necessity of an integrated approach. The long-term development plan (RPJPN) accommodates the need for managing marine-based development and the need to develop capacity building for addressing issues related to marine development. The plan suggests integrated development between land and marine development. The mid-term development plan (RPJMN 2) also outlines marine development and establishing an integrated approach for marine development. Focusing on coastal and marine development and endorsing an integrated development approach constitutes important progress in Indonesia’s development history. According to the SPPN (Law 25/2004), development in Indonesia is guided by 10 development plans with the long-term plan as the umbrella for other plans (see Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2). The aims of the long-term development plan are translated into shorter-term aims and are implemented in the annual working plan. The annual working plan is executed by the ministry/agency at the national level and by the regional government at the provincial and municipal levels. At the farthest hierarchical level from the central government, the long-term development objectives are executed by sectoral government offices at municipal level. The process of translating the long-term objectives into program execution at municipal level is prone to disintegrated actions. In particular, the concept of integration is new to Indonesian development. Although the SPPN aims to carry out development in an integrated manner and an integrated development approach is enforced in both RPJPN and RPJMN 2, the mechanism to control does not yet exist. 5.4.2
Coastal management Law 27/2007
Indonesia has enacted a law regarding coastal management, Law 27/2007. This section discusses the features of the law, the problems that arose, its relation to other regulations and its implementation. The relation of this law to other national laws is examined to understand its position in the larger scheme of policy framework.
The exploitation of coastal resources has occurred since the early days of Indonesia. Unfortunately, the exploitation was not managed properly and created coastal ecosystem degradation. Management policy regarding the coastal sector was not specifically established in the earliest Indonesian development plans. The government first addressed the sector in the fourth of the five-yearly development plans, namely Repelita IV in 1984. In Repelita VI, 1994, the government set the marine sector as independent from other institutional and economic sectors (BAPPENAS, 1994, cited in Patlis et al., 2001, p. 2). Since then, important steps in promoting issues of marine and coastal management started to develop. An important milestone was the establishment of the new ministry specifically for governing fisheries and marine issues in 1999: the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (now a ministry). Another milestone was the enactment of Law 27 in 2007, which related to coastal and small islands management. Before 2007, a series of legislations affected coastal management. At least 20 parliamentary laws were associated with the management of coastal resources and 16 laws were associated with coastal management. These included 14 laws on natural resources management and ocean activities, and two laws for the ratification of international conventions (Patlis et al., 2001, p. 5). The laws were sectoral legislation, which meant that each regulation was an individual law that managed one particular sectoral interest. After the enactment of Law 27 in 2007, the coastal area was still governed by multiple sectoral legislations. Law 27/2007 is expected to provide the main legal basis for governing coastal development with regard to the other sectoral legislation and to ensure local governments execute sustainable coastal development. However, achieving these objectives remains challenging. 126.96.36.199
Main features of Law 27/2007
This section discusses the main features of Law 27/2007, which include the purpose of the law, its main contents, its derived regulations, integration and participation element, the four plans, undertaking right and the maritime partnership. 188.8.131.52.1
Purpose and main content
Law 27/2007 relates to coastal and small islands management. The meaning of coastal and small islands management in this law is ‘a process of planning, utilisation, supervision, and control of coastal resources and small islands that are conducted ‘between sectors, between the central
government and the local governments, between terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as between science and management, with the aim to improve the welfare of the people’ (Article 1, Verse 1). The scope of management in this law includes planning, utilisation, supervision and control (see Figure 5.3) of human interaction in utilising coastal and small islands resources in a sustainable manner in order to improve the welfare of the people and to maintain the integrity of the Republic of Indonesia (Article 5). The physical scope of the law covers the area of transition between terrestrial and marine ecosystems that are affected by changes in land and sea. The extent of the inland area covers the kecamatan (district) administrative boundary and the extent seaward is 12 nautical miles measured from the coastline (Article 2). The regulations are established for the following purposes (Article 4):
to protect, conserve, rehabilitate, use and enrich coastal and small islands resources and the ecological systems in a sustainable manner
to create harmony and synergy between the central and local government in the management of coastal and small islands resources
to strengthen community participation and government agencies as well as to encourage initiatives from the community to manage coastal and small islands resources in order to achieve justice, equity and sustainability
to improve the value of the social, economic and cultural community through community participation in utilising coastal and small islands resources.
Management in this law contains four components: planning, utilisation, supervision and control, as illustrated in Figure 5.3. Each component is reviewed in the following paragraphs. The planning component requires four planning tools. The tools include strategic, zoning, management and action plans (Article 7). The strategic plan is the planning that is an integral part of the local long-term development plan. Zoning is the water and land-use plan that must be harmonised with the local spatial plan (Articles 8 and 9). The zoning plan includes the allocation of space for general use, conservation areas, national strategic areas and sea-lanes (Article 10). The management plan consists of policies concerning the arrangement and the administrative procedures for utilising resources and establishing priority for resource utilisation (Article 12). The action plan directs the management plan and the zoning plan in order to implement the strategic plan (Article 13). Local governments, at municipal and provincial level, are required to establish the planning component of coastal and small islands management that consists of all four plans (Article 7). Local governments, with participation from the public and private sectors, formulate
the proposal of the four plans. Local governments are obliged to disseminate the concept of the four plans to obtain feedback from key stakeholders. The procedure to develop the four plans is illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Strategic plan Zoning plan Management plan Action plan
Carried out by certain officials The public is expected to participate in the supervision process
Carried out by certain officials The public is expected to participate in the controlling process Accreditation
Figure 5.3 The components of management in the Law 27/2007(Adapted from Republik Indonesia, 2007b)
The utilisation component is manifested as ‘the undertaking right’ (hak pengusahaan perairan pesisir or HP3) of coastal waters (articles 12 to 22). The undertaking right of coastal waters is the right to utilise certain parts of coastal waters that include the marine surface, the water column and the sea floor at the boundary of a certain breadth. This right can be granted to an individual citizen of Indonesia, firms established under the laws of Indonesia or indigenous peoples. The undertaking right cannot be given in conservation areas, protected areas for fisheries, navigation areas, ports and public beaches (Articles 16 to 22). The procedure for granting and revoking the right is controlled by a government regulation. The supervision and control component aims to ensure the implementation of coastal and small islands management in an integrated and sustainable manner (Article 36). The central and local governments are required to conduct monitoring, field observation and evaluation of the planning and implementation of the coastal and small islands management. Certain officials of the related
authority that are consigned as special police carry out supervision and control tasks. The public can participate in the process of supervision and control (Articles 36, 38). Public participation is through the submission of reports or complaints to the related officials.
Governor or mayor/regent establishes the working group. The working group consist of the Head of Bappeda* as the chairperson, the head of the local Marine Affairs and Fisheries office as the secretary, and the comprising members are from relevant agencies in accordance with the dominant characteristics of the concerned areas. A technical team established by the head of the working group may assist the working group.
The purpose of the public consultation is to obtain feedback from relevant agencies, NGOs and/or community organisations.
This document incorporates the results from public consultation.
Working group establishment
Initial strategic document preparation
First public consultation
Interim document preparation
Second public consultation
Final draft preparation
Final document formulation process
The initial strategic document consists of (1) the list of issue priorities in the management of coastal areas and small islands, (2) the list of policies and programs of coastal areas and small islands management that are under the responsibility of each agency involved, (3) the list agencies, groups and individuals that have interest in the use of coastal and small islands resources in the area of concern, and (4) the data and information of the concerned coastal areas and small islands. The chairperson of the working group reports the final draft to the governor or the mayor/regent. For a city/regency document, the mayor/regent submits the final draft to the Governor and the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries to obtain feedback and, for provincial document, the governor submits the final draft to the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the mayor/regent. The obtained feedback is used to finalise the strategic document. The minister, governor or mayor/regent responds to the final document within 30 days or else the strategic document can be definitively applied.
* Bappeda: the regional planning agency
Figure 5.4 The procedure for developing the four-plans of coastal and small island management according to the Ministerial Decree 16/2008
In exercising the aspect of control, the government must conduct accreditation of the coastal and small islands management program (Article 40). Accreditation is the procedure of recognition of a program that consistently meets standards for systems management of coastal areas and small
islands. The accreditation process includes assessment, recognition and incentive for management programs conducted voluntarily by the public. The central government may delegate the authority to conduct accreditation to local government. Further provisions regarding the accreditation are regulated by Ministerial Regulation 18/2008. In addition to the management components as above, the law also contains other main features that are reviewed below. These include the Maritime Partnership Program and calls for integration and stakeholders’ participation. In order to increase the capacity of stakeholders for managing coastal areas and small islands, a partnership is formed (Article 41). The partnership program is called Mitra Bahari or the Maritime Partnership Program. The Mitra Bahari is a forum for cooperation between the central government, local governments, academics, NGOs, professional organisations, community leaders and private sectors. The Mitra Bahari is facilitated by the central government, local governments or private sectors. The forum activities focus on mentoring, counselling, educating and training, conducting applied research and developing policy recommendations. Further provision regarding Mitra Bahari is regulated by a ministerial regulation. The management of coastal and small islands is implemented in an integrated manner (articles 53 to 55). At the national level, the management is implemented under the coordination of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. At the local level, the local inline office manages the activities in the region. The activities coordinated by the ministry and the inline local office include the assessment and provision of advice on proposed sectoral development plans in coastal areas and small islands. This is a significant role to screen coastal activities and to ensure sustainable development is achieved. However, the ministry and the inline local office are not fully entitled to allow or to cancel the proposed development. This is due to the limited duty only to provide assessment of, and recommendations for, the activities. The provision on how to implement the articles is regulated further by a presidential decree that has not been enacted yet. The law calls for public participation in coastal management (Article 62). The article is clarified in Ministerial Decree 8/2008. The decree states that the public has equal opportunities to participate in planning, implementation and supervision of the management of coastal areas and small islands. Community participation is perceived as community involvement in a physical or nonphysical form, direct or indirect involvement, because of self-awareness or due to the role of supervising in the management of coastal areas and small islands. The community is defined as
the society of indigenous peoples, local communities and traditional people who live in coastal areas and small islands. The roles of the community include to identify the potential problems of coastal areas and small islands and to provide input in determining the direction of development planning. Aspirations of the people delivered through public consultation or through the local forum (musyawarah adat). 184.108.40.206.2
Implementing Law 27/2007 requires several derived regulations. The derived regulations consist of four governmental decrees, six presidential decrees and 11 ministerial decrees. The law states that the governmental decrees must be developed within 12 months after the law is enacted, the presidential decrees within six months and the ministerial decrees within three months. After nearly six years, six ministerial decrees have been developed as derived regulations (see Table 5.4). A derived regulation serves to clarify a law and makes the law applicable. It provides technical guidance on how to implement a particular aspect of a law. The absence of guidance may create confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding. More importantly, it may make the law fail to be enforced. Law 27/2007 requires 21 derived regulations and yet only six were developed. In the case of the undertaking right, the absence of guidance generated misunderstanding. The derived regulation relating to undertaking right was not immediately developed. Over time, conflicts arose that made the articles regarding rights a subject for judicial review. At the end of litigation process, the articles of the law were cancelled. The undertaking right is discussed further later in this chapter. Table 5.4
List of the Ministry of Marine Affair and Fisheries regulations as the derived regulations of Law 27/2007
3 4 5 6
17 18 20 14
2008 2008 2008 2009
Subject Community involvement in managing coastal areas and small islands Norms, standards and guidance for developing coastal and small islands documents Conservation area Accreditation program Utilisation of small islands and surrounding waters Mitra Bahari (the Maritime Partners)
Integration and participation
The law shows the importance of integration and participation in carrying out development. Integration means incorporation among government offices vertically and horizontally, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and science and management principles. Participation means involvement of other development stakeholders besides government in the development process. According to Article 6, the law calls for an integrated approach in managing coastal and small islands. This includes integration between (1) central and local governments, (2) local governments, (3) sectors, (4) government, private sectors and community, (5) terrestrial and marine ecosystems and (6) science and management principles. The approach is consistent with integration principles of the ICM concept. In the planning component required by Article 7, local governments at municipal and provincial level are required to establish the four plans. The proposal of the four plans is formulated by the local governments with participation from the community and private sectors (see Figure 5.4). The local governments are obliged to disseminate the concept of the four plans to obtain feedback from key stakeholders. This measure could be challenging, as at this stage public participation is not common. Implementing the participation approach of the law means dissemination and education of the approach as well. 220.127.116.11.4
Until January 2013, the local governments that have implemented the management aspect of Law 27/2007 and have legalised it in local regulation comprise four governments (see Table 5.5). Each government develops a zoning plan and one government develops a management plan. Table 5.5
Local governments that have developed part of the four-plans (√) Place
1 2 3 4
Gresik Regency Pekalongan Regency Ternate City Yogyakarta Province
√ √ √ √
Source: the Ministry of Marine Affair and Fisheries (2013)
Indonesia has 34 provinces and 500 municipalities. All provinces have coastal areas, and 319 municipalities (approximately 64%) are coastal municipalities (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2013). If the law is fully implemented, there will be 1,412 documents of coastal
management plans. At January 2013, approximately six years after Law 27/2007 was enacted, and approximately five years after the ministerial decree of guidance for developing coastal and small islands documents is enacted, there are five developed documents, or about 0.35%. The low number of developed coastal management plans indicates a weak compliance of regional governments towards Law 27/2007. The reason of the weak compliance might be related to the limited institutional capacity of regional governments, or other reasons. This should be examined further to discover the circumstances within the regional governments for such compliance. Three concerns may arise. The first is that the situation is associated with the ‘excessive democracy’ (demokrasi kebablasan) phenomenon. This phenomenon emerged since the Soeharto era ended in 1998. The people of Indonesia experienced euphoria of democracy. To some extent, the euphoria is excessive and so generates ‘excessive democracy’, meaning excessive freedom. The phenomenon has not been scrutinised academically. Nevertheless, it is present in the social and political life of Indonesian people. It describes conduct that disregards rules and actions that could not have been undertaken in previous eras. One example is an anarchist rally. A rally was not a common activity in the Soeharto era, but is now acceptable in the decentralised era. However, to rally in an anarchistic manner is against the rules. Nevertheless, many people do so (see Ikhwan, 2009). This is what is labelled ‘excessive democracy’. In the governmental system, the term is associated with a situation where the interest of regional governments differs to national priority. It is debatable that the low compliance of regional governments towards the law is associated with the ‘excessive democracy’ phenomenon. However, this circumstance might be present. The second is the indication of limited commitment towards sustainable coastal development. The four plans aim to provide guidance for sustainable coastal development. If the guidance is not present, implementing sustainable coastal development is difficult. This indication is also debatable. However, the current environmental quality in Indonesia suggests that sustainable development is not the approach that has been employed in the process of development. The third is the argument regarding coastal area as not being main stream in the dynamics of Indonesian government. This becomes the reason for the lack of commitment from regional governments towards coastal issues. The development of the marine (including coastal) sector historically receives minor attention from the government. During the Soeharto era, development
was conducted in a land-based manner. One example is the fiscal year. The fiscal year in the Soeharto era began in April, which was associated with the rice planting season. This is a landbased development approach. The approach is still intact in Indonesian culture, within both the government and the public. Awareness of marine development began in the mid-1980s and a law regarding coastal management was enacted in 2007, but the recognition of marine development still needs to be developed. 18.104.22.168.5
The component of coastal utilisation in Law 27/2007 is manifested as the undertaking right (hak pengusahaan perairan pesisir). The right aims to govern coastal areas that to date are considered inadequately managed. However, the word ‘pengusahaan’ and ‘right’ are ambiguous and so generate controversy. The word ‘pengusahaan’ may be interpreted as utilisation or business purpose in terms of gaining profit. Utilisation can be interpreted as non-profit use or, the same as business purpose, as a profit-oriented measure. Coupled with the word ‘right’, this creates the controversy of pro-capital measures. The law is considered to accommodate the interests of private sectors and coastal communities for business purposes and to provide opportunities for the privatisation of coastal resources. The opportunities for privatisation are perceived as potentially allowing strong capital entities to control coastal areas and dismiss low capital and traditional fisher rights. The philosophy behind the articles regarding the undertaking right may come from ‘the tragedy of the commons’ theory generated by Hardin (1968). Since the publication of Hardin’s article, control and ownership issues become central problems in the discourse of natural resources management, including natural resources management in marine areas. In this context, Hardin indicates that natural resources, which are not the object of ownership, belong to everyone (the commons), leading to the experience of depletion caused by excessive exploitation. He believes this is because the commons creates open access (free for all) and under the conditions of open access, there is no incentive for conservation because there is no guarantee when someone stops exploiting that other people will do the same. Moreover, all persons will race to exploit resources as much as possible. Destruction is the end result of this reality, which is why Hardin calls it the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1244). Not all scholars or experts agree with Hardin’s theory. Appell (1993, p. 6), who recognises that the concept emerged long before Hardin’s article, sees the concept as a form of neo-colonialism. He argues that the concept is
utilised to design the future of third-world countries and impose a rationality of economic and environment concepts to different social systems where the community lacks knowledge and complete understanding of the concepts. Despite the controversy, the argument that a reliable natural resources management system requires the concept of controlled areas that are clearly demarcated is convincing. The undertaking right legitimises the use of coastal waters for commercial purposes. This measure appears to adopt Hardin’s concept in terms of preventing uncontrolled exploitation. However, this measure is perceived to open the opportunity for capital owners to exploit coastal areas and potentially generate injustice in utilising coastal resources. The concept of the undertaking right is criticised as contrary to the Basic Constitution of 1945, Article 27 and Article 33. Article 27 states that every citizen has the right to employment and a decent living, and Article 33 states that the earth, the water and natural resources contained therein are controlled by the state and used for the welfare of the people. The undertaking right policy is considered against the common people. In 2008, a number of fishers rallied at the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. They protested that the undertaking right policy was against them (Kompas Online (Lkt), 2008). Giving coastal waters to big-capital companies meant there was no space left for low capital fishers to obtain fish. Thus, they feared they would lose their source of livelihood. The policy was also criticised for possibly allowing the privatisation of around 6,000 uninhabited small islands scattered throughout Indonesia, including being potentially privatised by foreign capital (Mata News, 2009). There were several rallies that involved not only fishers but NGOs. The NGOs’ representatives expressed their concern repeatedly in the media. Essentially, the people and NGOs rejected the undertaking right. Several people and entities under a coalition named Koalisi Tolak Hak Pengusahaan Perairan Pesisir (Refuse the Coastal Undertaking Right Coalition) filed the rejection formally with the court. The coalition consisted of 14 entities and people, which were nine NGOs and five individuals (Bayu-Aji, 2010). After various judicial hearings and other administrative procedures, the Constitutional Court granted the petition on 16 June 2011 (Kompas Online (Ich/Naw), 2011). As a result, articles regarding the undertaking rights in Law 27/2007 (Article 1 verse 18, Article 16, Article 17, Article 23 verse 4 and 5, Article 50, Article 51, Article 61 verse 1, Article 71 and Article 75) were cancelled. One of the NGOs claimed that the Constitutional Court's decision was a victory for fishers (Damanik, 2011, cited in Kompas Online
(Ich/Naw), 2011), and that the coastal, marine and small islands resources should not be privatised and restoring the rights of fishers should be addressed. The cancellation of the undertaking right was perceived as a victory for the people, particularly the low capital fishers. However, fishers are not the only coastal stakeholders who have rights in the areas. Cancelling the undertaking right may be seen as unfavourable for other stakeholders. More importantly, it leaves the current commercialism of coastal waters unregulated. It is undeniable that the government should fulfil the right of the people to have a decent living (as per Article 27, the Basic Constitution of 1945), including the fishers. For that reason, coastal resources need to be controlled by the government and utilised for the welfare of the people (Article 33, the Basic Constitution). Now, the policy as the umbrella to regulate commercialism of coastal waters has been cancelled. The utilisation of coastal waters for business remains unregulated. The waters in Jakarta Bay continue to be utilised by small to big capital business. There are recreation sites, areas that are part of hotels, fishing and mussel farming. In other parts of Indonesia, many areas of the coastal waters are utilised for business purposes such as pearl farming. These activities need to be regulated. The cancellation of the undertaking right requires another regulation to be enforced that can govern activities, avoid conflict between users, and carry out development in a sustainable manner. Moreover, the government is required to establish the derived regulations immediately. This is to clarify the purpose of the law and how to implement it. A lengthy gap between the enactment of the law and its derived regulation allows misinterpretation and generates conflict among users, as in this case. The cancellation of the undertaking right is indicative of a new political dynamic in Indonesia. Such action never happened before the reformation. During the Soeharto era, the political situation consisted of a strong top-down approach. The public were compelled to have a homogenous opinion and agree with the government. Showing a different opinion was associated with subversion of authority. The undertaking right case shows that now the public are entitled to their opinion and can take up a lawsuit against the authorities. 22.214.171.124.6
The Maritime Partnership or Mitra Bahari is a forum for cooperation between the central government, local governments, academics, NGOs, professional organisations, community
leaders and private sectors. The establishment of the forum aims to increase the capacity of coastal stakeholders for managing coastal areas and small islands. The forum activities focus on stewardship, mentoring, counselling, education and training, conducting applied research and developing policy recommendations. Ministerial Decree 14/2009 regulates further provisions for the Mitra Bahari. The partnership in this regulation indicates one feature of ICM, which is integration between coastal stakeholders. The forum is intended to facilitate communication between coastal stakeholders and to facilitate coastal stakeholders being able to work together. This forum also shows an intention to integrate science into policy making by including academics in the partnership. The ICM initiative of Xiamen shows that one of its successful elements is the incorporation of a scientist team into the initiative. A mechanism for dialogue is developed and through this mechanism, the scientists communicate with the decision makers and provide advice on the coastal issues (Chua et al., 2006, p. 319).The Mitra Bahari is expected to facilitate the same mechanism. A report published by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) indicates that a networking of Mitra Bahari has developed nationwide (Ricci & Crawford, 2012, p. 5). One of them is the Mitra Bahari in Nusa Tenggara Barat, which is considered one of the stronger organisations. The members of the partnership consist of several government offices (including officials from the army, judicial system and navy), academics, private sectors and NGOs. Individually, the members of the partnership have experience in numerous coastal programs. However, as an organisation, some areas need to be strengthened. The Mitra Bahari in Nusa Tenggara Barat needs to develop and to exercise its function more (Ricci & Crawford, 2012, pp. 5-7). The full list of Mitra Bahari is not provided in the report. It will be beneficial to discover the extent of the achievement of the partnerships and discover how the activities (stewardship, mentoring, counselling, education and training, conducting applied research and developing policy recommendations) are carried out. This could provide useful lessons for Jakarta Bay, but unfortunately, the information is not available. Article 5 of the Ministerial Decree 14/2009 says that Mitra Bahari may be established at national and regional levels. The statement indicates that the partnership is not obligatory. This contradicts the four plans (strategic, zoning, management and action plans) in which local governments are obliged to establish the plans. If the idea to develop the partnership is to provide a mechanism for stakeholders to be involved directly with managing coastal areas, it is better to call the partnerships compulsory, as with the four plans.
Linkage with Law 26/2007 regarding spatial planning
Law 27/2007 is intended to regulate the management of coastal areas and small islands. Besides the need for derived regulations, implementing the law should also refer to several other laws. For example, the strategic plan should be aligned with the long-term development plan and the coastal zoning plan must be aligned with the spatial law. At the national level, the national longterm development plan has provided a corridor for exercising sustainable coastal development. The issue then is how local governments develop suitable strategic plans that fit the needs of the regions. The coastal zoning plan in relation to spatial planning law generates several points to note. These are reviewed in the following paragraphs. The coastal zoning plan should be aligned with provincial and municipality spatial planning. Nationally, Law 26/2007 governs spatial planning. Article 6 (Verses 3 and 4) of the law states that spatial planning is a system of planning processes, space utilisation and control of land use. The definition calls for managing space as one unified entity and making no dichotomy between land and sea space. The product of the law is the Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW), the regional spatial plan, which is expected to include the land and sea space. However, Article 6 verse 5 states that sea space and air space management is governed by separate laws. In this context, even though the definition of spatial planning in this law sees the space as one unified entity, the statement in Article 6 verse 5 directs that there is different legislation for managing sea and air space. These are ambiguous statements. However, it can be claimed that Law 27/2007 is strongly linked with Article 6 verse 5 of Law 26/2007. The link is that Law 27/2007 acts as the executing order from Law 26/2007 regarding the management of coastal area. Therefore, the two laws are complementary. Nonetheless, even though Law 27/2007 is seen as an executing order of Law 26/2007, one aspect still needs to be clarified. Land in RTRW means inland area up to the water border, while the management of coastal area in Law 27/2007 includes certain proximity seaward and district boundaries landward. This means the use of coastal districts are governed by two laws. This should be harmonised. For local governments directly connected with spatial management in their territory, the harmonisation of Law 26/2007 and 27/2007 is essential in order to avoid any uncertainty and misunderstanding in implementation. There are several points that still need to be clarified between the two laws. Based on Law 27/2007, the local government is required to develop the coastal zoning plan. Although it has been clearly stated by the law that the development of a
coastal zoning plan is required to be in line with the local RTRW, the executing mechanism has not yet been determined. The legal mechanism to resolve inconsistency between RTRW and the coastal zoning plan is also undeveloped. Further, as RTRW is based on Law 26/2007 and the coastal zoning plan is based on Law 27/2007, made by the local governments and enacted by the local regulations, one question remains: should RTRW and the coastal zoning plan be made and enacted separately or manifested in one regulation? For simplicity, a single regulation would be preferable. However, the bureaucratic culture in Indonesia often cannot be simplified; instead, it contains a rigid system with emphasis on procedure instead of being target-oriented (see Chapter 7). The RTRW is a product of Law 26/2007, which is produced by the Ministry of Public Works, while the coastal zoning plan is the product of Law 27/2007, which is produced by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. The prevalent approach is one agency implements the regulations produced by the agency. Manifesting the plans in one regulation requires coordinating measures between the two sectors. Coordination between sectors is often publicised but in reality it is still challenging to achieve (see Chapter 7). This suggests that developing one regulation which contains both coastal zoning and land use plans is possible but challenging. Any approach to be taken, using either separate or single regulations, still requires several issues to be considered. The first relates to a coordination mechanism among local government agencies, particularly between Bappeda (the regional development planning board), the agency in charge of marine affairs and fisheries, and other agencies. Ministerial Regulation 16/2008 Article 23 states that the coastal zoning plan should be developed by a working group (see Figure 5.4). The working group consists of the Head of Bappeda as the chairperson, the head of the local marine affairs and fisheries office as the secretary and members must come from relevant offices in accordance with the predominant characteristics of the concerned coastal areas. It means that the development of a coastal zoning plan involves multiple sectors and a coordination mechanism is a necessity. However, guidance on how to develop the coordinating mechanism has not yet been developed. The second relates to the mechanisms to control licensing and development of coastal areas. In the current regulation, the government at municipal level grants development permits (in general—some cases need permits from a higher level). One of the conditions required to be met to obtain the permit is that the proposed development fit the designated area as per RTRW.
Almost all municipalities in Indonesia have developed RTRW, but not zoning plans. This gap leaves the coastal zone ungoverned and uncertainty as to how to control the development of coastal areas. This needs to be clarified in order to provide clear guidance for local governments. The third relates to the terms used by the two laws. The coastal zoning plan serves as a reference in planning for coastal and small island resources management. The zone includes general-use areas, conservation areas, national strategic areas and sea-lanes. The coastal zoning plan is expected to align with the RTRW, therefore, the purpose of every zone and the terminology in RTRW needs to be stated clearly to make all terms used synchronic. The examples of the terms in Law 26 and in Law 27 respectively are ‘detailed plan’ and ‘detailed zoning plan’, ‘protected areas’ and ‘conservation areas’ and ‘cultivated areas’ and ‘public-use areas’. This is to avoid different interpretations among the product users. 5.4.3
Other national legislation affecting coastal areas
After the coastal and small islands management law was enacted, coastal development was still governed by several laws (see Table 5.6). In the explanation section of Law 27/2007, the law itself indicates that it serves as the legal foundation for development in coastal areas wherein implementation is complementary to other regulations. Besides the laws listed in Table 5.6, there are also derived regulations affecting coastal areas such as government regulations, presidential decrees, provincial regulations and municipality regulations. There are several aspects of the legislation affecting coastal areas that are complementary or potentially conflict with Law 27/2007. The aspects are reviewed in the following sections. 126.96.36.199
Coastal and marine resources management
This section examines the relation between fisheries and forestry laws with the coastal management law. The statements in Law 27/2007 that relate to fishery are the acknowledgement of fishers as one of the coastal stakeholders and recognition of fishing as one of the activities in the coastal waters and related to the establishment of conservation areas in coastal areas, small islands and small island waters. The conservation effort includes protecting the flow of migrating fish and other marine life and protecting marine habitats. Related to forestry, Law 27/2007 acknowledges mangroves as one of the coastal resources.
Laws affecting coastal and marine resources
Subjects I. National
A. Ocean jurisdiction and territorial claims 1 43/2008 Territory 2 6/1996 Indonesian waters 3 5/1983 Indonesian exclusive economic zone 4 1/1973 Indonesian continental shelf C. Coastal and marine resources management 5 27/2007 Coastal and small islands management 6 45/2009 Fisheries 7 19/2004 Forestry (along with Government Regulation Substitute for Law 1/2004 & Law 41/1999) 8 16/1992 Quarantine of animals, fish and agricultures B. Marine resources and related activities 9 4/2009 Mining, minerals and coal 10 17/2008 Shipping 11 22/2001 Oil and natural gas D. Coastal and terrestrial management 12 2/2012 Land Procurement for Development in the public Interest 13 18/2008 Solid waste management 14 26/2007 Spatial use management 15 5/1960 Basic Agrarian E. Coastal and terrestrial activities and infrastructure 16 1/2011 Housing and residential areas 17 11/2010 Cultural heritage 18 30/2009 Electricity 19 22/2009 Traffic and road transport 20 10/2009 Tourism 21 30/2007 Energy 22 38/2004 Road 23 28/2002 Building 24 4/1984 Industry E. Terrestrial resources 25 7/2004 Water resources F. Environmental management 26 32/2009 Environmental protection and management 27 5/1990 Conservation of biological resources and their ecosystems F. Governance 28 29/2007 The province of Jakarta as the Capital City of the Republic of Indonesia 29 33/2004 Financial distribution between central and regional government 30 32/2004 Regional government 31 25/2004 National Development Plan System 32 3/2002 National defence 33 30/1999 Arbitrage II. International 1 2
Ratification of the UN convention on biological diversity Ratification of the UN convention on the law of the sea
The Fisheries Law (45/2009) focuses on both economic and environmental interests. It regulates all activities associated with the management and exploitation of fish resources and the protection
of the environment as the habitat of fish and other marine creatures. In the fishery business, the activities range from pre-production, production and processing to selling. Any person engaged in these activities must comply with the regulation. The law shows alignment with traditional or small-scale fishers by freeing them from fishing administration and fees. The law determines fishing areas, boat pathways and marine protected areas. The implementation of these areas must be aligned with the coastal zoning established by Law 27/2007, otherwise conflict might arise. In addition, Article 41A of the Fisheries Law states that one of the functions of the fishing harbour in supporting the activities related to the management and exploitation of fish resources and the environment, is to monitor coastal areas and to control environmental destruction. The implementation of the articles must be in line with Law 27/2007 regarding the function of coastal surveillance (Articles 36 to 39) and in line with the environmental monitoring activities provided by Law 32/2009 regarding environmental protection and management. The Forestry Law (Law 41/1999, along with Government Regulation Substitute for Law 1/2004 and Law 19/2004) recognises mangroves as a part of the protected forest. The law recognises the main function of these mangrove forests as conservation, protection and production (Article 6). In this law, protected forest is that which has a main function as protection for the life support system, which includes managing water, preventing flood, controlling erosion, preventing seawater intrusion and maintaining soil fertility. Mangrove forests, therefore, serve as riparians or buffer areas. The law prohibits cutting down mangroves within a distance of 130 times the difference between the highest and lowest tides from the coastline (Article 50). This subject needs to be synchronised in the coastal zoning plan of Law 27/2007 to distinguish conservation and production areas. 188.8.131.52
Marine resources and related activities
Laws regarding marine resources and related activities that are examined in this section relate to mining, mineral and coals and shipping. The two laws are complementary to spatial or coastal zoning plans. Law 4/2009 relates to mining, mineral and coal and covers mining activities from public inquiry and exploration to post-mining. The law recognises the principles of sustainable development and environmentally sound development. No specific article of this law addresses marine resource
management. The law complements other regulations, for example, environment protection and spatial and reclamation regulation. The mining activities must meet the requirements regarding environment impact assessment (EIA) and environment impact control. The mining activities can only be carried out in determined mining areas and this determination is governed by the national spatial plan. This means conducting mining activities requires a sound spatial planning. The law calls for reclamation, the purpose of which is to restore and to improve the quality of the environment after the exploitation phase. For mining activities in coastal areas, reclamation activities must meet the reclamation regulation under Law 27/2007. However, the derived regulation of Law 27/2007 regarding reclamation has not yet been established. Law 17/2008 concerning shipping applies to all transportation activities in the waters and ports, safety and security of shipping, and the protection of the marine environment. The implementation of the law needs to be in line with the spatial and zoning plan and complement the environmental regulation. The features of the law that relate to coastal development and conservation are about sea-lanes, the location of water transportation services (loading and unloading of goods, container depots, maintenance and ship maintenance facilities) and the ports. The location of the ports is based on the spatial plan and must meet the requirements of the technical feasibility and environmental aspects (by providing an EIA report). The sea-lanes are determined with respect to the safety, exploration and exploitation of natural resources, conservation of natural resources and environment and marine spatial plans. The determination of the sea-lanes and the locations of ports and water transportation services are related to spatial and coastal zoning. As most of the local governments have no zoning plan, this generates a gap for the implementation of the shipping law. 184.108.40.206
Coastal and terrestrial activities
Jakarta Bay coastal areas are used for various activities and services, such as aquaculture, housing, offices, business and services, ports, power generation, tourism and others. To build a structure, a specific permit is required. The requirement depends on the type of structure to be built. There are no specific regulations regarding building permits in coastal areas. The regulations established are the same for both land and coastal areas. In general, to be able to develop, one must meet technical and environmental requirements. The requirements depend on the type and the extent of the construction. Although constructions vary, in general all
development permits require suitability of the proposed location and land-use type in the spatial plan. To develop a structure in the province of Jakarta, one must follow the regulation set by Governor Decree 76/2000 regarding the procedures to obtain building development permits. The definition of building in the decree includes houses and non-houses, both built individually or in massbuilding (e.g. residential or commercial areas). There are several requirements that must be fulfilled to obtain the permit. Among these are land titles and land tax. One of the important requirements is the suitability of the proposed location to be constructed with the block plan. The block plan is a spatial plan that is produced by the Jakarta Spatial Planning Agency. In addition to the suitability requirements, the development permit application must also supply an environmental impact analysis report. Not all types of development require a report. Government Regulation 27/2012 regarding environmental permits regulates this further. This situation shows that the spatial plan plays an important role as the controlling measures of development. The coastal zoning plan is also expected to play the same role. 220.127.116.11
The law regarding environmental management and protection in Indonesia has been revised two times. The current law in force is Law 32/2009. The preceding laws are Law 4/1982 and Law 23/1997. Law 4/1982 is a milestone in environmental development in Indonesia as it was the first law that took interest in the environment. The law promotes environmental protection and sustainable development. Law 32/2009 focuses on sustainable development, environmental protection, recognises global environment issues such as climate change and adopts political structure changes due to the decentralisation policy. The law calls for several environmental management tools. The environmental protection and management plan is written in a document, rencana perlindungan dan pengelolaan lingkungan hidup (RPPLH), environmental protection and management plan. The law requires national, provincial and municipal governments to compose the RPPLH. The RPPLH contains information regarding the environmental state of, and the management plan for, a region. The information contained in the state of the region includes the character and function of ecological diversity, population and natural resources distribution, local knowledge and aspects related to climate change. The management plan includes the utilisation, control,
monitoring and conservation of natural resources and adaptation and mitigation to climate change. The significant claim of the law regarding the RPPLH is that the document is to be used as the basis for the long-term and the medium-term development plan (Article 10). Conversely, Law 25/2004 concerning the national development planning system does not recognise the RPPLH. This national development plan law was established before the law on the environment. The two laws need a synchronising mechanism to be effectively implemented to avoid overlapping plans. Further, the utilisation of natural resources is carried out based on the RPPLH (Article 12). In coastal areas, this potentially generates conflict with the coastal management plan required by Law 27/2007. Table 5.7
Environmental management tools according to Law 32/2009
Environmental Management tools Strategic environmental assessment (KLHS)
Environment quality standards
Explanation This document aims to ensure that the principles of sustainable development become the basis of development, are integrated into a development plan, and are the basis for the establishment of policies, plans and programs. The government shall adopt the KLHS into the spatial plan (RTRW), long-term development plan (RPJP) and mediumterm development plan (RPJM) at all levels. The determination of environmental pollution is measured utilising the environmental quality standards. The Ministry of the Environment has set standards for seawater quality (Ministerial Decree 51/2004), which include the quality standard for the port waters, marine tourism and seawater for marine biota. Every activity that has significant impact on the environment shall have the EIA. The significant impacts are determined based on the criteria, which are: a) the number of residents who will be affected by the business plan and activities b) the area affected c) the intensity and duration of the impact d) number of other environmental components that will be affected e) the cumulative nature of the effects f) turning or irreversibility of the effects, and g) other criteria in accordance with the development of science and technology. This document is a requirement to obtain the environmental permits. An environmental permit is a requirement to obtain a development permit.
Source: Law 32/2009 regarding environmental protection and management
The mechanisms for pollution and environmental damage prevention that are generated by Law 32/2009 are several. They include composing the strategic environmental assessment (KLHS), employing environmental quality standards, developing an EIA (see Table 5.7) and others. The KLHS and the EIA document hold a strategic role. Article 19 of the law states that to preserve the
environment and to provide public safety, each regional spatial planning (RTRW) shall be based on the KLHS. This statement shows that the KLHS plays a strategic role as the basis of the spatial plan determination. However, Law 26/2007 regarding a spatial plan does not recognise the KLHS. This is another point where two laws need to be harmonised. As for the EIA, it is used as a screening mechanism on whether an activity has a significant environmental impact or not. This document is used as a requirement to obtain a permit for certain types of development. 18.104.22.168
Since Independence Day in 1945, the development approach in Indonesia has been centralistic. After the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998, the social and political states of Indonesia have changed considerably. Milestones included the enactment of laws regarding a regional government system and regarding the fiscal balance between central and regional government in 1999. The laws have been revised several times and the current laws in force are Law 32/2004 regarding the regional government system (along with a further revision in Law 12/2008) and Law 33/2004 regarding the fiscal balance between central and regional government. Decentralisation is the distribution of governmental authority from the central government to the autonomous local government. With the enactment of the two laws, regional governments are expected to manage their own affairs in accordance with the principles of autonomy and assistance. The decentralisation policy aims to accelerate the achievement of public welfare through the improvement of service, empowerment and community participation and through the enhancement of regional competitiveness. The decentralisation policy also aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local governance. The policy has given very broad authority to regional governments to organise and manage their affairs. This encourages the growth of initiatives of regional governments and communities to implement development based on local interests and wisdom. The regions bordered by seas hold the authority to manage marine resources. The authority to manage marine resources include: (a) exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of marine resources, (b) administrative arrangements, (c) spatial arrangements, (d) enforcement of regulations issued by the local government or regulations delegated by central government, (e) participation in the maintenance of security and (f) participation in the defence of state sovereignty. The extent of area to be managed is 12 nautical miles, measured from the coastline to the open sea or to the archipelagic waters for provinces and one-third of the provincial
authority for municipalities. This is consistent with the boundaries that are established by Law 27/2007. The authority that is granted to regional governments to manage marine resources is significant. This includes the authority to exploit the resources. This is where the four plans from the management component in Law 27/2007 are needed. It serves as a complementary regulation to the decentralisation policy for coastal areas and governs the areas. However, the link between the two laws remains a gap in most local governments, as only a small number of regional governments have developed the four plans. The enactment of the regional government law grants local government the authority to manage coastal and marine resources. The law is supported by the fiscal balance between the central and the regional government law, which allows regional governments to obtain revenues from the use of local coastal and marine resources. The revenue is the source of local government income. This has the potential of mismanagement. With the limited attention towards environmental conservation, there is the potential that local governments will place more attention towards the opportunity to obtain revenues and focus less on conserving the environment. Before the reformation in 1998, local government authority was insignificant. The reformation brought a more democratic atmosphere into political and social dynamics in Indonesia. The reformation created euphoria of democracy and freedom of expression in political and social life across the nation. The regional government law was enacted for the first time in 1999 and began to be implemented in 2000. The shift between the end of the centralistic system and the beginning of the decentralised system occurred in less than two years. This is a short time for a large change and was perceived as an abrupt change. The implementation of the new system was accompanied by inadequate preparation and educational measures. This gave the opportunity for wide interpretation of the autonomy concept and created the euphoria of democracy. To some extent, the euphoria of democracy generates a self-centred attitude in local governments. The authority granted by a decentralisation system law encourages local governments to place more effort on their own affairs. This increases conflicts in natural resources utilisation and management between regions (see discussion in Chapter 9). The selfcentred manner not only occurs within local governmental bodies. It also occurs in the community and creates conflicts in utilising marine resources (Djafar, 2012 ). The extent of the authority to manage regional marine resources is 12 nautical miles to the open sea or to the archipelagic
waters for provinces and one-third of the provincial authority for municipalities. The community perceives this provision as boundaries for fishing. The regional autonomy law states that the provision regarding the marine boundary does not apply for small-scale fishers, meaning that traditional or small-scale fishers can fish in the waters outside their residential location. However, the community perceives the water boundaries as boundaries for fishing. The perception creates conflict, such as the fishing ban that passed jurisdictional water boundaries. 5.5
Structure of government
According to Government Decree 41/2007 regarding regional organisation, the Indonesian government structure is multi-levelled, consisting of central, provincial and municipal governments. The regional administration is the term representing the entity that governs a certain area. A regional administration consists of a DPRD (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah – regional house of representatives/parliament) and a regional government (see Figure 5.5). The DPRD is the representative body of the people that has legislative, budgeting and supervision functions. The regional government comprises a governor, regents, mayors and working units. The working units at the provincial level are assistants of a governor in the administration of provincial government, which consist of the secretariat of local government, the secretariat of parliament, local (sectoral) offices and technical institutions. The working units at municipal level are the assisting elements of the head of a municipality, which consist of the secretariat of local government, the secretariat of parliament, local (sectoral) offices and technical institutions, kecamatans or districts and kelurahans or sub-districts/villages. A provincial government is headed by a governor who is assisted by a vice-governor. Governors and vice-governors are directly elected through general elections of the regional head. A secretary (sekda – sekretaris daerah) leads the secretariat of local government. The sekda is responsible to the governor and holds the duty and obligation to assist the governor in developing policies and coordinating local agencies and technical institutions. The secretariat of parliament is the service unit to the parliament and chaired by the secretary of the parliament. The secretary of the parliament is operationally under the head of parliament and is responsible to the head of parliament, but administratively is responsible to the governor through the secretary of local government. The local offices are the implementing elements of regional autonomy. The heads of local offices are responsible to the governor through the secretary of local government. The technical institutions are the supporting elements of the governor in formulating and implementing
policies in specific fields. The forms of technical institutions are bodies, offices or public/specific hospitals. The technical institutions are led by chiefs who are responsible to the governor through the secretary of local government.
Regents & mayors
Secretariat of local government
Secretariat of DPRD
Local offices & technical institutions
Secretariat of local government
Secretariat of DPRD
Local offices & technical institutions
Figure 5.5 Structure of regional administration (adapted from Government Decree 41/2007 regarding the regional organisation)
A regency or a city is headed by a regent or a mayor. Regents and mayors are responsible to governors. The working units at a municipal level consist of the secretariat of parliament (with the exception of the municipal level in Jakarta Province), the secretariat of the regency or city, local offices and technical institutions, districts and sub-districts. A district is an administrative area that is part of the municipality. A sub-district is an administrative area that is part of the district. A municipality consists of several districts and a district consists of several sub-districts. A district is led by a camat who is responsible to the regent or mayor through the secretary of regency or city. A camat has the tasks of government authority delegated by the regent or mayor to carry out part of local government affairs. A sub-district is led by a lurah who is responsible to the regent or mayor through the camat.
The provincial and municipal governments are autonomous authorities, except for the Jakarta Province. According to Law 29/2007 regarding the province of Jakarta as the capital city of the Republic of Indonesia, municipalities in Jakarta have no autonomy but are merely administrative authorities. There is no DPRD at the municipal level of Jakarta. This distinguishes the structure of the local administration of Jakarta from other provinces. 5.6
Coastal governance in Indonesia consists of policy framework, management system and stakeholders. This chapter focused on the policy framework and the structure of government as a part of the management system. The policy to administer coastal development with regards to coastal and small islands management is Law 27/2007. The law expectedly governs the development of coastal areas. In the explanation section of Law 27/2007, the law indicates that it serves as the legal foundation for development in coastal areas where the implementation is complementary to other regulations. However, this implementation has not yet occurred. The coastal areas are managed by sectoral regulations and Law 27/2007 has not been the bond to govern the sectoral regulations. Law 27/2007 requires every local government, at provincial and municipal level, to develop the four plans: strategic, zoning, management and action plan as the guidance for sustainable coastal development. However, from 34 provinces and 500 municipalities only five local governments have developed some plans and legalised them in local regulations. The authorities of Jakarta Bay have not developed any of the four plans. Coastal areas are governed by sectoral regulations, with some aspects in the regulations are complementary to others. This generates four possibilities: (1) this linkage could occur when the two regulations are present and the linkage is defined. In this case, both regulations are ready to execute, (2) the two regulations are present but the linkage is not defined, (3) the two regulations are present and potentially overlap, or (4) the linkage could not occur when one of the regulations is not present. The example of the two regulations being present but the linkage not defined relates to the RPPLH and development plans. The RPPLH is the environmental protection and management plan, a product of Law 32/2009 regarding environmental management. The law requires national, provincial and municipal governments to compose the RPPLH. The RPPLH should be the basis
for long-term and medium-term development plans. The development plans are the product of Law 25/2004 concerning the national development planning system, which does not recognise the RPPLH. The law regarding environmental protection is established later. However, even though one of the laws is enacted later, to implement both laws a linkage (such as a harmonisation mechanism) needs to be established. Nevertheless, the harmonisation mechanism has not yet developed. This case shows that the two regulations are present but the linkage is not defined. This makes both regulations unable to be implemented effectively. An example of two regulations that are potentially overlapping relates to Article 41A of the Fisheries Law (45/2009) regarding the monitoring of coastal areas and the controlling of environmental destruction in articles 36 to 39 of Law 27/2007 regarding coastal surveillance. The example of linkage failure due to incomplete regulations relates to the reclamation of coastal areas as a result of mining activities. Law 4/2009 regarding mining mineral and coal calls for reclamation to restore and to improve the quality of the environment after the exploitation phase. For mining activities in coastal areas, reclamation activities must meet the reclamation regulation under Law 27/2007. However, the derived regulation of Law 27/2007 regarding reclamation has not yet been established. The examples show that the policy is not a comprehensive framework. It contains gaps or it has overlapping aspects that potentially generate conflicts. The aim to investigate Indonesian coastal governance is to identify the coastal governance framework where Jakarta Bay management system sits. Addressing the aim concerning policy framework, it can be stated that Jakarta Bay management system is nested in incomprehensive policy framework that contains gaps or has overlapping aspects. Addressing the investigation aim concerning the structure of government, the Jakarta Bay management system sits in a multi-levelled government structure that consists of central, provincial and municipal government. The principles of autonomy are implemented in the structure. The structure contains the secretary of local governments (both in provincial and municipal levels). A secretary leads the secretariat of local government. In provincial government, the secretary is responsible to the governor and holds the duty and obligation to assist the governor in developing policies and coordinating the local (sectoral) offices and technical institutions. The local offices and technical institutions are responsible to the governor through the secretary. This means the secretary holds a strategic position that can be used to conduct a
coordinating mechanism among sectoral offices. An ICM program needs a coordinating mechanism and the existing structure that consists of a local government secretary can be used. This chapter provided information regarding coastal governance of Indonesia, which consists of policy framework and the structure of the Indonesian government. In the next chapter, the management system of the Jakarta Bay is reviewed with a purpose to identify the current management system.
Chapter 6 Jakarta Bay management system 6.1
In this chapter, the currently employed management system of Jakarta Bay is investigated. The management system consists of the governmental structure and policy framework. Examination of the structure includes identification of the Jakarta Bay authorities and identification of government affairs distribution in each authority, while the examination of policy framework consists of identification of Jakarta Bay in the local development and spatial plans. The investigation in this chapter provides an understanding of the Jakarta Bay management system so an examination of the management system accomplishment in an ICM perspective can be carried out and the applicability of an ICM approach can be identified, which are discussed in the following chapter. Further, the identification of the Jakarta Bay authorities and government affairs distribution in each authority isolates the respondents for survey and interview. 6.2
Authorities of Jakarta Bay
The coastline of Jakarta Bay lies on the Tangerang Regency (Banten Province) in the west, North Jakarta City (Jakarta Province) in the middle and the Bekasi Regency (West Java Province) in the east. The authorities responsible for managing the Jakarta Bay coastline should be the three municipalities. However, Jakarta as the capital city of Indonesia has a different governmental arrangement. The autonomy lies with provincial government (Law 29/2007 Article 9) and the municipalities within Jakarta Province are administrative municipalities with no autonomous authority. Therefore, the authorities of Jakarta Bay are the Tangerang Regency, Jakarta Province and Bekasi Regency. 6.3
Government affairs distribution
Government Regulation 38/2007 regarding government affairs distribution states that government affairs consist of affairs under full authority of the central government and affairs that are shared between every level of government. The affairs under the authority of the central government include foreign policy, defence, security, justice, monetary and national fiscal policies and religion.
The shared affairs consist of 31 fields. Two of the 31 fields are the marine affairs and fisheries and the environmental field.
: Tangerang Regency, Banten Province
: North Jakarta City, Jakarta Province
: Bekasi Regency, West Java Province
Figure 6.1 Administrative boundaries on the coastline of Jakarta Bay (Map source: Google Map, retrieved 22 February 2013)
The affairs under the local government authority consist of mandatory and optional. Mandatory affairs are basic services that must be provided by local governments. Optional affairs are associated with available local resources. There are 26 mandatory affairs and eight optional affairs. The environmental field is mandatory while marine and fisheries field is optional. The government affairs are the basis of the organisational structure and working procedure of local governments. The province of Banten and West Java exercise all optional affairs (according to Banten Provincial Regulation 6/2007 regarding government affairs and West Java Provincial Regulation 10/2008 regarding government affairs). The province of Jakarta has not been issued a similar regulation; however, according to Jakarta Provincial Regulation 10/2008 regarding the structure of government, Jakarta exercises three optional affairs. They are tourism, marine and fisheries, and trading. According to Government Decree 38/2007 regarding government affairs distribution, the responsibility of government affairs for each level of government is different. Essentially, the
central government is responsible for policymaking, the provincial government is responsible for coordination and implementation of policy in provincial territory, and the municipality is responsible for the implementation of policy in municipalities’ territories. The regional governments may develop legislation, but it should be based on the available national policy. 6.4
This section reviews Jakarta Bay in the context of development and spatial plans of authorities. Banten Province and West Java Province currently apply a long-term development plan, while Jakarta Province is still developing a plan. The current development plan employed in Jakarta Province is a mid-term development plan. As a part of Jakarta Metropolitan Area, the region – particularly Jakarta Province – is influenced by several national spatial plans. 6.4.1
Banten Province long-term development plan 2005 to 2025
The province of Banten borders the western part of Jakarta Province. Banten Province is a new provincial government that was established in 2000. The province was inhabited by almost 11 million in 2010, with a population density of approximately 1,100 people/km2 (BPS RI, 2013). The current long-term development plan (Banten Provincial Regulation 1/2010) shows that economic development is the focus. Several strategic development issues have been identified. The issues include food security, poverty, human resources quality, social security and good governance. One of the missions in the development plan is the growth of marine resources as a main economic pursuit. There is no specific plan addressing the coastal area or Jakarta Bay. However, the plan recognises that coastal areas in Banten Province experience problems. Under the identification of strategic issues regarding ‘spatial planning, natural resources and environment’, the plan recognises that policy establishment and implementation concerning development in coastal areas is inadequate. Other recognition of issues related to coastal areas is the minimal awareness of environmental conservation and the inadequate environmental law enforcement. 6.4.2
Province of Jakarta’s mid-term development plan 2007 to 2012
The province of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta or DKI Jakarta, most commonly known as Jakarta) is the special territory of the capital city of Indonesia. The region is a province in the governmental system. The province was inhabited by
approximately 9.6 million in 2010, with a population density of 13,158 people/km 2 (BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta, 2011). The current development plan exercised is the mid-term development plan 2007 to 2012. Jakarta has not established a long-term development plan before; however, currently a long-term plan is under development. Economic growth is the focus of the plan. Jakarta’s development plan focuses on the improvement of governance and establishing urban life to encourage growth and prosperity. One of the development missions is to empower society by equipping them with the authority to identify development problems and seek the best solution. Providing authority to the community is a new behaviour in the development process of Indonesia. This is one of the effects of reformation. Further, the development plan determines a strategy to undertake consistency in the implementation of spatial planning policy, the enforcement against violations of environmental standards and the restoration of air, seawater and groundwater quality. However, there is no specific plan regarding Jakarta Bay. The North Jakarta City development program aims to develop North Jakarta as a coastal and marine tourism city. The programs include: (a) the development of the commercial and services centre, (b) development of a goods and fuel distribution centre, (c) rearrangement of the old coastal area through reclamation measures to improve the quality of the environment, (d) development of reclamation areas for an international-scale commercial and services centres and residential and tourism areas and (e) the conservation of Angke Kapuk protected forests, Muara Angke nature reserves and the Kamal tourism forest. Besides the conservation program, the others show that the government aims to intensively develop the coastal area. 6.4.3
Province of West Java’s long-term development plan 2005 to 2025
The province of West Java borders the southern to eastern part of Jakarta Province. Most of the province situated at the upstream of Jakarta. The province has a population of 43 million, with a population density of 1,156 people/km2 (BPS Provinsi Jawa Barat, 2011). It is the most populated province in Indonesia, which approximately 18.12% of Indonesian population. The current longterm development plan (West Java Provincial Regulation 9/2008) identifies several strategic development issues. The issues include population growth and spreading, economic growth and social welfare, quality and extent of infrastructure, environmental quality and the quality of democracy and governance.
Several development issues related to environmental aspects have been identified in the plan and include the growth of environmentally based diseases, social conflicts between the polluter and polluted, conflicts as a result of natural resources utilisation, and environmental conflicts between the upstream and downstream areas. The government of West Java Province realised that the current environmental management is inadequate to control environmental damage and pollution. There is no specific attention on Jakarta Bay; however, the plan perceives that the development of coastal and marine areas is an integrated part of the development of the mainland. This is progress compared to the other two provinces’ development plans. 6.4.4
Spatial plans of Jakarta Province
The province of Jakarta has developed four spatial plans (see Table 6.1) since1967. The first three plans are no longer valid and the current plan was enacted in early 2012. Besides the plans composed by provincial government, there are several other spatial policies affecting the development of the Jakarta Province (see Table 6.2). It is important to examine all spatial plans (current and preceding) of the Jakarta Province and other spatial policies affecting the province. This provides a perspective of the historical development process that contributes to the problems in Jakarta Bay. Table 6.1
Spatial plans of Jakarta
Spatial Plan Name 1 2 3 4
Rencana Induk Jakarta (Master Plan of Jakarta) Rencana Umum Tata Ruang (General Spatial Plan) Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Plan) Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Plan)
Local Regulation 5/1984
Local Regulation 6/1999
Local Regulation 1/2012
RIK 1985 RUTR 2005
In the plans, the coastal area of North Jakarta receives arbitrary attention. The land use of the coastal areas in North Jakarta in 1965 contained significant green areas (see top picture in
Figure 6.3). The earliest plan, the RIK 1985, intended to maintain the areas (Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 1967). The residential areas had existed in small parts; however, the coastal areas were not designed for further residential purposes. The coast was designed to facilitate industrial areas, steam power plant and ports. The ports included fish-ports and a harbour that was established since the Dutch colony. In the plan, the province was designed to incorporate development in all directions within a radius of 15 km from the Monumen Nasional (the national monument—the landmark of Jakarta, approximately 7 km perpendicular to the coastline). A green belt of 3 to 4 km was planned to encircle the city as the outer ring.
Figure 6.2 Development growth of Jakarta (RUTR 1985-2005, Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 1984, p. 2) Table 6.2
Other spatial regulations affecting development of Jakarta Regulations
1 2 4
Law 24/1992 Presidential Decree 52/1995 Local Regulation (Jakarta) 8/1995 Government Decree 26/2008
Presidential Decree 54/2008
Presidential Decree 28/2012
Subjects Spatial plan (later revised to Law 26/2007) North Coast of Jakarta Reclamation Implementation of reclamation and spatial plan the coast of North Jakarta National Spatial Plan Spatial plan of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Puncak, Cianjur (Jabodetabekpunjur) region Spatial plan of Java-Bali region
The second spatial plan, RUTR 2005, acknowledged that the growth and physical development direction of the province for nearly 20 years did not fully follow the direction specified in the RIK 1985 (see Figure 6.2). The green outer ring could not be maintained and dense housing existed in the coastal area. RUTR 2005 noted the coastal regions distinctively; while in the previous plan the coastal area was designed to facilitate industrial areas, steam power plant and ports, in RUTR 2005 recreational facilities are planned. The existing green areas would be maintained for conservation. RUTR 2005 used a regional development approach. The province was divided into nine development regions. The coastal area is included in four development regions: the north-west, north, Tanjung Priok and north-east. The development of Jakarta would grow to the west and east regions, thus development to the south and the north could be suppressed. The south region is a populated area and the development in this area needs to decrease as the region was intended for catchment areas. The developments in the north-west and north-east regions were determined for various housing projects. In the Tanjung Priok region, there was the Tanjung Priok harbour and dense housing. The region was intended as the supporting area of the Tanjung Priok harbour. The existing use in the north region was for trade and services and dense housing. The development in this region needed to decrease as the north region was considered to have unfavourable physical characteristics for development and already had a high environmental burden which included heavy traffic, poor sanitation and polluted rivers. In addition to the spatial plans produced by the government of the Jakarta Province, there are several spatial regulations affecting development in Jakarta (see Table 6.2). Presidential Decree 52/1995 specifically decrees reclamation of the coast of North Jakarta. Local Regulation 8/1995 regarding the implementation of reclamation and spatial plans for the coast of North Jakarta follows the decree. The reclamation in this decree consists of drying and filling the coastal water of Jakarta to a certain depth for a variety of purposes. RUTR 2005 did not address the reclamation; therefore, the decree altered the development of the north part of Jakarta. The plan to suppress development in the northern part of the province was omitted due to the enactment of this decree. The third spatial plan, RTRW 2010 was developed before the preceding plan was fully implemented. This is because of the enactment of Law 24/1992 regarding the spatial plan that
was applied nationally and the enactment of Presidential Decree 52/1995 regarding reclamation of the north shore of Jakarta. RUTR 2005 was adapted to the law and the decree and became RTRW 2010. In this plan, the direction of urban development was to the east, west and north. Development to the north related to the reclamation program. The plan recognised two beaches, the old and the new beach. The new beach was the result of reclamation. The uses of the new land were planned for business and services, ports, housings and tourism. However, to date, the reclamation plan is not fully implemented. Instead, the plan was rejected by the public, became subject to litigation and was amended several times. RTRW 2010 is criticised for several aspects. The significant criticism relates to green areas. RTRW 2010 removed a number of green areas throughout the province. The prominent change was the reduction of the protected mangrove forest in Kapuk–North Jakarta. In the plan, the protected forest was only a third of the original coverage in the previous plan, RUTR 2005. The reduction was because of reclamation for the Pantai Indah Kapuk housing project (Kusumawijaya, cited in Jamaludin, 2001). Other criticisms include the lack of stakeholder participation in the plan development, the lack of derived regulations and the lack of measurable indicators (Hadar, 2008; Kusumawijaya, cited in Jamaludin, 2001). The central government, through Government Regulation 26/2008 regarding the national spatial plan, has declared several strategic regions. The national strategic region is an area in which the spatial arrangement of the area is prioritised, and the reasons for prioritising vary. One of the strategic regions is the Jabodetabekpunjur (which stands for Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Puncak and Cianjur). The government regulation led to the enactment of Presidential Decree 54/2008 regarding the spatial plan of the Jabodetabekpunjur region. The region includes the Jakarta Province; Bogor Regency, Bogor City, Depok City, Cianjur Regency, Bekasi Regency and Bekasi City in the West Java Province; and the Tangerang Regency and Tangerang City in the Banten Province. Those are the surrounding municipalities of the Jakarta Province. The purpose of the Jabodetabekpunjur spatial planning is to develop the region spatial planning as one entity, to achieve a sustainable carrying capacity and to increase the region’s economic productivity. The municipalities around the Jakarta Province support the development of Jakarta. This induces the growth of the surrounding municipalities and makes the region grow fast in economic achievement and in population.
Figure 6.3 Land use of northern part of Jakarta (Adapted from Dinas Tata Ruang DKI Jakarta, 2011, pp. 1-5, 7; Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 1967, p. Peta 2; 1984, p. 13; 2012, p. 146)
Objectives, policies and strategies that related to coastal area of Jakarta and Jakarta Bay issues
To develop spatial alignment with the adjacent areas
To achieve integration in utilisation and control of space, in regards to the circumstances of Jakarta as a delta city and the environmental carrying capacity. This includes the land, the sea and the air, the space beneath the soil surface and the space below the surface of the water To achieve sustainable spatial planning of coastal areas and small islands
Integration of a water system with the upstream and the surrounding areas Implementation of the conservation of nature reserves, protected areas, water resources Development of green space for the city’s ecological balance
Maintaining the quality, quantity and continuity of surface waters Preserving and maintaining mangrove forests as a protection means against coastal erosion
Management and control of coastal and small island development in regard to environmental sustainability
Providing integrated spatial planning to support the main functions of the coastal areas Conducting rehabilitation of eroded coastal areas and islands Maintaining and preserving protected areas on land and at sea Building a seawall to anticipate sea level rise
To achieve disaster risk reduction
Development of infrastructure for disaster risk reduction
Source: Local Regulation 1/2012 regarding RTRW 2030 (Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2012)
The provincial and municipal spatial plan of the region should be adapted to the Jabodetabekpunjur spatial plan. The presidential decree determines the coastal area of the Jakarta Bay as being for multipurpose uses. This includes housing with different levels of density, industry, trading and service, agriculture and protected areas. The decree also protects swamps and mangrove forests, specifically for the swamps and mangrove forests in North Jakarta. Despite the protection determination with the enactment of this decree, Presidential Decree 52/1995 regarding reclamation in the north coast of Jakarta remains valid. This potentially puts the swamps and mangrove forests at stake. The latest spatial plan, RTRW 2030, embodies and elaborates the regional spatial plan of Jabodetabekpunjur. The plan consists of several objectives and each objective is implemented through several policies and strategies. The objectives, policies and strategies that relate to coastal areas of Jakarta are shown in Table 6.3. One of the strategies relates to mangrove areas. RTRW 2030 plans to preserve and maintain the areas and use the areas as a natural protection
against erosion. This seems an environmentally sound measure. However, the existing mangrove areas cover a limited proportion of the total coastline (refer Chapter 7) and are located mainly in the west, while the heavily eroded areas are in Cilincing, the east part of the coast. There is no plan to re-plant mangroves in the eroded area.
Figure 6.4 Comparison of North Jakarta coast without islands (land use 2009 – above picture) and the plan of developing some islands in the RTRW 2030 (below) (Local Regulation 1/2012 regarding the RTRW 2030, Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2012, pp. 158, 173)
RTRW 2030 recognises national and provincial strategic areas. One of the provincial strategic areas is the Pantura (short for pantai utara, the coastal area of North Jakarta) region. The region is selected as a strategic area for multiple reasons: economic, environmental, social and cultural. The Pantura strategic region consists of the existing coastal area and the area resulting from the reclamation plan. In RTRW 2030, the reclamation areas are planned to form several islands. RTRW 2030 plans to address several issues occurring on the North Jakarta coast. It contains plans to develop infrastructure for managing water-related disasters. This includes widening and deepening the river estuaries in Jakarta Bay, rearrangement of riverbanks (including demolition of illegal buildings) and building a seawall. RTRW 2030 also plans to clean water bodies and prevent garbage pile up in Jakarta Bay through the development of solid waste infrastructures. 22.214.171.124
Issues related to the plans and implementation
The implementation of the development plans have been criticised for several reasons. These include a systemic underperformance, implementation of a partial development plan, overlooking the negative impacts on the environment and a failure to foresee the long-term development impacts. Since the RIK 1985 green areas, placement of residential areas and other purposed areas have been approved. In the subsequent plans, these arrangements were also approved. However, the implementation is different to the plans. The plan to develop the outer ring of green area could not be implemented and the existing green areas were reduced, and the plan to maintain the catchment area also could not be implemented. In the mid-term development plan 2007 to 2012, the government of Jakarta Province recognised that there were inconsistencies in the implementation of spatial plans (Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, 2008, p. 33). Nonetheless, the inconsistency is still present. RTRW 2010 is perceived to fail to override the negative impacts on the environment that are generated by the preceding development and to anticipate the impacts for the long term ahead (Gunawan, 2010, cited in Triana, 2010). Some parts of the community perceive that the latest plan, RTRW 2030, still has gaps in regards to people’s interests. It was expected that the plan would develop Jakarta into a more sustainable city, but the plan is project-oriented and the projects are countermeasures (Supriatna, 2011, cited in Priliawito, 2011). The plan lacks recovery measures, while the environmental quality of Jakarta is in a poor state.
The reclamation program in Jakarta Bay is a long-standing issue. The important benefit of reclamation is the availability of additional land areas, as land is becoming scarce in Jakarta Province. More land area means more housing and businesses, and more earnings for the province. The program is to reclaim coastal areas at the front of the current coastline, except for the Bekasi Regency area (outside the Jakarta Province). The reclaimed area will form several islands (see Figure 6.4). The primary use of the islands in the west and middle is for luxury housing and business, and the east is for ports and industries. However, the Ministry of Environment perceives the program has a lack of proper review. The program ignores several important impacts, including social and environmental issues and has been the subject of lawsuits between the Ministry of Environment and the government of Jakarta Province and its counterparts. Some issues in dispute from the Ministry are the ecosystem sustainability of Jakarta Bay and the origin of materials used for reclamation. The reclamation issue, among others, is one of the reasons for community rejection of RTRW 2030. The plan was expected to be implemented in 2011 but was delayed because of the negotiation process; it was finally enacted in early 2012. The long process of consultation was partly due to discussions with stakeholders. The discussions were able to take place because it is now legal for the community to participate in the development process of the plan. However, according to several NGOs, the materials that were reviewed and approved during the consultation process were not the same as in the approved document. During consultation, it was stated that input from the community was accepted but that input was not in the approved document (2011, Gurning, cited in Priliawito & Aquina, 2011b). This demonstrates that the legal call for the community to participate in the development process still needs to be enforced. One of the objectives of RTRW 2030 is to achieve integration in the utilisation and control of space that includes the land, the sea and the air, the space beneath the soil surface and the space below the surface of the water. The utilisation and control of the sea and the space below the water surface is similar to the undertaking right produced by Law 27/2007 that was cancelled. The local regulation of 1/2012 (regarding RTRW 2030) calls for numerous derived regulations that have not developed, including the utilisation and control of the sea and the space below the water surface. Therefore, it is not possible to compare it further with the undertaking right. Spatial plans of Banten Province and West Java Province
The current spatial plan for the Banten Province is RTRW 2010 to 2030 (Banten Province Regulation 2/2011) and for the West Java Province is RTRW 2009 to 2029 (West Java Province Regulation 22/2010). Both of the plans adopt the Jabodetabekpunjur region spatial plan. The total coastline length of the Banten and West Java Provinces is extensive compared to the coastline that includes Jakarta Bay. The policy for coastal development in both provinces is for coastal areas in general. There are specific policies for certain coastal areas. However, there is no specific policy regarding coastal areas that are included in Jakarta Bay. Nonetheless, both of the plans provide an umbrella for sustainable coastal development. The policy for coastal development in Banten Province is underlined by a conservation of coastal environment approach. This includes providing a coastal buffer zone as a protected area, providing access to the buffer zone for the community, improving the environmental quality of the coastal area, improving community participation in managing the coastal area and sustainable coastal resources utilisation with more equitable benefit for the community. The policy for coastal development in West Java Province is underlined by a sustainable development approach. To implement it, the province plans to develop a coastal management and zoning plan. This is associated with Law 27/2007 regarding coastal management. Included in the coastal management plan are the rehabilitation of coastal conservation areas and the control of pollution in coastal and marine areas. Included in the zoning plan is zoning for coastal use, buffer zones and mangrove forests. The mangrove forest in the Bekasi Regency, a part of the Jakarta Bay coast, is designated as a protected area of the province. The north coast of West Java Province is designated as one of the province strategic areas for environmental reasons. This area is managed for the purpose of natural resource utilisation control to avoid utilisation that exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment.
List of local offices in the Jakarta Bay authorities- the shaded numbers indicate offices involved in activities on the coast of Jakarta Bay Tangerang Regency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Education Health Social services Manpower and transmigration Population and civil registry Nexus, communication and information technology Road and water resources Spatial planning Youth, sport, culture and tourism Cooperatives, Small and medium enterprises Building and housing Fisheries and marine resources Industry and trade Agriculture and livestock Cleanliness, parks and cemeteries Fire-fighting
Province of Jakarta
1 2 3 4 5
Education Health Social services Manpower and transmigration Civil registration
1 2 3 4 5
7 8 9
Public works Spatial planning Tourism and culture Cooperatives, micro, small, medium enterprises and trade Tax Industry and energy Marine affairs and agriculture Sports and youth Communication, information and public relations Fire and disaster management Housing and local government building Building supervision and control Park and cemetery Cleanliness
7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15
Education Health Social services Manpower Population and civil registry Nexus Roads and water resources Spatial planning and settlement Tourism, culture, youth and sports Industry, trade, cooperatives, small and medium enterprises Financial and asset management Livestock, fisheries and marine affairs Agriculture, horticulture and forestry Cleanliness, park and fire-fighting Communication and information technology
Source: Tangerang Regency Regulation 2/2008 regarding the local organisation of the Tangerang Regency; Jakarta Province Regulation 8/2010 regarding the local organisation of the Jakarta Province; Bekasi Regency Regulation 4/2011 regarding the local organisation of the Bekasi Regency
Jakarta Bay is managed by a sectoral approach. The sectoral approach means the local sectoral offices manage their activities in their jurisdictional area, including in Jakarta Bay, with limited inter-sectoral coordination. There is no institutionalised coordinating mechanism. Since the activities in Jakarta Bay are various, the sectoral offices that govern the area also vary. The sectoral arrangement in each regional government can differ. It depends on the implementation of Government Regulation 38/2007 regarding government affairs distribution in each government. Therefore, the sectoral offices that have activities in Jakarta Bay can differ across the three authorities. Table 6.4 shows the offices in the three authorities. The shaded numbers indicate offices that have activities in Jakarta Bay. The selected activities are only the main ones – those related to the physical and environmental characteristics of the bay. For example, the education office is not selected, even though many schools are located in the coastal districts of Jakarta Bay. The part of the Jakarta Bay coast that is under the Tangerang Regency jurisdiction is used mainly for ponds, residential, industrial or warehouse purposes. Therefore, the sectoral offices related to activities on the coast are the fisheries and marine resources, building and housing, and industry and trade. The spatial planning office is also highlighted because spatial matter is related to the development in the area. The part of Jakarta Bay that is under the Bekasi Regency jurisdiction is used mainly for ponds, agricultural and residential purposes, and mangrove forests. Therefore, the sectoral offices related to activities on the coast are livestock, fisheries and marine affairs, agriculture, horticulture and forestry, spatial planning and settlement. The province of Jakarta has various main activities on the coast of Jakarta Bay. At least 13 local offices govern sectoral activities in the area. 6.6
The authorities are the Tangerang Regency, Jakarta Province and Bekasi Regency. As identified in the previous chapter, the authorities employ a coastal management system that is not based on Law 27/2007 as none of the authorities have developed the four plans (strategic, zoning, management and action plan) required by the law. Investigation presented in this chapter reveals that a specific policy to manage the bay as one entity in the development plans of the three authorities and a specific integrated program to manage activities in Jakarta Bay is currently not present. However, the spatial plans of Banten Province and West Java Province provide a 161
foundation to conduct sustainable coastal development. West Java Province’s long-term development plan includes development of the coastal and marine sector as an integrated part of the development of the inland. Jakarta’s spatial plan intends to address some problems in the north coast of Jakarta, such as developing infrastructure for managing water-related disasters. All the development plans and spatial plans of the three provinces recognise the problems of the coastal areas and provide the legal foundation to address the problems. An ICM initiative is expected to follow up on the provided foundation. In the next chapter, the survey and interview results are presented. The aim of the chapter is to examine the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective.
Chapter 7 Jakarta Bay management accomplishment from an ICM perspective 7.1
This chapter presents the survey and interview results which aim to identify the state of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective. Two investigations are presented in this chapter, first is the examination of management system accomplishments from an ICM perspective and second is the investigation of the management system against ICM principles, and the features in the management system that might enable or hinder employing an ICM approach. This chapter reveals the current position of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM point of view. The challenges and opportunities to employ an ICM are also identified. The method used to conduct surveys and interviews, the respondents’ selection and the research instruments have been discussed under methodology in Chapter 2. This chapter focuses into the result of field research. The surveys were sent to 39 government offices in Tengerang Regency, North Jakarta City, Jakarta Province and Bekasi Regency and only 19 were returned. Most of the offices that did not return the surveys stated that they did not have a program for the bay. The 36 interviewees were from different levels and sectors of government, NGOs and individuals. They were 9 (25%) from ministerial level, 14 (39%) from provincial level, 8 (22%) from municipal level, 3 (8%) from NGO and 2 (6%) are individuals (former minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and former head of Environmental Management Agency of Jakarta Province). The numbers of interviewees are not the same as listed in Table 2.2 as some of the potential respondents refused to be interviewed. The result of field research is presented in three sections as can be seen in Table 7.1. Table 7.1
Field research result related to data collection method Section heading of field research result
General management practice Accomplishments of the Jakarta Bay management practice from an ICM perspective Management framework from an ICM perspective
Data collection method Open ended questions Likert scale inquiry Interview
In addition, two other subjects are discussed in this chapter. The first is the comparison of Jakarta Bay and Sanur’s socioeconomic, environmental and management context. The aim is to examine how the successful factors of the Sanur ICM program can be adopted in Jakarta Bay. The second is the review of the family planning program in Indonesia. The family planning program is not related to ICM. The examination of the program aims to recognise that once Indonesia was successful at significantly shifting public attitude. The successful factors of the program are learnt and can be adopted in designing ICM for Jakarta Bay. 7.2
General management practice
This section presents results of the open-ended questions in step one of field research (refer to Chapter 2). The questions are as follows:
the linkage (responsibilities) of the respondent office with the management of Jakarta Bay
the main problems encountered in Jakarta Bay related to the responsibilities of the respondent office
the main regulations affecting the management efforts of Jakarta Bay undertaken by the respondent office
the programs conducted by the respondent office in order to implement the regulations in the previous question
the financing mechanism for the programs as the above question
the obstacles encountered in implementing the programs
the obstacles in managing Jakarta Bay that arise from other government sectors
the efforts undertaken by the respondent office to address the obstacles as the above two questions
the vision of the respondent office to manage Jakarta Bay in the future
the advice regarding the form of inter-sectoral management framework to manage Jakarta Bay.
In the following sections, the respondents’ responses to the above questions are presented. Discussion upon the findings is presented at the end of this section. 7.2.1
No single institution is specifically intended to manage Jakarta Bay. The respondents stated that their offices carried out their sectoral responsibilities in their respective territories regardless of 164
the physical form of the area. Water, coastal strip and inland were considered equal. However, there were some government offices whose job related to the physical profile of coastal and marine areas; their responsibilities are listed in Table 7.2. Duties of other offices were unrelated to the physical form of the bay. Table 7.2
The responsibilities of some government offices related to the physical state of Jakarta Bay Office
Cleanliness Office, Jakarta Province Cultural and Tourism Office, Jakarta Province Marine Affairs and Agricultural Office, Jakarta Province Public Works Office, Jakarta Province Environmental Office, North Jakarta City
To manage cleanliness at the coastal strip and water of the northern part of Jakarta Province and Kepulauan Seribu To preserve the coastal heritage of Jakarta Bay
Agriculture and Forestry Office, North Jakarta City
To monitor fisheries and mangrove To design and maintain safety embankment to address flood from tide at the coast of Jakarta Province To implement the coast cleaning program, to promote community participation on environmental sanitation in the fishers settlements, to monitor the state of mangrove To monitor the Angke Kapuk mangrove forest
Problems in the bay
The problems encountered in Jakarta Bay that related to the responsibilities of respondent offices can be broadly categorised into six groups, which consist of environmental, policy, management, town facility, and science and technology problems, as well as problems associated with the local community. Problems related to the environment are the most cited by respondents (47%) indicating that environmental problems are related not only to the environmental sector but also to other sectors. Table 7.3
Main problems in Jakarta Bay according to respondents (total problems stated are 66) Problem
8 7 7 4 2 1 1 1
12.1 10.6 10.6 6.1 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Environment (47.0%) Garbage Pollution Subsidence Flooding Mangrove coverage and quality Fish supply Slum housing Carrying capacity Management (18.2%)
Problem Coordination among government offices Institutional arrangement to manage the bay Priorities in government programs Funding availability Permit and licensing
6 1 3 1 1
9 .1 1.5 4.5 1.5 1.5
4 2 2
6.1 3.0 3.0
2 1 1 1
3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Policy (12.1%) Spatial planning and utilization of land Spatial planning and utilization of water Community (12.1%) Environmental awareness Community involvement Poverty Infrastructure (7.6%) The availability of clean water The availability of sanitation facility The availability of drainage The availability of electricity Science and technology (3%) Technical aspects in the cleanliness management
The first group are problems related to the environment, which include garbage, pollution, subsidence, erosion, flooding, mangrove coverage and quality, fish stocks, slum housing and carrying capacity. The most stated problems were garbage, pollution, subsidence and flooding. The second group are problems related to management, which include coordination between government offices, institutional arrangements to manage Jakarta Bay, priority of programs, funding and consistency on issuing permits to conduct activities in the area of Jakarta Bay. The third group are problems related to policy that are associated with land and water spatial planning. The fourth group are problems associated with the local community that include low environmental awareness, lack of community involvement in environmental management and poverty in a significant number of Jakarta Bay residents. The fifth group relates to town facility or infrastructure such as the availability of clean water, electricity, drainage and sanitation facilities. The sixth group are problems related to the limited capacity of government offices in science and technology to address issues such as environmental problems in Jakarta Bay. Except for electricity, other problems have been identified in Chapter 4 (state of Jakarta Bay coast) and Chapter 6 (Jakarta Bay management system).
Main regulations affecting Jakarta Bay
The answers from the respondents on the main regulations affecting management efforts of Jakarta Bay undertaken by each office are diverse. From the 19 respondents, seven did not provide any answer; two answered that there were no particular regulations to specifically manage the bay, while the remaining respondents answered with a variety of regulations ranging from national laws to local regulations. The regulations governed the responsibilities of each office in each jurisdiction in general. This shows that legislation to specifically manage Jakarta Bay is not present, which is consistent with the result of investigations regarding coastal governance in Indonesia (Chapter 5) and the Jakarta Bay management system (Chapter 6). 7.2.4
Programs and funding
Twelve offices claimed they had no program related to the bay. One of them (Coastal Cleanliness Management Unit, Cleanliness Office, Jakarta Province) was a newly-established unit that would have programs specifically for the bay later in 2011. The programs had not started when this field research was conducted. Other programs that have been determined or in the process of implementation are mostly related to the environmental quality of the bay. These include environmental studies (preparation of the North Coast Strategic Plan and preparation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (KLHS) of Jakarta Bay), environmental quality monitoring, inter-sectoral coordination efforts to tackle pollution and garbage, a yearly program to clean Jakarta Bay beach and spreading awareness to clean Ciliwung River. Non-environmental programs include spatial planning, technical and non-technical assistance for fishers, building communal houses, establishing tourist destinations and tourism events and heritage preservation. Funding sources are mostly from provincial budgets with a small proportion from the national budget. 7.2.5
Obstacles in program implementation
All of the identified obstacles encountered in implementing programs are associated with governance issues, which include policy, management and stakeholders. The obstacles are as follows:
Policies and regulations are incomplete frameworks in terms of hierarchy and coverage. For example, Law 32/2009 on environmental management requires government to develop an environmental strategic study (KLHS) while the derived regulations of technical guidance
have not been established with regards to reclamation program policy and regulation on ownership of reclaimed areas, the absence of regulation to manage industrial waste in an integrated manner especially as the bay receives industrial waste from municipalities in the hinterland
Little awareness by the industrial sector of the need to comply with regulations
Inconsistency in executing regulations; the government has a wide tolerance with regards to prosecuting industries
Limited funding and inflexible funding mechanisms o
Programs need to be implemented even though they cannot be funded. This leads to areas seeking cooperation from the private sector which has its own difficulties. This circumstance often leads to program terminations
Budget is not managed in an integrated manner, hindering the implementation of programs that involve several sectoral offices
Annual budgeting scheme incapable of handling urgent circumstances
Lack of coordination between government offices
Limited institutional and man power capacity
Limited data on garbage at the bay
Unclear shoreline of Jakarta Bay
Land ownership status
Problems with land acquisition along the shoreline due to the need of the embankment to protect settlements from erosion and tide flooding
High number of Jakarta Bay stakeholders that cause competitive use of the area and generate conflict
Low community awareness regarding garbage and domestic waste
Low community awareness regarding the environment and regulations in general.
Obstacles from other sectors
When implementing programs, obstacles arise from other government sectors or come from the governmental system itself (for example a rigid management system). The obstacles include:
A provincial government claimed that central government forced it to conduct one particular action related to the bay while the regulation on the action was not established
A provincial government claimed that Jakarta Bay stakeholders at a national level showed limited support regarding environmental pollution control in the bay 168
A sectoral office at municipal level claimed that to manage the bay, central government should coordinate the relevant stakeholders and also provide funding
A sectoral office at municipal level considered that other government offices poorly educate the community on managing garbage and domestic wate
Coordination is difficult to perform – coordinating measures were agreed in inter-sectoral meetings, but did not occur at implementation
The absence of integrated and sustainable management of Jakarta Bay that binds all stakeholders
The absence of a coastal spatial plan
Complex regulatory framework
Rigid management system
Procurement mechanism that is time consuming
Political issues in determining budget
The absence of integrated planning between relevant offices to establish city infrastructures.
Efforts to address the obstacles
The respondents claimed that inter-sectoral and inter-level coordinating measures are important to address the obstacles stated above. They claimed that they initiated the effort but found it difficult to continue. 7.2.8
Vision for the future
Regardless of the environmental and governance problems occurring in the bay, the respondents show a high expectation for Jakarta Bay’s state in the future. In addressing the previous questions, respondents stated that inter-sectoral, inter-level and inter-spatial coordination is difficult to perform and an integrated program is absent, however, the respondents have visions that in the future Jakarta Bay can be managed in an integrated as well as sustainable manner. This indicates that respondents realise the importance of integrated management and sustainable approach, and the need for the approach to be adopted when managing Jakarta Bay. The vision from respondents can be concluded as follows, ‘Jakarta Bay has a decent environmental condition that makes the area a comfortable place to live for all citizens, has a convenient atmosphere for tourist destinations, supports the development of aquaculture, is managed in an integrated and sustainable manner, and has integrated planning with the inland.’
Proposed inter-sectoral management mechanism
Suggestions on inter-sectoral management arrangements vary, which include: 1. Establishing an autonomous agency to specifically manage the bay 2. Establishing an agency to develop the blueprint of Jakarta Bay development that involves all stakeholders, including the private sector and the community 3. Establishing a board to manage the bay in an integrated and sustainable manner, the main task of the board would be to control waste and garbage from the hinterland. Acting as the coordinator could be:
Central government because it oversees the three provinces: Banten, Jakarta and West Java, or
Coordination at the provincial level which could be managed by the local government secretary or governor assistant. In this case, Bappeda (local planning board) also needs to be involved
4. A coordinating mechanism which involves sectoral offices and stakeholders from the three provinces. The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries also need to be involved as the regulator. 7.2.10 Main points of the survey result The survey profile of the Jakarta Bay management system is quite negative. The survey shows that management faces various problems in the areas of environment, policy, management, stakeholders, infrastructure and technology. Problems also arise in implementing policy and regulation enforcement as other sectors and the government system itself can create problems. All identified problems, including environmental (as in Table 7.3), can be linked to governance issues. For example, garbage issues are the result of inadequate regulation, regulation enforcement, infrastructure and educational measures; all governance related. It can be stated that the management system of Jakarta Bay experiences considerable governance issues in terms of policy, the management system and stakeholders (Table 7.4).
Survey result of identified problems faced by the management of Jakarta Bay Policy
In-comprehensive policy framework Management Absence of coastal spatial plan Absence of integrated planning Absence of integrated management Absence of sustainable management approach Inconsistency in executing regulations Regulation enforcement Institutional arrangement to manage the bay Lack of inter-level coordination Lack of inter-sectoral coordination Prioritising in government programs Complex regulatory framework Rigid management system Political issue in determining budget Limited funding Sectoral budgeting, with no integrated financial planning Inflexible funding mechanism Limited institutional capacity Limited technical capacity Limited data Availability of infrastructure Land acquisition for public use Land ownership status Stakeholders Conflict between coastal users Limited community involvement Low compliance of industrial to the regulations Low community awareness on domestic waste Low community awareness on garbage Low community awareness regarding regulations Stakeholders (cont.) Low environmental awareness among community Poverty
The survey shows that the Jakarta Bay management system consists of a sectoral management approach with no specific program to manage the bay as one entity, no integrated management system and a lack of inter-level and inter-sectoral coordination. The sectoral management approach is consistent with the findings of documents discussed in Chapter 6. Sectoral wise, the policy to govern the bay is not a comprehensive framework, and some of the required regulations are not in place. These include the absence of spatial planning of coastal areas and integrated planning to manage the bay. The sectoral offices experience limited institutional, technical and financial capacity. The bigger system where Jakarta Bay management sits contains complex regulatory framework, rigid management systems and inflexible funding mechanisms. Political 171
issues in determining budget also occur, as well as regulation enforcement and inconsistency in executing regulations. In terms of stakeholders, the coastal community has limited awareness of regulations, garbage, domestic waste, environmental quality in general and limited involvement in the management system. The industrial sector shows low compliance to regulations and conflict between coastal users. These are governance problems faced by the management system of Jakarta Bay. On the other hand, several positive aspects should be noted. The respondents realise that the management system needs approaches such as inter-level and inter-sectoral coordination and sustainable coastal development. The respondents also express that the management system needs to be equipped with a coastal spatial plan, and integrated planning and management approaches. This implies that according to the respondents, the management system is insufficient to manage the bay effectively and some measures need to be taken. 7.3
Accomplishments of the Jakarta Bay management practice from an ICM perspective
This section presents the results of the survey using Likert scale questions, as well as interview results. It examines Jakarta Bay management accomplishments from an ICM perspective,. 7.3.1
As stated in Chapter 6, there is no specific policy addressing Jakarta Bay in the development plans of the three provinces. There is also no specific integrated program to manage activities in Jakarta Bay. The Cleanliness Office of Jakarta Province has a specific unit to manage garbage in the coastal area of Jakarta and in the islands of Kepulauan Seribu. However, the office has no integrated program with other sectors. The sectoral offices manage their activities in their jurisdictional area regardless of coastal or inland areas. Statements from government officers from various sectoral offices strengthen this fact. A staff member from the Environmental Management Agency of the Jakarta Province stated that specific policy regarding the Jakarta Bay management system is not present (Interviewee 4, 2010). Other government officers confirmed that their offices had no specific integrated plan for managing Jakarta Bay (Interviewee 6, 2011; Interviewee 9, 2011; Interviewee 11, 2011; Interviewee 12, 2011; Interviewee 13, 2011; Interviewee 19, 2011; Interviewee 32, 2011; Interviewee 34, 2011). There is also no institutionalised coordinating mechanism, confirmed by the above officers and others (Interviewee 27, 2011; Interviewee 33, 2011).
Adoption of ICM actions
The absence of an integrated program is confirmed by the survey results. Self-assessment of actions regarding the management measures of Jakarta Bay had been requested of selected government offices through a questionnaire which consisted of 15 questions (see Table 7.5 and Table 7.6) and each question related to an action that had been undertaken by the offices or actions currently in process regarding Jakarta Bay management. The evaluated actions were programs in 2010 to the first quarter of 2011. The questions were derived from ICM actions in the ICM cycle. The government representatives were requested to self-assess each evaluated aspect (or each question) using six qualitative values (see Figure 7.1). In processing the questionnaires, the answers were calculated in percentages (see Table 7.5). To be able to compare the accomplishment of one action to another, scores were multiplied: the value of ‘completed’ is scored 5; therefore, it was multiplied by 5, ‘in significant progress’ by 4, ‘underway but impeded’ by 3, ‘attempted but stopped’ by 2, ‘initiated’ by 1 and ‘not established’ by 0. The result is shown in Table 7.6. The highest score per evaluated action is 5 and the lowest is 0. The score 5 means that the evaluated action (for example, the assessment of the environmental issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done) was completed by all government offices. The score 0 means that none of the government offices did the evaluated action. In total, the highest score was 75 (15 questions times 5) and the smallest was 0. A total score of 75 means all respondents completed all the evaluated actions. This means an integrated program for Jakarta Bay is present, equipped with an institutionalised coordinating mechanism, sustainable financial arrangement and stakeholder involvement. A score of 0 means none of the government offices did the evaluated action. Table 7.5 shows that the highest average percentage per accomplishment is ‘not established’ (48.42%). This suggests that most offices did not do the evaluated actions. ‘Dissemination of information about the Jakarta Bay management program to the community at the bay regularly’, ‘Establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism’, ‘Establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism for Jakarta Bay’ and ‘Adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in the local government development plan’ are the least accomplished actions. The majority of respondents, 58%, evaluate their offices as ‘not established’ in each action. The establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism and the establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism are the manifestations of horizontal and vertical integration.
This implies that the integration for managing the bay is not in place for the time being. The average accomplishment for all actions is shown in Figure 7.2. Qualitative value
Completed In significant progress Underway but impeded Attempted but stopped Initiated Not established
5 4 3 2 1 0
Individual Score per action 0 5
Interpretation None of the government offices do the action All government offices complete the action
Total score 0 75
Interpretation None of the government offices do the action All government offices complete all actions
Figure 7.1 Value, score and interpretation 48.42% 50% 40% 21.40%
30% 20% 10% 0%
In Underway Attempted significant but but stopped progress impeded
Figure 7.2 Accomplishment of respondents concerning Jakarta Bay management actions
Table 7.6 shows that the most completed action was assessment of environmental issues of Jakarta Bay, and the implications for those management measures which needed to be implemented. This action score was 2.05 out of 5. It does not achieve the highest score (5), but it is relatively high compared to other scores. Identifying environmental issues is the earliest step in an ICM cycle, suggesting that the respondents realise that environmental issues exist in Jakarta 174
Bay and need to be addressed by management measures. The action done the least is the adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in the local government development plan, which scores 1.05. This suggests that at this stage a specific plan regarding Jakarta Bay management is not considered important enough to adopt into the local development plan. The total score is 22.74. This figure is far below the highest total score, 75, indicating that most actions have not been done. This suggests that respondents’ involvement in managing the bay in an integrated manner is limited and the integrated management plan and actions for Jakarta Bay are not a primary concern for the related offices based on the program in 2010 and the first quarter of 2011. 7.4
Management framework from an ICM perspective
This section provides the step two result of the second pathway in field research (Chapter 2), which aims to examine the management system of Jakarta Bay based on ICM principles. The conduct of sectoral offices to employ inter-sectoral, inter-level and inter-spatial integration, integration of science into management, and an adaptive management approach are examined. Some results of step one are also incorporated into the findings of step two and are as follows. 7.4.1
The main principle of ICM is integration—between different level of governments (vertical integration), between sectors (horizontal integration), and policy, spatial, science and management and stakeholders integration. The management system of Jakarta Bay is analysed in relation to the integration principles. In addition, the management system is also analysed against adaptive management principles. The source of information is government officers in national and regional levels, a former minister of a related ministry and several representatives from NGOs. The method of collecting the information was through interviews. The results are presented below.
Result of self-assessment on Jakarta Bay management measure by government representatives in a percentage
Underway but impeded
Attempted but stopped
In significant progress
Assessment of the environmental issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Regular environmental quality monitoring
Development of the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plans
Adoption of sustainable development principles as the goal for the Jakarta Bay strategic plan Assessment of the social issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Involvement of relevant private sector, residents, NGOs and scientists in developing Jakarta Bay strategic plan Implementation of the Jakarta Bay action plan Involvement of other relevant government sectors in developing the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plan Assessment of the institutional issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Dissemination of information about the Jakarta Bay management program to the community at the bay regularly Regular social condition monitoring
Establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for managing the bay
Establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism
Establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism for Jakarta Bay
Adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in local government development plan
Average percentage per accomplishment
5 6 7 8 9 10
Result of self-assessment on Jakarta Bay management measure by government representatives in score
Attempted but stopped
Total score per action
Underway but impeded
In significant progress
Assessment of the environmental issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Regular environmental quality monitoring
Development of the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plans
Adoption of sustainable development principles as the goal for the Jakarta Bay strategic plan Assessment of the social issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Involvement of relevant private sector, residents, NGOs and scientists in developing the Jakarta Bay strategic plan Implementation of the Jakarta Bay action plan Involvement of other relevant government sectors in developing the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plan Assessment of the institutional issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Dissemination of information about the Jakarta Bay management program to the community at the bay regularly Regular social condition monitoring
Establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for managing the bay
Establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism
Establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism for Jakarta Bay
Adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in the local government development plan
Total score per value
5 6 7 8 9 10
The government at ministerial level perceived that cooperation with the regional government in managing coastal areas experienced disharmony. The officers considered that the regional government set inadequate priorities regarding coastal management (Interviewee 2, 2010; Interviewee 24, 2011; Interviewee 26, 2011). This was assessed in relation to the effort of regional governments to implement Law 27/2007 and to meet the environmental quality standards for coastal waters. The officers considered that the regional governments avoided complying with the standards. The problem not only occurs in managing Jakarta Bay but also in other coastal areas across the country. They also perceived that the parliaments’ concern for coastal management was inadequate. The inadequacy implied sustainable coastal development was not a priority within regional governments. One office at the provincial level experienced a similar problem. The officer perceived that cooperation with central government in managing Jakarta Bay coast was impeded. The officer stated that in the case of the reclamation program, the ministry imposed its interests on the provincial government while the provincial government had different interests (Interviewee 32, 2011). Although this was expressed by only one respondent, it shows that working with other government levels is not always cooperative. Inter-sectoral integration also experienced problems that occurred at the central and regional level. This was confirmed by several government officers at national and regional level (Interviewee 2, 2010; Interviewee 14, 2011; Interviewee 22, 2011; Interviewee 23, 2011; Interviewee 24, 2011; Interviewee 25, 2011). The overarching reason that generated the lack of horizontal cooperation was associated with sectoral interests and orientation. There was a perception within government officers that the sector that established a policy was the only sector responsible for implementing programs derived from that policy (Interviewee 2, 2010). This makes inter-sectoral program implementation challenging - it also led to ineffective programs and funding, as different sectors may have had similar programs in the same area (Interviewee 18, 2011; Interviewee 22, 2011). The exercise of inter-sectoral cooperation may need to be distinguished from inter-sectoral intervention. In the case of pollution, the unclear definition creates problems. The Industrial Office claimed that the Environmental Agency was involved too much in governing industries, and was unsuccessful at mitigating pollution levels generated by industries (Interviewee 14, 2011). Spatial integration is a clear and present issue in managing Jakarta Bay. Most environmental problems in Jakarta Bay are originally from the hinterland. The pollution in the bay not only
indicates that an unsustainable development approach is employed in the region, but also shows that the problems are the result of collective conduct. In this case, the integration is degrading the environmental quality of the bay. Consequently, the municipalities and the provinces in the region need to be integrated in addressing the problems. However, spatial integration in addressing problems in Jakarta Bay was not present at the time (Interviewee 1, 2010; Interviewee 3, 2010; Interviewee 7, 2011; Interviewee 19, 2011; Interviewee 20, 2011; Interviewee 26, 2011). Numerous rivers end in Jakarta Bay and transport pollution from the hinterland. The watershed areas of the rivers encompass three provinces. Managing Jakarta Bay in an integrated manner is not possible without the involvement of the three provinces, and is particularly difficult when each municipality refuses to take responsibility if other municipalities do nothing (Interviewee 7, 2011). Integrating science into management is challenging. Currently, there are minimal links between scientists and the government. Several organisations have studied coastal resources and management for scientific reasons but with no link to implementation (Interviewee 24, 2011). Several scientists have assisted the government in addressing coastal problems, but they served as individuals. Interviewee 24 (2011) perceived that the involvement would be more effective if scientists worked as a team or in institutions with links to management. Inter-sectoral and inter-level cooperation in managing Jakarta Bay is not fully harmonious. In working together, there are some obstacles which include the difference in prioritising interests between different levels of government and between sectors. Sectoral orientation is one of the causes of the difference in prioritising issues. Obstacles also occur due to a lack of clarity in the definition of cooperation and intervention. However, the disharmony is not caused by disintegration. Problems stated by government officers indicate a lack of connection, instead of disintegration. Problems in Jakarta Bay cannot be addressed by a sectoral approach. Inter-sectoral, inter-level and territory cooperation is a necessity. To achieve cooperation, there must be an inter-sectoral and inter-level connection. One connecting factor would be sharing the same vision to address problems in Jakarta Bay. To be able to share the same vision, inter-sectoral and inter-level communication is a must. Communication can be achieved by establishing a coordinating mechanism. The levels of concern regarding environmental protection and sustainable development within different levels of government are diverse. During field research, officers from the ministerial level
consistently showed interest in the ideas. However, the same concern cannot consistently be seen among regional government staff. This indicates that the ideas have not been fully understood in regional governments. Correspondently, a person from an NGO evaluated that the central government made intense efforts to conduct sustainable coastal development but this only occurred at the level of thinkers or policy makers, and had not yet occurred in regional governments (Interviewee 5, 2010). 7.4.2
To implement ICM requires an adaptive management, in which an iterative approach of ‘plan, implement, assess and re-do’ can be employed. Implementing this approach can be difficult in the Indonesian governmental system as the bureaucratic culture in Indonesia contains a rigid system that emphasises fulfilling procedure instead of target-oriented projects (Interviewee 32, 2011). An interruption (assess and then re-do adaptive management) in a process of program implementation cannot always be accommodated as it is different to the standard procedure. An ICM program needs to recognise and anticipate this culture. 7.5
Jakarta Bay and ICM principles
Table 7.7 summarises the examination of the Jakarta Bay management system from an ICM perspective. It can be seen that the system contains disadvantages for employing an ICM approach. In spite of this, it is possible to manage Jakarta Bay in an integrated manner but this needs a significant effort to create the enabling condition. Nonetheless, it can be seen that an ICM effort would force the management system to shift into a more effective way. Table 7.7
Comparison of ICM principles and Jakarta Bay context
Vertical and horizontal integration Spatial integration
Sectoral approach with insufficient inter-sectoral and inter-level connection Policy to manage the Jakarta Metropolitan Area as one entity is present, but it does not focus on addressing problem in Jakarta Bay Policy to establish inter-regional cooperation (Government regulation 50/2007) is present Inadequate effort to integrate science into management
Science-management integration Stakeholders involvement Policy integration Adaptive management
Limited stakeholders participation Sectoral policy, some policies overlap while some form incomplete framework Integrated policy addressing problems in Jakarta Bay is not present Rigid management system
ICM Principles Effective governance Institutional arrangements Coordinating mechanism Two ways approach Capacity development Financial arrangements Monitoring and evaluation Education outreach Communication
Jakarta Bay Overlap policies and job descriptions No specific institutional arrangement in addressing problems in Jakarta Bay Absence of institutionalised coordinating mechanism Top-down approach in a decentralised system A significant issue for managing Jakarta Bay in integrated manner Sectoral financial arrangement, no integrated financial arrangement for Jakarta Bay Inadequate monitoring and evaluation measure Inadequate educational measure Insufficient inter-sectoral and inter-level communication measure
Jakarta and Sanur
This section provides a comparison of circumstances in Sanur and Jakarta Bay. The Sanur program provides lessons for an effective ICM program in the Indonesian context. The enabling factors exist and the program produces effective results. Even though Sanur and Jakarta are located in Indonesia, to directly take the successful elements of the Sanur program and adopt those elements for the Jakarta Bay context is not an effective approach. The enabling factors of the Sanur program need to be analysed against the Jakarta Bay context so that they can be crafted to meet Jakarta Bay needs. The main lesson from the Sanur case is the importance of nesting the program into the unique context of the area. This approach allows the program to be accepted by stakeholders and generates support and involvement from them. Stakeholders’ support is an essential factor in an ICM initiative. Another important lesson is the presence of the political will of the mayor. A similar commitment occurred in the Xiamen ICM initiative in China, which was also successful. The leaders established a strong political will for the program. Biliana and Knecht (1998, p. 121) state that ‘ultimately, the decision to put an ICM program in place will depend on the political will of the decision makers’ (p. 121). As shown in the Sanur and Xiamen programs, it is impossible to execute an ICM program without the strength of political will from decision makers. Another lesson shown in the Sanur program is recognising the sector which generates income for the area. This is an effective approach as the sector is also used as part of the vehicle to program achievement. The contributing elements extracted from the Sanur ICM program are analysed and compared against the Jakarta Bay situation as shown in Table 7.8. The purpose of the comparison is to
discover similarities between the two circumstances and to examine how the enabling factors in the Sanur ICM can be adopted in the Jakarta Bay management program. Table 7.8
Comparison of the enabling factors in Sanur and Jakarta Bay Enabling factors
Ethnic group composition Customary village and leadership Obedience stance towards leaders Influential belief of a particular religion Political will of leaders towards sustainable coastal development Call for sustainable coastal development in local development plans Involvement of stakeholders in managing coastal area Main financial earning source in coastal area Main role of private sector in coastal before ICM is employed Area behind coastline (2010) Population (2010) Population density
Mostly Balinese Present and strongly applied Strong Hinduism Strong
Diverse Not present
Tourism Financial source, contribute to the environmental degradation 127.78 km2 788,445 people 6,171 people/km2
Industry, other services Financial source, contribute to the environmental degradation 6,406.03 km2 * 27,929,447 people * 4,360 people/km2
Individual lifestyle Diverse Inadequate
* = Jakarta Metropolitan Area, consists of 13 municipalities in three provinces
The comparison shows that Jakarta Bay has different social, cultural, political and economic contexts. Using ethnicity or religion as an approach might not be effective in Jakarta Bay. In fact, it might create problems as tension over ethnic groups and beliefs has occurred before. The current absence of adequate political will from the leaders to address problems in Jakarta Bay in an integrated manner and to employ sustainable coastal development needs to be seriously addressed. This will be the foundation to employing an ICM approach. Jakarta Bay must find a way to address the unfavourable situation. Similarly, stakeholders’ participation in Jakarta Bay is currently in a poor state. The Jakarta Bay ICM program should find a way to address this problem. The area behind the Jakarta Bay coastline is vast and the population that inhabit the area is numerous. The area called the Jakarta Metropolitan Area covers the watershed in which the rivers run through and end in Jakarta Bay. The area is approximately 50 times the size of Denpasar City and the population of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area is about 35 times that of Denpasar City. Therefore, it is challenging to set boundaries to make the ICM exercise in Jakarta Bay manageable. As for the private sector, the main activity in Sanur is tourism, while in Jakarta Bay it is industry and services. What can be adopted from Sanur is to employ the industrial and
service sectors as main stakeholders and use them as a vehicle to achieve the program objectives. The comparison suggests that to directly take the successful elements of Sanur and adopt them to the Jakarta Bay situation is not an effective approach. Important steps here are recognising Jakarta Bay’s circumstances, nesting the main findings from Sanur into them and designing an ICM program that will be suitable to the uniqueness of Jakarta Bay. 7.7
Family planning program: A lesson of public attitude changing
A family planning program is not related to the ICM concept. The examination of the program presented in this section is made in order to recognise that Indonesia was once successful at significantly shifting public attitudes. It is beneficial to learn how the shifting can occur and bring these lessons to ICM implementation. The unsustainable development that is carried out by the government and environmentally unfriendly attitudes such as throwing out garbage and disposing of domestic waste into rivers within the community need to be changed. Therefore, it is useful to study the family planning program and comprehend the key mechanism for change. The family planning program in Indonesia is an outstanding achievement. The program primarily aims to control population growth. However, in the process of completing the objective, several impressive attainments were achieved. The most impressive is the successful shifting of the societal paradigm from considering having a large number of children as an asset to the idea that having two children is enough. Indonesian people traditionally believed having a large number of children meant prosperity, but nowadays having a small family is the accepted norm. This transformation in belief is remarkable and is on a nationwide scale. The issue that triggered the family planning program was the overpopulated Java and Bali islands. The population of the two islands was denser compared to others. At the time, the islands, which comprised about 7% of the Indonesian land mass, were inhabited by 85 million of the 135 million population of Indonesia (Hull, Hull, & Singarimbun, 1977, p. 1) or approximately 63%. The Dutch colonial administration promoted an island to island migration (known as transmigration) policy to address the problem, as did the first Indonesian president, Soekarno (Singarimbun, 1968, pp. 48-49). Soeharto, the second president, at first also advocated transmigration; however, later on, he established a family planning program to address the problem. Initially, only a small group identified the need for family planning (Hull et al., 1977, p. 1).
The group sent some experts and advisers to convince Soeharto, who was then influenced of the need for controlling population growth (A. Hayes, Lewis, & Vogel, 2003, p. 3) and pledged strong commitment towards the idea. With strong presidential support, the family planning program was launched in 1970 with the establishment of the Indonesia National Family Planning Coordinating Board (BKKBN). The board was independent of any cabinet ministry, reported directly to the president (Curtin, Johnson, Kantner, & Papilaya, 1992, p. v) and acted as a coordinating agency (A. Hayes et al., 2003, p. 3). USAID supported the program and became the only donor at its early stage (Curtin et al., 1992, p. vi). However, the presidential support was subsequently translated into substantial internal funding where budget allocation for the program steadily increased. By 1976, internal funding became the majority of the program funds and in 1992 provided more than 70% of the total program cost (Curtin et al., 1992, p. viii). The program achieved impressive success from 1970 to 1995 (A. C. Hayes, 2010, p. 3) and was recognised domestically as well as internationally as a successful initiative (A. Hayes et al., 2003, p. 3). The program helped lower fertility levels. The average number of children expected in a woman’s lifetime or the total fertility rate (TFR) decreased from 5.6 in 1965 to 1970 to 2.28 in 2007 (Bello, 2011). Other achievements of the family planning program include improvement of the health of mothers and their children, supporting lower maternal and infant mortality, empowering many women and couples to take more control of their lives and contributing to the success of the government’s macroeconomic development plans (A. Hayes et al., 2003, pp. 2-3). From a managerial aspect, the program also succeeded at shifting the top-down approach into a bottom-up movement and turned the program into a mass movement (Bello, 2011). The achievements were attained through commitment, determination, a long process, hard work and financial support. Hayes (2010) and Curtin (1992) identify the ingredients of success as comprising program factors, non-program factors and organisational strengths. Program factors include developing policy and strategic planning, establishing a coordinating agency, providing adequate resources, allowing creative leadership, providing adequate information, education and communication, establishing vast outreach and fieldworkers and involving religious leaders. Nonprogram factors include sustainable political commitment, political stability, socio-economic development, demand for fertility control and cohesive village structure.
The case of the family planning program in Indonesia highlights three issues. First, the society is able to change their values and beliefs. Although the values have been rooted in society and were believed for a long time, when confronted with better options, people were open to the new concept and changed their way of thinking. Of course, the process is not simple. In the case of family planning, the change involves education, outreach, hard work and prolonged time. However, the case certainly indicates that changing long-established values is possible. Second, the case also shows that if leaders believe in one idea and establish strong political will and commitment to embody the idea, then it is successfully implemented. In this case, the belief, will and commitment were translated into effective programs and were supported by sustainable resources. Establishment of an independent organisation as a coordinating agency is part of the program and plays an important role in realising the idea. These factors are the key to the success of shifting the mindset. Third, it shows that the Indonesian government is capable of initiating a bottom-up approach. The family planning program was at first a government initiative but then developed into a mass movement. The program engaged with the community in every village in the country. A large corps of fieldworkers from the community were established in every village (A. Hayes et al., 2003) and were highly motivated (Bello, 2011). What can be learnt from the family planning program when employing an ICM approach? Several points need to be underlined. First, a trigger to conduct population control is recognised. Second, an initiator is present. At the beginning, only a small group of people realise the importance of population control. This group becomes the initiators of the program. Third, an entry point is chosen. The initiator takes the president as the entry point to the government. The president is then convinced by the experts and advisers on the importance of the idea. Fourth, strong political will is committed. The convinced president pledges strong commitment towards the idea and is followed by establishing policy and management frameworks. These include developing policy and strategic planning, establishing a coordinating agency, providing adequate resources, allowing creative leadership, providing adequate information, education and communication, establishing vast outreach involving fieldworkers and religious leaders. In this case, the centralistic top-down governmental approach opens up to community involvement and allows the bottom-up manner. This is part of the management framework that contributed to the success of the program.
Integration in ICM includes several aspects. The integration principles are the expression of the need to establish the relationship between issues and sectoral offices and between environment and development. An examination of the Jakarta Bay management system in regards to the integration principles shows that the management system experiences a lack of inter-level and inter-sectoral connection. Inter-territory cooperation is currently also a problem. In addressing problems in Jakarta Bay; inter-level, inter-sectoral and inter-territory cooperation is a necessity. It is possible to employ an integrated approach in Jakarta Bay; however, the lack of connection is a significant hurdle that needs addressing, as well as other disadvantageous features to employ ICM that present in the current management system.
Chapter 8 An integrated management framework for Jakarta Bay: a recommendation 8.1
This chapter attempts to provide a model of ICM for Jakarta Bay. The examination of the state of Jakarta Bay in Chapter 4 shows that the environmental quality of the bay is poor and some problems related to the stakeholders of Jakarta Bay exist. The examination of the coastal governance in Indonesia in Chapter 5 and the management system of Jakarta Bay in Chapter 6 shows issues related to policies and management frameworks. The analysis of the Jakarta Bay management system against ICM principles in Chapter 7 shows that amongst other problems, there is a problem with inter-sectoral and inter-level connection. The environmental and governance issues could be addressed by developing a more integrated management scheme that is focused on more sustainable development. The underlying assumption of the model is that ICM is an effective approach to addressing such complicated issues and facilitating a shift to a more sustainable coastal development. 8.2
Contributing elements to an effective ICM program
A number of factors contribute to an effective ICM program. Vertical and horizontal integration, stakeholders’ participation and policy framework are some of these factors. It is essential to develop an ICM program based on previous successful ICM programs. New ICM initiatives should be built upon existing experiences to avoid ineffective approaches and to adapt successful ones (Olsen et al., 1998, p. 612). In adapting the successful approaches, findings must be tailored to make them relevant to the issues at hand and to the unique situation of the area (Christie, 2005, p. 227; Cicin-Sain & Knecht, 1998, p. 121). The findings from previous ICM practices cannot simply be imitated, but need to be adapted to the circumstances of the area where the program will be implemented. The Sanur and Xiamen ICM programs show several enabling factors that contributed to the success of both programs. Those factors include:
Nesting the program in a socio-cultural and economic context
Political will from the mayor
Continuous commitment of the mayors
Vertical and horizontal integration
Adequate commitment from the local government
Incorporating some plans of the program into the city development plan
Adequate law enforcement
The presence of visible economic returns.
Understanding the principles of ICM and the features of Jakarta Bay (management system, socio, economic, cultural aspects), the next step is to tailor the enabling factors to fit the characteristics of Jakarta Bay and to address the problems of the bay. 8.3
The enabling factors of the family planning program in Indonesia
Some lessons can be learnt from the family planning program and brought into the development of the Jakarta Bay ICM framework. The program successfully undertook policy intervention, employed a two-track approach and shifted the mindset of the government and the people of Indonesia. An ICM initiative also needs to shift government and people’s mindsets and requires policy intervention and a two-track approach. The enabling factors of the family planning program are as follows:
The trigger to conduct the population control is recognised.
An initiator is present, which is a small group of people who realise the importance of population control.
An entry point to the government of Indonesia is determined, which is the president. The president is then convinced by the experts and advisers of the importance of the idea.
Strong political will is committed. The convinced president pledges strong commitment towards the idea.
Related policy is established, includes strategic planning.
A management framework is established, includes a coordinating agency.
Adequate resources are provided. The financial source first is from the donor, but later is supported by an internal budget.
Creative leadership is allowed. This means providing space for the management framework to carry out duties instead of employing a rigid management approach.
Adequate information, education and communication are provided.
Vast outreach and fieldworkers are established.
Religious leaders are involved.
It is worthwhile to learn the enabling factors of the program. One aspect to remember is that the enabling factors fit the circumstances of Indonesia at the time, but do not necessarily fit the circumstances of Jakarta Bay now. Therefore, again, to adopt the factors it is necessary to fit them to the unique situation of Jakarta Bay. 8.4
Development of an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay
The process of developing an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay follows steps or actions in an ICM cycle. An ICM initiative process is represented by a cyclical approach (GESAMP, 1996, p. 6). One cycle comprises several inter-connected steps and each step contains a series of actions (Olsen, 2003b, p. 356). This model adopts actions in the ICM cycle (Olsen, 2003b, p. 359) and is presented as follows:
Identification of the principal environmental, social and governance issues
Identification of the major stakeholders and their interests
Selection of the issues upon which the ICM initiative will focus its efforts
Definition of the goals of the ICM initiative
Defining boundaries of the areas to be managed
Definition of the management plan.
The actions are described step by step in the following sections. 8.4.1
Identification of environmental, social and governance issues
Due to the large size of the area (water and terrestrial), the high population and intense utilisation of land and water resources, the Jakarta Bay area is facing various environmental and social issues. These issues are complex and interrelated. The identified issues are listed in Table 8.1. The process of identification is based on an examination of the government structure of Jakarta Bay as outlined in Chapter 5 and the state of Jakarta Bay as reviewed in Chapter 7. An
examination of the state of Jakarta Bay against ICM principles is also listed in the table under the heading of ‘governance issues’ in Table 8.1. Table 8.1
Identified environmental, social and governance issues in Jakarta Bay Environmental issues
Environmental quality Habitat degradation: Clearing of mangroves Smothering of mangroves by garbage Degrading quality of corals as a result of previous unsustainable practices Smothering of corals by garbage Over-exploitation: Fish Groundwater Water quality: Pooling of garbage High concentration of heavy metals High concentration of pesticides High concentration of nutrients Environmental health and disaster: Unhealthy fish and mussels Mass death of fish Subsidence Coastal flooding Coastal and marine use Conservation and economic activities: Coastline preservation and settlement Use conflicts: Static fishing/farming and navigation Fishing and tourism Fishers access and private-owned land Other: Illegal settlements Slum areas Traffic congestion Social issues
Reclamation Access to the sea for fishers Limited fishing capacity of fishers Limited farming capacity of mussel farmers Governance issues
Policy framework: Overlapping policies Incomplete policy framework Absence of regional coastal and marine policy (as required by law 27/2007) Absence of an integrated coastal strategic plan Insubstantial vulnerability and resilience thinking Management framework: Sectoral approach with no institutionalised coordinating mechanism Problems in vertical and horizontal connection Top-down approach in decentralisation system Rigid management system
Limited stakeholder participation Insubstantial political will towards sustainable development ‘Development first, clean up later’ attitude Inadequate concern for the ecosystem Inadequate concern for integrating science into management Inadequate institutional capacity in coastal management Limited financial capacity Insubstantial environmental quality control Inadequate environmental regulation enforcement Insubstantial environmental education Inadequate monitoring and evaluation measures Stakeholders: Limited stakeholders’ participation Littering attitude among some public Untreated industrial waste disposal Unsustainable fishing and sea-farming Inadequate understanding of values of natural resources Insubstantial awareness of sustainable coastal development Inadequate understanding of environmental quality
The list above shows that the problems experienced in the bay area are various and complex. In the following section, the primary issues are grouped and reviewed to identify the origin of problems and the related governmental problems. 8.4.2
Primary environmental, social and governance issues
The identified environmental and social issues of the bay can be grouped into seven main categories (in no particular order): (1) pollution, (2) flooding, (3) subsidence, (4) reclamation, (5) spatial use, (6) sustainability of the livelihood of fishers, (7) sustainability of the livelihood of mussel farmers as shown in Table 8.2. Every category of environmental and social issue relates to governance matters (listed in the last column of the table) that consist of policy and management aspects. Each group of issues, including policy and management, is discussed in the following sections. 126.96.36.199
Pollution is a serious and the most noticeable issue in Jakarta Bay. Pollution occurs on land and in the sea. Garbage is a critical source of pollution, along with nutrients, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. The sources of pollution are domestic, industrial and agricultural wastes. The sources are from the hinterland, the coast and from the sea. Pollutants from inland are transported by waterways and run off. Some evidence that pollutants are carried by rivers from inland include a large bundle of fresh water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) along with
garbage being found in the Seribu Islands (Willoughby, 1986, p. 158), trace metals concentrated in water within a proximity of 5 km from the shoreline, a higher concentration of heavy metals (Arifin, 2008, pp. 214-215) and a higher concentration of total organochlorins (Munawir, 2005, p. 20) around the estuaries. There is also evidence that waste is generated in Kepulauan Seribu (Willoughby, 1986, p. 158) and from ships, as ships often discharge garbage and oil directly into surrounding water (Interviewee 27, 2011). 188.8.131.52
Flooding is a long-standing issue in Jakarta and causes significant loss. Jakarta is a low-lying area, therefore geographically prone to flooding. The source of flooding is from the sea (tides), upstream rivers and heavy rainfall. The magnitude of flooding is aggravated by subsidence, swift run off, ineffective retention of ponds and poor drainage systems (Siregar et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2011, p. 902). Economic losses due to flooding are significantly high, particularly in Jakarta Bay. The most important loss is the reduction of confidence from investors as flooding is frequent and repeatedly generates economic effects (Untung, 2013). Flooding also costs lives and generates health problems. 184.108.40.206
Subsidence in Jakarta shows a discrepancy attributed to location and time. In general, from 1982 to 2010 the observed subsidence rates were approximately 1 to 15 cm/year with a projected maximum of 20 to 28 cm/year in particular locations (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1758). The observed rate of subsidence in Jakarta Bay is considered the highest compared to other places in Jakarta. Several factors are associated with triggering the subsidence. They are excessive groundwater extraction (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759), the load of buildings (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759; Delinom et al., 2009, p. 3140; Hutasoit & Pindratno, 2004, p. 144) and the natural compaction of alluvium soil (Abidin et al., 2011, p. 1759). With the current rate of subsidence and no measures currently taken, North Jakarta will most likely be inundated worse each year.
Links of issues and its related concern Issue
Area of concern Garbage
Related governance issues
Accumulation of garbage Large population Littering attitude among some public Illegal dumping of garbage from ships Inadequate concern of environmental quality among stakeholders Untreated sewage waste disposal Absence of proper sewerage or septic tank Inadequate concern for environmental quality among stakeholders Untreated industrial waste disposal Limited capacity of home or small-scale industries
Smothering of mangroves by garbage Smothering of corals by garbage Decreasing capacity of rivers and drainage system Flooding Boat propeller damage
Absence of penalties for random waste disposal Inadequate domestic solid waste regulation Limited capacity of related authorities Lack of environmental education
Eutrophication Mass death of fish Threat to fishers livelihood Threat to mussel farmers livelihood
Unhealthy fish and mussels Health risk for human Threat to fishers’ livelihood Threat to mussel farmers’ livelihood
Untreated agricultural waste disposal Limited capacity of smallscale agricultural industries
Unhealthy fish and mussels Health risk for humans Threat to fishers’ livelihood Threat to mussel farmers’ livelihood
Absence of penalties for improper household sewage facility Inadequate sewage management Limited capacity of related authorities Lack of environmental education Interagency conflicts ‘Development first, clean up later’ approach Absence of penalties for illegal industrial waste disposal Weak monitoring and controlling measures Absence of penalties for illegal agricultural waste disposal Weak monitoring and controlling measures Insubstantial environmental regulation enforcement
Area of concern
Flooding from sea
Flooding from rivers
Clearing green areas in hinterland Accumulation of garbage Inadequate capacity of rivers and canals Inadequate capacity of drainage system Illegal settlement in riverbanks Clearing green areas in hinterland Large built area Swift run off Inadequate capacity of rivers and canals Illegal settlement on river banks Inadequate capacity of drainage system Inadequate capacity of dams Illegal settlement in the area of dams
Flooding from rainfall
Clearing of mangroves Sand mining Erosion Subsidence Inadequate dikes
Related governance issues
Traffic congestion Health risk Mortality Economic loss
Traffic congestion Health risk Mortality Economic loss
Absence of integrated water management measures Late regulation to ban sand and coral reef mining and mangrove clearing Limited vulnerability and resilience thinking Limited capacity of related authorities Absence of integrated water management measures Limited capacity of related authorities
Traffic congestion Health risk Mortality Economic loss
Absence of integrated water management measures Limited capacity of related authorities
Area of concern
Social and environmental issues of the implemented and future plan of reclamation Conflict between coastline preservation and settlement Conflict between mussel farming and navigation Conflict between fishing and tourism Conflict between fishers access and private-owned land Access to the sea for
Sustainable livelihood of fishers
Sustainable livelihood of mussel farmers
Related governance issues
Over-exploitation of groundwater Overload of building Natural compaction of alluvial soil Limited capacity of piped water supply The need for land Lack of ecosystem consideration Lack of comprehensive plan Absence of zoning regulation
Absence of recharge groundwater depletion measures Insubstantial environmental quality control and environment regulation enforcement
Mangrove clearing High level of subsidence in reclaimed areas Retention from community Economic loss
Lack of ecosystem consideration Lack of comprehensive plan
Unhealthy fish Fail to obtain fish Economic loss
Limited capacity development of fishers
Harmful mussel Economic loss
Limited capacity development of mussel farmers
Absence of zoning regulation
fishers Limited boat capacity Polluted water Harmful weather Coastal use conflict Polluted water Coastal use conflict
The reclamation program in Jakarta Bay is a controversial issue that has been discussed since the 1980s. The government’s vision behind the idea is to make Jakarta similar to other worldclass cities by developing a waterfront coastal area. The idea to reclaim coastal areas arose around 1983 to 1984 during the development of the Jakarta spatial plan of 1985 to 2005. It became official in 1995 after the enactment of Presidential Decree 52/1995 regarding reclamation of the north coast of Jakarta. Since then it has been adopted in Jakarta spatial plans. The program has received substantial rejection from Jakarta’s communities. The program is said to ignore several important effects, including social and environmental issues. The program has been the subject of lawsuits in the courts for a long time between the Ministry of Environment and the government of the Jakarta Province and its counterparts. Some issues in dispute by the Ministry are the ecosystem sustainability of Jakarta Bay and the origin of materials used for reclamation. 220.127.116.11
Several conflicts occur in the use of the land and water of Jakarta Bay. These include conflicts between coastline preservation and settlement, mussel farming and navigation, fishing and tourism and conflicts between fishers’ access and private-owned land. Many constructions, housing or other, are built adjacent to the coastline. In some areas of Cilincing, housing and water are bordered by dikes. This creates vulnerability to flood from tides. Static farming and fishing equipment obstruct vessel traffic in the area. This situation leads to static farming and a fishing ban by the government and threatens the livelihood of the farmers and fishers. Fishers also experience conflict regarding coastal use. Some private companies forbid the fishers to access the coastal water at the front of private-owned lands. 18.104.22.168
Sustainable livelihood of fishers
Fishers currently face several problems and some threaten the sustainability of their occupation. These include pollution, limited boat capacity, limited capital and extreme weather. Pollution that occurs in Jakarta Bay creates difficulties for traditional fishers to obtain fish. Pollution often causes fish and mussels in the coastal water to die and result in declining fish numbers at less than 9 km from the coastline. In late 2010, the fishers failed to sail for four months due to water that was heavily polluted. Many boats of fishers have a capacity that is not allowed to sail farther
than 9 km. The scarcity of fish is not only caused by pollution—larger capacity boats and trawlers are also fishing in Jakarta Bay and generate unfair competition to obtain fish with traditional fishers. Another problem faced by the fishers is extreme weather. In early 2011, the Indonesian government stated that nearly half a million fishers in 41 municipalities of 20 provinces failed to sail due to extreme weather, including fishers in Jakarta Bay. 22.214.171.124
Sustainable livelihood of mussel farmers
Green-mussel farming started to operate in Jakarta Bay in the late 1970s and experienced a boom in the early 1980s. The method used is static farming using rafts made from bamboo that are placed in the water. The farmers face issues that threaten their occupation sustainability, including contamination effects on mussels and conflicts with other marine users. Pollution in the bay affects the mussel farming directly and indirectly. The direct effects are causing dead mussels and contamination of mussel products. The mussels contain significant levels of heavy metals and show organ abnormalities and malformations. The indirect effect is the farming ban by the government. The reasons for the ban are that the mussels pose health issues to consumers and that the farming equipment obstructs vessel traffic in the area. During field research in 2010 to 2011, mussel farming equipment still existed in the area. 126.96.36.199
The environmental and social problems in Jakarta Bay in some way are related to policy issues. They are connected to regulations that were enacted too late (such as sand mining regulation), poor enforcement of available regulations, (such as for pollution control), and the absence of certain regulations, (such as addressing groundwater depletion). Some policies overlap and some are incomplete regulatory frameworks. Among the issues, policy enforcement is the foremost critical issue. Many policies and regulations exist but their objectives were not achieved satisfactorily. An ICM program, conversely, needs adequate policy enforcement. 188.8.131.52
Regarding the management framework, the bay also faces several problems. The problems include the lack of connection horizontally and vertically, insufficient action towards environmental quality and sustainable development principles, the absence of an integrated management plan for the bay, the rigid approach that focuses on procedural fulfilment instead of target achievement
and poor environmental education or awareness. These problems can become obstructions when employing an ICM approach. 8.4.3
Primary stakeholders and their roles
Stakeholders’ participation is essential to the ICM process. It is the way to achieve integration and one of the keys for achieving sustainability. The first step towards participation is identification of the primary stakeholders. The purpose of identification is to discover the entities that are directly or indirectly affected by the use or exploitation of coastal resources. This section focuses on identifying the primary stakeholders and their role in contributing to the management framework of the Jakarta Bay ICM initiative. The main stakeholders are governments, the community, NGOs, academics and private sectors. Governments include the governments at national, provincial and municipal levels and the parliaments at provincial and municipal levels. Industry, small and big scale, is another stakeholder. In general, industry is identified as the private sector. The list of stakeholders and the related roles are identified and shown in Table 8.3. Table 8.3
List of stakeholders and their roles in the proposed Jakarta Bay management framework Stakeholders
DPRD (regional parliament)
1.Ministry of Marine
Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) 2.Ministry of Environment (MoE) 3.Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) 4.National Planning Agency (NPA) 5.Ministry of Public Work (MPW)
1.Province of Banten 2.Province of Jakarta 3.Province of West Java 4.Tangerang Regency 5.Bekasi Regency 6.Other municipalities in JMA
To develop policy and coordination guidance To strengthen related institutional capacities and stakeholders
To provide technical assistance To invest in facilities supporting coastal strategy implementation
To provide financial support To establish regional and international cooperation
To establish a coordinating mechanism To apply political pressure to the local
governments to implement sustainable coastal development To adopt sustainable coastal development as the basis for development policy To facilitate the provision of local budgets to implement coastal management programs To promote policy to integrate environmental protection policies in economic development To facilitate the development of local regulations for sustainable coastal management efforts To support the strengthening of coastal institutions
1.Banten 2.Jakarta 3.West Java
To develop a strategic plan to manage coastal
1.Tangerang Regency 2.North Jakarta 3.Bekasi Regency 4.Others in Jakarta Metropolitan Area
areas effectively, along with zoning plan and action plan To develop the institutional framework needed to implement the strategic plan, zoning plan and action plan To strengthen related institutional capacities and stakeholders To provide financial support To establish a monitoring and evaluation system to measure the success of strategy implementation To implement a strategic, zoning and action plan To identify environmental investment opportunities in the form of public-private partnerships To mobilise local stakeholders in implementing the action plan To strengthen related institutional capacities and stakeholders To mobilise local stakeholders to participate actively in the implementation of management programs To identify the opportunities for economic growth and to integrate environmental aspects in the development programs To participate in the development and the implementation of strategic and action plans To ensure the rights of local communities are protected and preserved To participate in policy enforcement To participate in the development and the implementation of strategic and action plans To promote a social contract between the authority and the community To monitor the process of program implementation To participate in policy enforcement To promote the rights of marginalised groups and the local community To promote community empowerment To participate in the development of strategic and action plans To work together, as development partners, in coastal management program implementation To identify and develop investment opportunities related to a coastal management program
To participate in the development of strategic and action plans
To provide technical and non-technical
expertise and scientific input in the policy making process To conduct required research to fill the research gap To assist the strengthening process of the local capacity
The stakeholders within the government are at national, provincial and municipal levels. This includes the DPRD at provincial and municipal level. At the national level, at least five ministries are involved. The MMAF is involved because of its authority to govern coastal areas. The authority includes controlling development and maintaining the coastal environment. The MoE is involved because of its responsibility for controlling the quality of the environment in general. The MHA should be involved for two reasons. First, it is the inline ministry of the local governments. Second, the local governments, as representatives of the ministry, most likely comply with MHA directions. The MHA is expected to apply political pressure to the local governments to comply with the Jakarta Bay management framework, regardless of the source of the management policy. This is an important element in a top-down approach in the decentralised system and a method to strengthen inter-sectoral connection. The NPA or Bappenas is involved because of its responsibility to manage national planning. Jakarta Bay and the Jakarta Metropolitan Area are strategic regions for the nation. Decisions from the NPA will profoundly affect the region. The MPW involvement is related to civil work, policy and the enforcement of spatial plans. The other main stakeholders within the government are the DPRD (regional parliament) at provincial and municipal levels. The DPRD holds the responsibility to approve development plans, to legalise and issue regulations, to determine financial arrangements and to monitor the implementation of legislation. These functions are relevant to the management framework to facilitate the governance process. It is essential for an ICM initiative that the full range of policies, plans, institutions and budgets address the issues affecting coastal areas. The provincial and municipal governments are the executive. They are the institutions that directly govern local people. They should understand the majority of issues that occur in Jakarta Bay and have the authority to direct the sectoral offices and technical institutions and to mobilise the public. The effective entity to represent the local government in the ICM management unit is the
secretary of the local government or sekda, because all government working units are responsible to the head of the regional government (governor or mayor or regent) through the sekda. Technically, the sekda is an entity who ‘marks’ the working units’ performance. This makes the sekda a respected entity within a local government. An ICM initiative should take advantage of this opportunity to attain an effective management framework. The community and private sector are categorised as non-government stakeholders. The government is the authority that governs coastal areas as well as users. Conversely, the community and private sector are the users. Involving both parties is important to promote sustainable coastal use and to strengthen the bottom-up culture. As the users, they need to understand that the coastal area is common property and that its resources need to be shared and used wisely. NGOs are other stakeholders that need to be involved in the ICM process. As non-governmental entities, NGOs are expected to represent the people’s interests. In the Jakarta Metropolitan Area context, besides representing the general people, NGOs are often identified as the representative of marginalised groups. It should be noted that the government does not believe that all NGOs represent the genuine interests of the people. It is understood that NGOs have their own agenda, which is acceptable as long as it does not compromise the ICM program. Academics are stakeholders that are expected to provide technical and non-technical expertise and scientific input in the policy making process, to conduct required research to fill the data or knowledge gap and to assist the strengthening process of local capacity. Academics or research centres within universities in Indonesia should be considered neutral ground. Their judgement should mainly be based on science. 8.4.4
The next step in the ICM process is issues prioritisation. This ICM framework focuses on the most important and the solvable issues. Chua (1998, p. 607) suggests that to undertake too many issues at the same time is a frequent mistake in an ICM initiative and Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 135) suggest an approach of ‘starting small if necessary’. However, it is difficult to apply a ‘starting small’ approach in Jakarta Bay. Physically, the bay is a large area, holds a large population, has an intensive and problematic utilisation of land and water resources, has 16 waterway (rivers and canal) mouths and the rivers are running through a vast area. The issues
faced by the bay are various and complex. It is exaggerated by the fact that the source of the issues are mostly from the hinterland. Tackling the issues needs actions from stakeholders from the hinterland to the seawater of the bay. It is difficult to start small. In addition, the various and complex issues make it difficult to sort the level of its urgency. This makes selecting the most important and the solvable issues to focus on challenging. Even though it is challenging to prioritise the issues, to produce an effective ICM initiative, a selection process is necessary. In this framework, a scoring method is applied. A similar approach has been done in prioritising issues for development of the Strategic Environmental Management Plan 2005-2020 of Province of Batangas, the Philippines (see Provincial Government of Batangas, 2007, pp. 11-23). In this framework, the criteria of selection are based on the level of hazard of the issue and the level of loss that is posed by the issue. The level of hazard consists of mortality and health threats; the level of loss is represented by economic and environmental quality loss. The approach of selection utilises a scoring method. Score 1 is given to the issue that has a significant level of hazard and loss, while score 0 is given to the opposite situation. The scores in every issue are added. The highest total score among all issues is interpreted as the issue that poses the highest level of hazard and loss. Table 8.4 shows the result. Based on the criteria, the prioritised issues are: (1) pollution and (2) flooding. Table 8.4
Scoring process of issues in Jakarta Bay
Environmental quality loss
1 2 3 4
Pollution Flooding Subsidence Reclamation Land and coastal use conflict Sustainable livelihood of fishers Sustainable livelihood of mussel farmers
0 1 0 0
1 1 0 0
1 1 1 0
1 0 0 1
3 3 1 1
5 6 7
Pollution poses a health hazard to the community. The quality of Jakarta Bay water is heavily polluted and produces unhealthy aquatic biota. Green mussels are an important example. The mussels produced from the area contain a high concentration of heavy metals, and the community consumes these mussels. In the long term, the diet will produce a significant health threat to the community. The quality of water is also associated with the declining number and a
reduction in fish sizes. Therefore, pollution threatens economic loss for fishers and farmers. Further, pollution also brings degradation of environmental quality. Floods are a life threatening issue. According to the National Disaster Management Agency, the number of deaths in the 2013 flood in Jakarta was 20 and the number of evacuees was 33,502. The most extensive flooded area is North Jakarta (National Disaster Management Agency, 2013). During the previous large flood in 2007, the number of deaths was 80 and the number of evacuees was approximately 320,000 (National Disaster Management Agency in Melisa, 2013). Floods also pose a health threat. The water flushes everything, including animal waste. This is a threat to health particularly to flood victims. Further, as the area contains an international port, industries and service providers, flooding also brings economic loss. 8.5
Vision, goals and objectives
The initiative must establish a vision, goals and objectives. The vision is to provide direction of the ICM process in the long term. The important aspect is that the vision should be a shared value between the stakeholders to provide the same platform in starting the initiative. Establishment of goals and objectives should aim to achieve the target of an ICM program in a shorter time. This recommendation is assumed as the first generation of ICM, and further visions, goals and objectives can be developed in the next cycle. The vision of the initiative is: ‘A Jakarta Bay that has an unpolluted environment, and is able to support the livelihood of its community and keep them safe from flood risks’. The goals of the initiative are:
to achieve an accepted balance between development and environmental protection
to achieve a healthy environment
to achieve an environment safe from flood through sustainable development and implementation of an ICM effort.
This model of the ICM framework has the following objectives:
to strengthen multi-stakeholder participation by establishing institutional mechanisms that will encourage mobilisation and capacity building of communities, organisations and government offices in the sustainable integrated management of the bay and its region
to improve the management of domestic, industrial and agricultural wastes, therefore minimising pollution effects on the bay and other water bodies in the region
to improve the management of water, water bodies and drainage systems, therefore mitigating the flood hazard.
To address both pollution and flooding it is necessary to start from upstream. It is a waste of effort to address the problems in the bay area if the sources of the problems are unaddressed. The water bodies that end in Jakarta Bay run through the Jakarta Metropolitan Area; therefore, to address the problems one needs to encompass this area. The three provinces and the 13 municipalities need to work together in this matter. It is an immense challenge to manage a vast area. Two approaches can be employed: breaking the plan and program into stages, and sharing the responsibility within the provinces and municipalities. Sharing responsibilities was the approach employed in the Sanur ICM program. Denpasar City is a part of the Southern Coast of Bali ICM initiative. The city addresses beach and sea problems that administratively fall into its jurisdiction and addresses solid waste and sewage problems together with neighbourhood municipalities. The same scheme is adopted here. Each municipality addresses problems related to pollution and flooding in the area that administratively fall into its jurisdiction and works with neighbouring municipalities addressing trans-boundary problems. What ICM does is integrate the three provinces and the 13 municipalities to address the two issues. Further, this approach provides benefits not only for the Jakarta Bay coastal area, but also for the inland area of the three provinces. In addition to the above point, the authorities of Jakarta Bay need to start thinking big in addressing problems in Jakarta Bay and avoid the tyranny of small decisions. Jakarta Bay suffers from fragmentation between sectors and levels of government and unsustainability. An ICM initiative offers a more effective approach addressing the problems, even though the initiative requires a considerable effort. The scope of the Jakarta Bay ICM initiative, therefore, is the Jakarta Metropolitan Area and 12 nautical miles to the sea from the coastline. The proximity seaward follows the territorial extent of a province based on Law 27/2007 regarding coastal management and Law 26/2007 regarding spatial plans.
Required measures to address the main issues
Two main issues are linked to several aspects as the causes or origins of problems (see Table 8.2). To address the two main issues, the contributing aspects also need addressing. The required measures have been identified as well as the type of the action, as shown in Table 8.5. Table 8.5
Contributing aspects of pollution and flooding, the required and the type of measures
Contributing aspects of issue
Required actions or approaches
Accumulation of garbage Littering attitude among some public Illegal dumping of garbage from ships
Untreated sewage waste disposal
Absence of proper sewerage or septic tanks
Untreated industrial waste disposal
Limited capacity of home or small-scale industries
Untreated agricultural waste disposal
Limited capacity of small-scale agricultural industries
Inadequate concern for environmental quality among stakeholders Inadequate domestic solid waste regulation Limited capacity of related authorities for managing solid waste Inadequate of sewage management
Pollution Provision of garbage disposal facilities Wise garbage disposal education Penalties for random waste disposal Wastes monitoring and controlling mechanism Provision of sewage disposal facilities Penalties for random sewage disposal Sewage disposal monitoring and controlling mechanism Provision of sewage disposal facilities Provision of communal sewage disposal facilities for certain areas Penalties for random sewage disposal Sewage monitoring and controlling mechanism Industrial waste disposal facilities Penalties for random industrial waste disposal Industrial wastes monitoring and controlling mechanism Provision of communal industrial waste treatment plant Industrial wastes monitoring and controlling mechanism Agricultural waste disposal facilities Penalties for random agricultural waste disposal Agricultural wastes monitoring and controlling mechanism Provision of communal agricultural waste treatment plant Agricultural wastes monitoring and controlling mechanism Public education regarding the environment
Proper domestic solid waste management regulation Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing solid waste Proper sewage management regulation
Type of action I E P P I P P I I P P I P P
I P I P P
I P E P TA P
Contributing aspects of issue Limited capacity of related authorities for managing sewage Interagency conflicts ‘Development first, clean up later’ approach Weak industrial wastes monitoring and controlling measures Insubstantial environmental regulation enforcement Weak agricultural wastes monitoring and controlling measures Subsidence
Inadequacy of dikes Clearing green areas in the hinterland Inadequate capacity of rivers and canals Inadequate capacity of drainage systems Illegal settlement in riverbanks Swift run off Inadequate capacity of dams Illegal settlement in the area of dams Absence of integrated water management measures Limited vulnerability and resilience thinking Limited capacity of related authorities
Required actions or approaches
Type of action
Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing sewage Communication Educational measures for related government offices Proper industrial wastes management monitoring and controlling measures Institutional strengthening of enforcer authorities Proper agricultural wastes management monitoring and controlling measures Flooding Groundwater recharge scheme Improvement of piped water supply coverage Improvement of dike Revegetation of areas as required by the development plan of each province Normalisation of water bodies
Proper maintenance of drainage system Provision of garbage disposal facilities Wise garbage disposal education Resettlement Proper maintenance of drainage system Proper maintenance of dams Resettlement Provision of integrated water management measures Educational measures for related government offices Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing water
TA TA TA P TA P
P I I P I I I E I I I I P TA TA
Explanation of symbols for the type of action: E : Public education I : Infrastructure or infrastructure related P : Policy, regulation, direction or guidance TA : Technical assistance
Numerous actions are needed to address the two issues. These include providing a policy and regulatory framework, building and maintaining infrastructure, providing technical assistance, and educational measures. Approximately 40% of the required actions are related to policy and regulatory frameworks and about 35% are related to infrastructure. To carry out these actions, a program needs to be developed. The program would involve a significant amount of work from every level of government and various government offices. It represents the situation that there is no simple approach to address un-sustainability.
The local government at provincial and municipal level and related government offices are the executing units of the program. The related government offices include public works, cleanliness, agricultural, industrial, nexus, forestry and environmental agency. The level of involvement of each office is different depending on responsibilities that fall into each office. The marine affairs and fisheries office is not directly involved in addressing pollution and flooding but has concerns for coastal and marine areas and should also be involved in the program. The governments at provincial and municipal levels share similar responsibilities. However, the scope and intensity of the tasks are different following the government affairs division regulation (Government Regulation 38/2007). The responsibilities are:
to develop a policy and regulatory framework
to develop programs for addressing the two issues
to mobilise the main stakeholders in developing a program
to establish the required institutional framework and coordinating mechanism
to implement policy and action plans
to invest in infrastructure
to strengthen related institutional capacities and stakeholders
to establish a monitoring and evaluation system for measuring the accomplishment of the program
to mobilise local stakeholders in implementing the action plan
to monitor and evaluate the accomplishment of the program.
The parliaments at provincial and municipal level have the following responsibilities:
to adopt sustainable coastal development as the basis for development policy
to promote policy to integrate environmental protection policies in economic development
to facilitate the development of the required policy framework
to support the development of the required program
to support the strengthening of related institutions
to facilitate the provision of local budgets to implement the program.
The national government is involved in establishing regional cooperation and a coordinating mechanism, supporting policy development, strengthening related institutional capacities, providing technical assistance, investing in infrastructure, providing financial support and more
importantly providing political pressure on local governments to implement a sustainable development approach. 8.5.4
The framework of ICM for Jakarta Bay aims to address pollution and flooding by employing ICM approaches. The previous section shows that to address the two issues requires policy framework, infrastructure, public education and technical assistance. What an ICM does is integrate the stakeholders in providing those requirements and addressing the two issues. Figure 8.1 represents the situation of Jakarta Bay from an ICM perspective. It illustrates that an ICM approach is currently unable to work in Jakarta Bay and the opportunities that can be employed to address the two issues and create the enabling factors of an ICM initiative.
Issue Pollution Flooding
ICM approach Vertical & horizontal integration Spatial integration Science management integration Policy integration Two-track approach Adaptive management Stakeholders’ involvement
What currently does not work? Integration Adaptive management Bottom-up approach What are the opportunities? National coastal management policy is present A ministry that is well-respected by the regional governments A well-respected entity at provincial and municipal levels The Jakarta provincial government vision is to develop a world-class waterfront city Some issues have been acknowledged and addressed in local development plans
Figure 8.1 Challenges and opportunities for an ICM approach in Jakarta Bay
In the Sanur and Xiamen cases, the initiator of the ICM programs was an international institution. The institution was PEMSEA and it provided technical and financial assistance. Similarly, the family planning program in Indonesia was initiated by an international institution. Further to having an initiator, the three cases were strongly supported by the political will of the leaders. The leaders were convinced that the programs were necessary and then pledged commitment towards the programs. This is the critical entry point to establishing a program. The decision makers need to be convinced about the importance of the program. In the case of Jakarta Bay, an initiator is not present. It is difficult to set up a new program when the decision makers are not aware of the significance of the program. However, when an initiator is present, the effective entry point to convince the three provincial governments is through the MHA, particularly the Directorate General of Regional Development. Taking an entry point through the MoE is not an effective approach. Even though the two problems that are addressed contain strong environmental concerns, the MoE is not the inline ministry of local governments. In the governmental culture where sectoral orientation is present, an order from the inline ministry is more likely to be followed up by regional governments. This is particularly so for an order that needs profound commitment to implement. Moreover, if the entry point is an environmental institution, it might lead to a perception that development progress is inhibited. This might cause it to be rejected by regional governments. Taking an entry point through the MMAF is also not an effective approach. Even though the concern relates to a coastal area, the MMAF is not the inline ministry of local governments. The MoE and the MMAF are less able to mobilise the three local governments, while the MHA will be able to mobilise the three provincial governments and bridge them with the two ministries and with other ministries that they are required to work with. The Jakarta Provincial Government vision to develop a world-class waterfront city in Jakarta Bay is a possible trigger to initiate an ICM program. The plan for its development has been outlined in the Jakarta Province’s development plan for 2030. It is not a comprehensive plan and needs more development. It also contains environmental and social issues that need addressing. However, the vision can be utilised to improve the state of Jakarta Bay. As many sources of the problems in Jakarta Bay are from upstream areas, the government of the Jakarta Province should work together with neighbouring provinces to address the problems. These problems are complex and difficult to address by a sectoral approach. Therefore, an ICM approach should be employed.
ICM is a governance process where policy framework, management and stakeholders are integrated in addressing the issues faced by coastal areas. An ICM aims to strengthen the building capacity of the coastal governance and to foster its efficiency and effectiveness in order to achieve the sustainable use of coastal resources to address problems at hand. In the case of Jakarta Bay, the aspect of governance (policy framework, management system and stakeholders) is wide, as it needs the involvement of the upstream area and the related authorities. In the following sections, the governance arrangement is reviewed in each component: policy arrangement, management framework that includes the establishment of a coordinating mechanism, and stakeholder involvement arrangements. 184.108.40.206
The arrangement of policy aims to accommodate policy integration for addressing pollution and flooding problems. The underlying approach is that sustainable development is not merely the combination of sustainable sectoral development. This is because each sector independently considers its sole sector interest and may possibly disregard the issues of other sectors and that their internal issues can affect other sectors. Policy integration is not about combining sectoral policy, but affected sectors need to recognise the problems as common and address them synergistically. One aspect that needs to be recognised by the involved authorities is that policy arrangement in an ICM initiative creates policy intervention. With this understanding, focus only on sectoral policy can be avoided. Policy integration also seeks consistency in national and local government policies and the national and local development plans. It is more effective that the required policy and regulatory framework is adopted in the national and local development plans. In the case of the Sanur ICM program, the adoption occurred. In the current spatial and development plans of the three provinces, the issues have been recognised. This can be the base that is followed up in future plans. Further, the national law of coastal management is present. The policy framework to address pollution and flooding can be complementary to the four plans (strategic, zoning, management and action plan) required by Law 27/2007. It will be effective to establish the four plans to address pollution and flooding, as well as other problems in the bay that need addressing in the next generation of the ICM cycle.
Table 8.6 shows the authorities that are responsible for carrying out the required actions for addressing pollution and flooding problems. Approximately 40% of the required actions are related to sectoral policy. Policies to address pollution and flooding are present but they need to be elaborated and enabled to be implemented. What the ICM approach does in this regard is avoid a fragmented policy, establish an integrated policy and ensure that sectoral interests are not adversely affecting other stakeholders. The executing guidance of policy, a policy for monitoring and controlling measures and for penalties regarding the offense of random disposal of garbage, sewage, agricultural and industrial waste is also needed. More importantly, an enforcement mechanism needs to be established following the policies’ establishment. Table 8.6
Authorities responsible for the required actions
Agricultural waste monitoring and controlling measures Penalties for random agricultural waste disposal Agricultural waste disposal facilities Provision of communal agricultural waste treatment plant Educational measures to address the ‘Development first, clean up later’ approach Penalties for random sewage disposal Sewage disposal monitoring and controlling measures Provision of integrated water management measures to address flooding Provision of sewage disposal facilities Provision of communal sewage disposal facilities for certain areas Improvement of piped water supply coverage Improvement of dikes Normalisation of water bodies Proper maintenance of drainage systems Proper maintenance of dams Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing sewage Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing water Educational measures to address the ‘Development first, clean up later’ approach Educational measures regarding vulnerability and resilience thinking Industrial wastes monitoring and controlling measures Penalties for random industrial waste disposal Industrial waste disposal facilities Provision of communal industrial waste treatment plant Educational measures for related government offices to address the ‘Development first, clean up later’ approach Penalties for random solid waste disposal Solid waste monitoring and controlling measures
P P I I TA P P P I I I I I I I TA TA TA TA P P I I TA P P
Provision of garbage disposal facilities Institutional strengthening of related authorities for managing 5 Environmental Agency 6 Forestry 7
solid waste Wise garbage disposal education Public education regarding the environment Groundwater recharge scheme Institutional strengthening of enforcer authorities Wise garbage disposal education Public education regarding the environment Re-vegetation of areas as required by the development plan of each province Resettlement
Explanation of symbols for the type of action: E : Public education P : Policy, regulation, direction or guidance
I TA E E P TA E E P I
: Infrastructure or infrastructure related : Technical assistance
The regulation regarding water quality management and water pollution control already exists (Government Regulation 82/2001). The regulation contains aspects of water management, water quality monitoring and control of water pollution. The regulation is accompanied by water quality standards that contain the threshold of various water parameters including sewage, agricultural and industrial wastewater. The regulation also contains a supervision aspect and sanction for violations. However, the method for carrying out supervision and sanctions are not yet clear and need technical instructions for implementation. The responsibility for implementation of the regulation falls to local governments, namely the environmental agencies. How the agency is able to monitor the implementation of the regulation by other sectors also needs to be clarified. The policy for addressing random garbage disposal needs to be arranged. Law 18/2008 on waste management prohibits disposing garbage randomly. This is a general setting that needs to be followed by technical guidance to implement. Provision of this guidance cannot be separated from the provision of community education. In addition, the policy regarding integrated water management to address flooding needs to be arranged. The responsibility to manage water and related infrastructure is held by the public works offices. However, the flood problems are associated with solid waste management and illegal settlement problems; therefore, this is a cross-sectoral issue that needs integrated policy to address. 220.127.116.11
A management framework should be in place to implement an ICM program in Jakarta Bay. The management framework includes an institutional arrangement, a coordinating mechanism, plans and programs, personnel and funding arrangements. The responsibility does not necessarily
need to be carried out by a new agency that is established to take over responsibilities from the inline government offices. Instead, it develops upon existing management structures but is integrated through a coordinating mechanism. The management framework consists of the representative of the governor offices, related government offices as identified in Table 8.6 and the representative of other stakeholders. This is a huge team as it involves three provinces and eight municipalities (the five municipalities in Jakarta Province are not included as they are administrative authorities).The secretary of the local government, sekda, is the best constituent to represent the governor office. The sekda can also bridge an effective communication between the ministerial level and the regional offices. In a big team, the members must be aware of internal ineffective communication. Therefore, communication measures must be a part of the management. Besides, communication barriers commonly occur between different levels of government and sectors, and also between law enforcers, scientists and the public. Adequate communication addresses the lack of inter-sectoral and inter-level connection and connects other stakeholders. Further, communication along with education is an important exercise to build the same vision and platform among stakeholders in the initial phase of the ICM process. This in particular would make stakeholders understand that the tangible result of an ICM initiative will not occur in a short time. The involvement of ministerial offices is needed. The MHA is the right entity to mobilise the three provincial governments and establish regional cooperation, develop policy and coordination guidance and establish a coordinating mechanism. Other ministries, the MMAF, MoE, MPW, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Forestry and Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructures support capacity development, provide technical assistance, provide financial support and invest in facilities needed to address the problems. 18.104.22.168
Coordinating force and mechanism
The institutional arrangement of the Jakarta Bay ICM program employs the existing sectoral offices to address the problems; therefore, it needs a coordinating measure. An effective manner to manifest coordination is through a task force that is structurally placed at the provincial level. The task force is institutionalised, consists of the representative of the related authorities and is equipped with a mechanism to conduct coordination. If the tasks are imposed on a representative of a local inline agency, most probably the tasks will be executed as part of its everyday function
and it will be difficult to oversee the tasks involving various sectors and levels. Placing the coordinating force at the ministerial level is not an effective approach, even though the suggested entity to mobilise the three provincial governments is at the ministerial level. The scope of a ministry is too wide to oversee day-to-day work in government offices down to the municipal level. The functions of a coordinating force are to promote and strengthen inter-level and inter-sectoral cooperation, mitigate inter-sectoral conflict, lessen overlapping and duplication of sectoral functions, provide stakeholders’ consultation, monitor and evaluate the progress of program implementation and incorporate the results from evaluation into operation. More importantly, the coordinating force can facilitate the adaptive management approach. Several important steps need to be carried out in establishing the coordinating force: formalisation of the task force, establishing a clear job description and establishing the coordinating mechanism. To formalise the task force is important to make the coordinating force hold appropriate legislative authority. To establish a clear job description and to clearly define the coordinating mechanism it is also important to avoid misunderstandings, such as interpreting cooperation as intervention. At the initial phase, the coordinating force consists of the ministerial representatives, sekdas from the three provinces and the eight municipalities and the representative of stakeholders. This is a big team where ineffective coordination may occur. An approach from the Xiamen ICM program can be adopted regarding the team members. At the initial phase, the members of the coordinating agency were big. After the program settled, in the next phase the members were reduced to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency (Chua, 2008, p. 93). In the initial phase, the ministries function was to support policy establishment, to define coordinating mechanism and to conduct the preliminary assessment to address questions such as: who will design, who will implement, who will monitor, who will enforce, whose behaviour needs to be changed and how to enforce the mechanism. Later, the coordinating force consisted of only the sekdas and the stakeholders’ representative. Involvement of the ministries is in the function of cooperation. 22.214.171.124
Another ICM approach that needs to be enabled is the two-way track approach. In Indonesia’s situation, the one that must be strengthened is the bottom-up approach. It is a challenge to build this culture within the community. The social and political contexts are too weak for a participatory approach to formulate and implement a program. It needs educational measures, time and a
process to make the community aware that their active involvement is a benefit for the community itself and the government; it is necessary to realise that the government is not a single actor in the development process. This social and political state should be recognised, as it can potentially slow the progress of the program. The aspect that can trigger stakeholders’ involvement is the potential benefits of the program for the stakeholders. To make them see the potential benefits, they need to be exposed to the idea of an ICM program in Jakarta Bay. The stakeholders need to fully understand the program and its goals. It is ideal if the stakeholders have a shared vision and the same platform to start an ICM journey to minimise conflicts and facilitate effective management measures. To expose the stakeholders to the ICM idea, they should be involved in the ICM process as early as possible. It is important that stakeholders understand the two issues, the origin or contributor of the issues and why addressing the problems requires the involvement of the whole Jakarta Metropolitan Area. In this manner, a feeling of ‘ownership’ regarding the program will occur and generate a conducive atmosphere for change. 126.96.36.199
A model of ICM for Jakarta Bay
This model represents a generic framework for an ICM of Jakarta Bay. The model represents the institutional component of an ICM initiative. To be a complete framework, this model needs to be incorporated with other aspects, such as how to ensure the stakeholders are involved in the initiative, how to utilise the private sector so a ‘dual-coin’ as in the Sanur ICM program can be achieved, and other aspects. These aspects have been discussed in previous sections across the thesis. In this section, the main points of the model are discussed as follows.
The previous sections explained that the initiator and the entry point are essential for initiating an ICM initiative. An effective entry point is the Directorate General of Regional Development from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The next step is to convince the leaders of the three provinces and obtain political will from them through the representative of the Directorate General of Regional Development. This is the critical point of whether an ICM program can be established or not. Nonetheless, at the end, the decision to establish an ICM program is a political one and it needs a measure of political will. At this point, the governors are sufficient, which means the leaders of the municipalities are not required to be involved. This is based on Law 32/2004, regarding regional government, and Government Regulation 19/2010, regarding the authority and duty
of a governor, which state that in the decentralised system, even though each local government is autonomous, a governor still holds the authority to coordinate with municipalities regarding governance process.
When the three governors are convinced that an ICM initiative is important, they will establish a cooperation agreement. Government Regulation 50/2007 regarding regional cooperation and the Ministry of Home Affairs Regulation 22/2009 as its derived regulation guides this effort. The agreement may not only bond the three provinces, but also the related ministries. This is important to secure commitment from the ministries to support the initiative.
A coordinating unit is the first point to be established from the agreement. The coordinating unit consists of the sekdas from the three provinces and eight municipalities, the representative of related ministries (only at the initial phase) and the stakeholder representative. The unit assesses the initial analysis in relation to the essential questions. The questions include the who and how of designing the policy and program, whose behaviour needs to be changed and how, who will implement what, the who and how of monitoring the implementation of programs, and the what and how of enforcing mechanism. More importantly, a coordinating mechanism must be established to ensure the integration approach is maintained. To achieve an effective process, the coordinating unit and the coordinating mechanism are legalised and the coordinating unit is institutionalised.
At the initial phase, a scientific team functions to assist the development of strategic and action plans, to provide technical and non-technical expertise and scientific input in the policy making process. Later it functions to assist the strengthening process of the local capacity.
The management framework may have other stakeholder representatives (beside those in the coordinating unit). The purpose is to strengthen the framework, maintain a two-track approach and assist program implementation and policy enforcement.
From this point, with the cooperation of related entities, the initiative can be carried out to achieve the initiative objectives.
World agency, donor or other entity
Directorate General of Regional Development
GOVERNOR OF THE BANTEN PROVINCE GOVERNOR OF THE JAKARTA PROVINCE
Guided by Gov. Reg. 50/2007
GOVERNOR OF THE WEST JAVA PROVINCE
M I N I S T R I E S
Sekdas of the three provinces Sekdas of the eight municipalities Representatives of residents, NGOs and private sector
Bekasi Regency West Java Province Agricultural Office Agricultural Office Bekasi City Jakarta Province Cleanliness Office Cleanliness Office Agricultural Office Agricultural Office Bogor Regency Banten Province Environmental Agency Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Cleanliness Office Agricultural Office Bogor City Agricultural Office Forestry Office Forestry Office Environmental Agency Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Agricultural Office Cleanliness Office Depok CIty Housing Office HousingOffice Office Forestry Office Forestry Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Environmental Agency Agricultural Office Industrial Office Industrial Office South Tengerang City Housing Office Housing Office Forestry Office Environmental Agency Forestry Office Cleanliness Office Public Work Office Public Work Office Agricultural Office Industrial Office Industrial Office Tengerang City Housing Office Forestry Office Housing Office Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Public Work Office Public Work Office Agricultural Office Industrial Office Tengerang Regency Housing Office Industrial Office Forestry Office Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Public Work Office Agricultural Office Industrial Office Public Work Office Housing Office Forestry Office Environmental Agency Cleanliness Office Public Work Office Industrial Office Housing Office Forestry Office Environmental Agency Public Work Office Industrial Office Housing Office Forestry Office Public Work Office Industrial Office Housing Office Public Work Office Industrial Office
D P R D s
Private sector NGOs Residents
Public Work Office
The pathway of process
Support (the related ministries support policy development, and provide financial and technical assistance; the parliaments support policy development and budget allocation) The management framework
Figure 8.2 A model of ICM for Jakarta Bay
This chapter provided a model of an ICM framework for Jakarta Bay. The framework is a recommendation for the responsible authorities in managing the bay. The current Jakarta Bay and its regional circumstances are not in a ready state to be subjected to an ICM approach. Most of the enabling factors are not present; therefore, it is a massive challenge to employ the approach. Conversely, the bay experiences vast and complex problems. These problems are caused by various activities from many areas. It is difficult to address the problems by employing a single sector approach. Even though it is challenging, the approach offered by the ICM concept offers a more effective way to address the problems. Problems occurring in Jakarta Bay are various. This recommendation is assumed to be the first generation of an ICM cycle. The problems to be addressed are pollution and flooding. In addressing these problems, the area included in the program is vast and the recommended actions are numerous. It is a huge task for the first generation of an ICM cycle. To address this issue, it is recommended to share the responsibility within local governments, develop the program into stages and obtain support from central government. The important aspect is employing the integrated approach. It is challenging to employ an ICM approach in Jakarta Bay. However, there are opportunities that can be used to tackle the challenging situation. The opportunities are the presence of a national law regarding coastal management, the vision of the Jakarta Province government to develop a world-class waterfront city, the presence of respected entities in local governments and the need to address environmental problems in local development plans. These opportunities should be used as the starting points to undertake the ICM journey.
Chapter 9 Discussion and future research 9.1 9.1.1
Discussion Policy to manage Jakarta Bay
The examination of development plans of Jakarta Bay authorities shows that a specific policy to manage the bay as one entity is not present. Correspondingly, the survey results show that the Jakarta Bay management system consists of a sectoral management approach with no specific program to manage the bay as one entity, no integrated management system, and a lack of interlevel and inter-sectoral coordination. The result of the Likert scale inquiry reveals that based on sectoral programs in 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, a specific plan to manage Jakarta Bay was not considered a main issue to adopt in the local development plan, sectoral offices’ involvement in managing the bay in an integrated manner is limited and the integrated management plan and actions for Jakarta Bay are not a primary concern for the related offices. Further, none of the Jakarta Bay authority has developed the four plans as required by Law 27/2007 regarding coastal management. The spatial plans of the Banten Province and West Java Province, on the other hand, provide a foundation to conduct sustainable coastal development. The West Java Province’s long-term development plan has development of the coastal and marine sector as an integrated part of the development of the inland. Jakarta’s spatial plan intends to address some problems in the north coast of Jakarta, such as developing infrastructure for managing water related disasters. All the development plans and spatial plans of the three provinces recognise the problems that occurr in coastal areas and provide the legal foundation to address the problems. These are a foundation to initiate an ICM approach, in which an ICM initiative can use the opportunity to employ integrated management and sustainable coastal development approach. 9.1.2
Coastal policy framework
This study has identified that the structure of coastal policy in Indonesia is currently not a comprehensive framework. Various regulations govern sectoral activities on coastal areas, in which some aspects in the regulations are complementary to others. Four possibilities emerge
from the framework that makes the regulations possible or fail to enforce effectively. The possibilities are: (1) the linkage could occur when the two regulations are present and the linkage is defined. In this case, both regulations are ready to execute, (2) the two regulations are present but the linkage is not defined, (3) the two regulations are present and potentially overlap, or (4) the linkage could not occur when one of the regulations is not present. The example of these occurrences can be seen in Chapter 4, which shows that the coastal policy framework contains gaps or it has overlapping aspects that potentially generate conflicts. To be effectively enforced, the regulations need to present and the linkage needs to be clearly defined. 9.1.3
Indonesia has already had a law that governs the use of coastal areas for sustainable development, Law 27/2007. The law has the principles of ICM such as vertical and horizontal integration and the involvement of stakeholders in managing coastal areas. The law was enacted in 2007, but after almost six years, the coasts of Indonesia and Jakarta Bay in particular, are still inadequately managed. This indicates that effective implementation of the law has not yet taken place. About 33 laws regulate activities in coastal areas and consist of sectoral laws. Law 27/2007 is expected to be the foundation for development in coastal areas where the implementation is complementary to other sectoral regulations. However, this has not yet occurred. Several aspects attributed to Law 27/2007’s poor enforcement; these are discussed in the following sections. A positive aspect regarding the law is the law itself. It shows the will of central government to regulate the use of coastal areas, address coastal problems and implement a sustainable development approach. Conversely, the law is a product of one sector, the MMAF. In a culture where inflexible sectoral orientation is present, claiming the right of a particular law to be implemented by other sectors is challenging. Cases outlined by Interviewee 5 (2010) confirm the presence of inflexible sectoral orientation. Some government officers had the attitude of ‘I implement my program; you implement yours’ while speaking about a similar program in the same area. Another case related to mangrove re-plantation. The source of funding was from one ministry, and the funding was not given to the local forestry office as the office responsible for managing the mangrove forest, but to the inline sectoral office of the source of the fund. These cases show the presence of an inflexible sectoral orientation. This orientation is considered to
play a role in the ineffectiveness of Law 27/2007’s implementation and to hinder the law in governing other regulations regarding activities on coasts. The law is not a complete legislation framework. The law calls for four governmental decrees, six presidential decrees and 11 ministerial decrees. Only six ministerial decrees have been developed. The derived regulations act to clarify features in the law and as technical guidance to implement the law. The absence of the complete derived regulations makes the law difficult to implement effectively and thoroughly. In the case of the undertaking right, the absence of a derived regulation created conflict that meant the articles regarding the right were cancelled. As the result, the cancellation means the utilisation of coastal water for business remains unregulated. Law 27/2007 calls for the four plans: strategic, zoning, management and action plans. Each local government, province and municipality should develop the four plans. The local governments that have developed the plans are limited. Based on information from the MMAF (January 2013), a number of local governments are currently developing the plans, and four local governments have developed the plans and legalised them in local regulations. Those four governments have developed zoning plans and one government has developed a management plan. One regency integrates the land and coast (zoning plan as per Law 27/2007) into one spatial plan (based on Law 26/2007). None of the authorities of Jakarta Bay have developed the plans. Indonesia has 34 provinces and 500 municipalities. All provinces have coastal areas and 319 municipalities (approximately 64%) are coastal municipalities (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2013). If the law is fully implemented, there will be 1,412 documents related to coastal management across the country. The documents currently developed are five, approximately 0.35% of the total. This is a poor achievement. There are several factors associated with this situation, discussed as follows. The first is the indication of limited commitment for a sustainable coastal development. The four plans aim to provide guidance for sustainable coastal development. If the guidance is not developed, how can local governments achieve sustainable coastal development? The second is the compliance of local governments to national law. Less compliance is associated with the ‘excessive democracy’ in the decentralisation era, where the interests of local governments can be different to national priorities. The third is the argument regarding coastal area as not being mainstream in the political dynamics of Indonesia. This is a reason for the lack of commitment
from local governments towards coastal issues, as will be discussed in the following paragraph. The last relates to the limited resources of the local governments. Historically, the development of the marine (including coastal) sector has received little attention from the government. During the Soeharto era, development was conducted in a land-based manner. This attitude is still intact in Indonesian culture, within the government and the public. Awareness of marine development occurred in mid-1980s, a ministry to govern marine affairs was created in 1999 and a law regarding coastal management was enacted in 2007, but the recognition of marine development still needs to be improved. Since marine development has not been an important concern for a long time, in most local election campaigns the subject is currently not an interesting issue (Interviewee 37, 2013). Since the start of the decentralised era, residents directly elect the head of the local government. The candidates campaign before the election to draw the interests of voters. In campaign materials, marine development is rarely treated as an interesting issue. This is because the issue does not attract voters’ attention. If the issue is not important in the campaign, then it is unlikely that the local government will pay sufficient attention to programs of marine development. This is ironic since approximately 64% of municipalities in Indonesia are in coastal areas, which should make marine development an important issue in the development of the region. Regarding the development of the four plans, the MMAF provides assistance for the local governments that need it. According to the MMAF (2013), some local government leaders showed awareness of sustainable coastal development and showed an intention to develop the four plans (Interviewee 37, 2013). The number of these leaders is not clear but the MMAF claims they are limited. Resource limitation, including funding and personnel capacity further hinder the development. To address the problem, the MMAF provides funding and technical assistance for local governments. As the ministry also has limited resources, the assistance is currently provided only to those local governments that have an awareness of coastal and marine issues. In the case of the Jakarta and West Java Provinces, financial limitation is not expected to be a problem as the Jakarta Province achieves the highest GRDP and West Java Province achieves the third highest GRDP in the country (see Chapter 7). Another aspect contributing to the local governments’ poor compliance in implementing the management aspect of Law 27/2007 is the lack of vertical and horizontal connections. According to a staff member from the MMAF (Interviewee 37, 2013), directions from the ministry to local
governments are often not followed up properly. The level of compliance shown by local governments to the MMAF and to the MHA as the inline ministry of local governments is considered not the same. Most of the time, directions from the MMAF have no impact, as proper follow ups are not undertaken. This is exacerbated by the interpretation of the regional autonomy policy by the local governments, where to some extent there is a tendency of local governments to take follow up directions from the central government. 9.1.4
Pro-environmental regulations and enforcement
The enforcement of other regulations, particularly pro-environmental regulations, is a subject that generates concern. Indonesia has a law regarding environmental protection and management (Law 32/2009). Several derived regulations of the law that have specific objectives are also present. These include regulations regarding water pollution control, solid waste management, marine pollution control and seawater quality standards. With the availability of those regulations, the quality of the environment is expected to be conserved and protected. However, in reality, the quality of the Jakarta Bay environment is in a poor state. This indicates that the enforcement of the regulations is insufficient. Poor regulation enforcement is also identified in the case of Jakarta spatial plan policies. The plans could not maintain policies regarding green and catchment areas. In one development plan, RTRW 2010, a large part of green area was removed throughout the province. The prominent reduction was the removal of the protected mangrove forest in Jakarta Bay. The remaining forest is only about one-third of the original coverage in the preceding development plan. Insufficient commitment towards policies is confirmed by some government staff. They stated that spatial plans can be altered during the implementation phase and that developments do not always need to comply with the plan (Interviewee 7, 2011; Interviewee 11, 2011). In the mangrove forest conversion case, the responsible authority in North Jakarta City claimed that the central government did not engage North Jakarta City and Jakarta Provincial governments in the discussion about the plan (Interviewee 11, 2011). The situation and the statements from government officers suggest that the policy is not always binding and that it can be altered without consulting stakeholders, which also means that pro-environmental regulations enforcement is an existent problem in the Indonesian governmental system.
The impact of decentralisation
The decentralised system was enforced after the Soeharto era ended, which created the euphoria of democracy. To some extent the euphoria generates a self-centred attitude in local governments. The authority granted by the system makes local governments place more concern on their own affairs. This increases the conflicts in natural resources utilisation and management between regions. The euphoria of democracy generates interpretations such as a ‘You manage your city, I do mine. If necessary, let us draw boundaries on the sea’ attitude in local governments (Interviewee 2, 2010; Interviewee 5, 2010). The self-centred manner not only occurs within the local governmental bodies. It also occurs in the community and creates conflicts in utilising marine resources (Djafar, 2012 ; Interviewee 5, 2010). The extent of the authority to manage regional marine resources is 12 nautical miles to the open sea or to the archipelagic waters for provinces and one-third of the provincial authority for municipalities. The community perceives this provision as boundaries for fishing, even though the regional autonomy law states that the provision regarding marine border does not apply for smallscale fishers, which means traditional or small-scale fishers can fish in the waters outside their residential location. However, the community perceives the water boundaries as also being boundaries for fishing. The perception creates conflict, such as the fishing ban that passed jurisdictional water boundaries. 9.1.6
Secretary of local government (sekda)
The structure of the Indonesian government is multi-levelled and consists of central, provincial and municipal governments. The principles of autonomy are implemented in the structure. The structure contains the secretary of local governments (both in provincial and municipal levels). A secretary leads the secretariat of local government. In provincial government, the secretary is responsible to the governor and holds the duty and obligation to assist the governor in developing policies and coordinating the local (sectoral) offices and technical institutions. The local offices and technical institutions are responsible to the governor through the secretary. It can be claimed that the secretary is the entity that marks the performance of regional sectoral offices, which means the secretary holds a strategic position. The position can be used as the passage to conduct a coordinating mechanism among sectoral offices. An ICM program needs a coordinating mechanism and the existing structure that consists of a local government secretary can be used.
Jakarta Bay experiences environmental problems. The problems are associated with the management system employed in the area, where integration is an issue. The integration issue includes vertical and horizontal, spatial, science and management, stakeholders and policy integration. Considering the complexity of the problems experienced by Jakarta Bay, the approach contained in the ICM concept is effective to address the complexity. However, to implement an ICM approach in Jakarta Bay is challenging. An ICM approach contains principles such as vertical integration, horizontal integration, spatial integration, science and management integration, stakeholders’ involvement, policy integration, an adaptive management system and a two-track approach. The governance system where Jakarta Bay sits contains inadequate enabling factors to implement the ICM principles. It needs significant effort to generate the factors. Without political will from the leaders and a commitment to provide relevant resources, the factors will not occur. Generating political will is crucial. Some barriers may hinder the leaders to provide the will. One aspect that it is necessary to address is to make the leaders understand that the approach is important and, in the long term, the benefits will be received by the nation itself. According to Article 6 of Law 27/2007 regarding coastal and small islands management, the law calls for an integrated approach in managing coastal and small islands. This includes integration between (1) central and local governments, (2) local governments, (3) sectors, (4) government, private sectors and community, (5) terrestrial and marine ecosystems and (6) science and management principles. The approach is consistent with integration principles of the ICM concept, which means the legal structure to employ ICM is present. Regrettably, the enforcement of the structure has not taken place, which also shows that legislation enforcement is an existent problem in the Indonesian governmental system. ICM is a governance process. Governance consists of policy framework, a management system that comprises institutions, resources and plans and stakeholders. The three components of governance need to work together to achieve the governance objectives. To implement an ICM approach and to facilitate the governance components working together, first and always, integration must occur. Inter-level and inter-sectoral integration should occur to provide the policy integration, followed by a plan and resources arrangement. Without the integration, the
governance components will not be able to work together and achieve the development objectives. An adaptive management system emphasises the iterative approach of ‘plan, implement, assess and re-do’. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that lessons are learnt and that the management system adapts accordingly. This is a challenging method to implement in the Indonesian government system. Regarding time, a working plan in sectoral offices is planned annually. For cases that need immediate response, the current system addresses the cases slower than required. This is because they take a rigid approach and procedural orientation instead of a targeted orientation (Interviewee 32, 2011). In regards to adapting the management system to problems at hand, the structure of the government is not flexible enough to accommodate significant adaptation. A mechanism to address unexpected events is needed. Employing a two-track approach encounters barriers from the government as well as from the community. The social and political contexts are inadequate for a participatory approach. The government is not ready to allow the public to take part in the decision-making process. An example is in the case of RTRW 2030 in the Jakarta Province, where input from the public was not accommodated as a part of the government decision (Gurning, cited in Priliawito & Aquina, 2011b). The public is not yet ready to participate actively in the decision-making process. A small group of communities already have awareness of the importance of participation, as in the case of RTRW 2030. However, most still face obstacles to getting involved. That may be associated with the apathetic behaviour that still resides in some parts of the community. Educational measures, time and processes are needed to make the community aware that their active involvement is a benefit to the community itself. 9.1.8
Addressing problems in Jakarta Bay is not possible without an educational measure. The education is not only conducted to implement an ICM initiative, but is also beneficial for the lives of the people in general. As indicated in Table 8.6, included in the effort is education about garbage disposal and other environmental issues. The environmental education must include the importance of a sustainable approach when carrying out development. The targets of the education are the community and the governmental staff, particularly at the regional level. Some of the community undertake random waste disposal including garbage and sewage, which needs
to be eradicated. Eradicating the random disposal behaviours, however, cannot be done without the provision of disposal facilities. Government staffs also need to be educated. This measure focuses on the increase of awareness regarding the benefit of a sustainable approach in the long term. During the field research, staff at the ministerial level expressed concern towards sustainable development. However, the government staff at the provincial and municipal levels did not show the same concern. Regional government staffs are intensely engaged with daily activities, which lead them to overlook the visions underlying the activities. The vision to conduct sustainable development in the national and regional development plans has been established. An educational program for staff is part of the capacity development for the regional government. This pursuit also enables an ICM approach. 9.1.9
Public attitude change: A lesson from the family planning program
In Jakarta Bay, the unsustainable development approach is carried out by the government, environmentally unfriendly attitudes such as littering and disposing domestic waste into rivers within the community occurred, and inadequate awareness of the importance of natural resources among the government and the community also occurred. This leads to the questions: Will the government be able to shift approaches to sustainable development? Will the community be able to shift their attitude towards random waste disposal? Will the nation respect its natural resources? The family planning program shows that Indonesia was once successful at experiencing a significant shift in public attitude, moving from the belief of ‘having many children means prosperity’ to ‘two children is enough’. The previous belief was rooted in the cultural system of the Indonesian people and yet was changed. The achievement is attained through commitment, determination, a long process, hard work and financial support. The ingredients of success include developing policy and strategic planning, establishing a coordinating agency, providing adequate resources, allowing creative leadership, providing adequate information, education and communication, establishing vast outreach via fieldworkers and involving religious leaders, and sustainable political commitment. Accordingly, it is possible for Indonesian people and the government to shift their attitude regarding the un-sustainability of development; however, the key mechanism for change should be present.
Contribution to the knowledge
The contributions to the knowledge that are generated from this research are twofold. The first is a generic model of ICM for Jakarta and the second is knowledge regarding coastal policy. The contributions are discussed as follows. 9.2.1
A model of ICM for Jakarta
The first contribution to the knowledge fills the research gap regarding the applicability of an ICM approach in the governance system of Indonesia with a focus on Jakarta Bay (see Chapter 1). This study has identified that an ICM approach is possible to apply in the Indonesian governance system. A legal structure to the approach is present (Law 27/2007), even though to implement the approach is challenging. This study has developed a model of ICM for Jakarta Bay and presented in Figure 8.2. The model is developed based on the enabling factors derived from the Xiamen and Sanur ICM programs and the family planning program of Indonesia. It represents the institutional component of an ICM initiative; which in order to be a complete framework, needs to be incorporated with other aspects such as financing. The model is assumed as a first generation of the ICM cycle in which pollution and flooding problems are addressed. The institutional arrangement for the initiative employs the existing sectoral offices. However, a management framework is developed that contains a coordinating force and a scientific team. This study identifies that an initiator and an entry point are needed to instigate the initiative and to convince the decision makers on the importance of an ICM. Without the political will from leaders or decision makers, an ICM initiative will not be able to begin. 9.2.2
Does Indonesia need a national policy?
The need for marine and coastal management policy has been recognised for some time. Tomascik et al. (1997b, p. 1167), who recognises the Indonesian regulatory framework as formidable and witnessed the diversity of the Indonesian marine and coastal ecosystem as well as the detriment of the marine and coastal environmental quality, suggests establishing a new approach to marine and coastal resources management. Christie (2005, p. 219) identifies that the issuance of a legal framework is a factor for the success and sustainability of a coastal program. White et al. (2005, p. 276) distinguish the legal and policy framework as ‘extremely important’ in achieving ICM objectives and in sustaining support for the initiatives. Significant parts of the legal and policy framework require adequate national legal authority, delegating authority to the local
government and an efficient and transparent legal and institutional system at the local government level. Dirhamsyah (2006, p. 68) suggests the degradation of coastal and marine resources in Indonesia is associated with the absence of a national marine policy, as well as with the complicated Indonesian legal framework and poor law enforcement. This strongly suggests that a coastal policy is needed for an adequate coastal management. The question is, does it have to be a national policy as pointed out, in particular, by White and Dirhamsyah? The Xiamen ICM program is a successful initiative. The People’s Republic of China had no national policy at the time the ICM program started in 1994. The Xiamen ICM program successfully promoted policy reform and enacted several environmental and marine-related legislations and ordinances through the Xiamen Municipal Government (Chua, 2008, pp. 92-93). An integrated law enforcement mechanism was established, with law enforcers from major marine-related law enforcing agencies. The case of Xiamen shows that national policy is not a necessity. A local regulation framework is adequate. The necessary aspect to achieve an effective program is the establishment of a coordinating mechanism, which is legally institutionalised, and an integrated law enforcement mechanism. So, does Indonesia need a national policy regarding coastal management? In Indonesia, local governments are allowed to generate local regulations based on the national legislation. The system makes it is possible for the local governments to enact local regulations regarding coastal management, as took place in Xiamen. Either way, the national law regarding coastal management has already been enacted, and the concerns of Tomascik et al. (1997), Christie (2005), White at al. (2005) and Dirhamsyah (2006) have been addressed. However, the coastal areas in Indonesia are still not managed adequately. This indicates that the presence of a policy is not the only factor in an adequate management. The Xiamen ICM program shows that coordinating and law enforcement mechanisms are as important. Therefore, it is necessary for Indonesia to equip the policy with adequate enforcement, including employing a coordinating mechanism. 9.3
This research discovers various facts regarding the governance system in Jakarta Bay and Indonesia. However, the research also recognises some limitations. At least two main limitations are identified. The first, the developed model of ICM for Jakarta Bay does not consider the financing mechanism. This includes the analysis of the financial capacity of each Jakarta Bay
authority, the financial flow from central to regional government as the central government is expected to assist with the funding, and the financial component that can be allocated by each Jakarta Bay authority to finance the ICM program. It is important to examine the financial strength of each Jakarta Bay authority and the central government as a part of an ICM initiative, however time is a constraint. The financial analysis needs another thorough investigation that cannot be carried out together with research on ICM in one candidature of a doctoral program. The second is regarding regulatory framework. Numerous laws govern coastal activities and each law has its derived regulations. The total number of derived regulations can reach hundreds which consist of government regulations, presidential decrees, ministerial regulations (which involve various ministries), provincial and municipal regulations. This research examines all the laws affecting coastal activities and the derived regulations. However, the examination of derived regulations is limited to the regulations that raise concern in the analysing process of coastal laws. A thorough investigation of the derived regulations will provide a comprehensive picture of coastal regulatory framework in Indonesia and address the four possibilities of regulation linkage (see section 9.1.2). Nonetheless, yet again, this cannot be done together with research on ICM in one candidature of a doctoral program. 9.4
Four local governments have developed some aspects of the four plans as required by Law 27/2007. It is important to examine the drivers to develop the plans and identify whether other local governments have the same drivers. The purpose is to understand the reasons for the poor compliance of the local governments towards Law 27/2007 regarding coastal management. This thesis, based on evidence, has provided a theory as to the reasons. However, it will be beneficial to understand further what happens in order to ensure the effectiveness of the law implementation. The impediments to environmental regulation implementation also need to be examined. The purpose is to understand the causes that hinder the implementation. In this manner, a mitigation effort can be carried out and regulations can effectively be implemented. The awareness of regional government staff towards sustainable development is also important to be examined. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the awareness of regional government staff about the concept. In this manner, actions can be taken to increase the awareness.
The ‘excessive democracy’ (demokrasi kebablasan) phenomenon is frequently cited in media and in informal discussion. This phenomenon emerged since the Soeharto era ended in 1998. The people of Indonesia experienced euphoria of democracy. To some extent, the euphoria is excessive and so generates ‘excessive democracy’, meaning excessive freedom. This phenomenon and its impact need to be scrutinised academically. The assumption that the interest of regional governments frequently differs to national priorities needs to be academically proven. This is not only to understand the phenomenon and its impact, but also to understand the reason of the difference in prioritising interests within government bodies. A thorough cost benefit analysis of addressing problems in Jakarta Bay can be beneficial. The purpose is to investigate the cost and benefit of responsive measures in addressing problems such as flooding and pollution, compared to the cost and benefit of preventive measures. The analysis aims to assist the Jakarta Bay authorities in establishing effective decisions, as suggested by Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash (2009, p. 1) that cost-effective solutions for reducing community vulnerability to disasters can be achieved by making investments in sustainable ecosystem or sound environmental management. 9.5
This section is to conclude the thesis with a title of ‘Challenges and opportunities for an integrated coastal management approach in Jakarta Bay’. Two features underline the process of thesis development; the first involves some quotations and the second is about an expectation. The following chain of quotations represents the process of thesis development. Albert Camus says, ‘A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.’ Hardin states (1968, p. 1245) ‘The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.’ Lowry (2011, cited in Triana, 2011) states that the only aspect that can protect people from disaster is when the environment is sustainable. While Christie (2005, p. 227) claims ‘... and that there are no simple solutions to address non-sustainability.’ Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash (2009, p. 1) state ‘Investments in sustainable ecosystem management or sound environmental management can offer cost-effective solutions to reducing community vulnerability to disasters.’ This is the interpretation of the quotations above. Without regulations, humankind is creature who exploit resources freely, create un-sustainability and generate man-induced disasters. However,
regulations that would fix and restore the environment are always ‘behind the times.’ Fixing and restoring the environment is necessary, because the only aspect that can protect people from disaster is when the environment is sustainable. Nonetheless, there are no simple solutions to address un-sustainability. Conversely, it is more effective to invest in sustainable ecosystems or sound environmental management instead of conducting responsive approaches to address unsustainability and disasters. The second feature that underlines the process of this endeavour is about an expectation which relates to the quotations above. It is expected that Jakarta Bay will be managed in a more effective manner and that the government of Indonesia pledges more political will to sustainable development and enforces this will effectively. In this manner, the authority will be able to protect its people from disasters and provide a better life system.
List of references Abidin, Hasanuddin, Andreas, Heri, Gumilar, Irwan, Fukuda, Yoichi, Pohan, Yusuf, & Deguchi, T. (2011). Land subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its relation with urban development. Natural Hazards, 59 (3), 1753-1771. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9866-9 Ali, Firdaus. (2011, 6 September 2011). "Quo vadis" pelayanan air minum Jakarta?, Suara Pembaruan. Alikodra, Hadi S. (1996). Dampak reklamasi Teluk Jakarta pada ekosistem mangrove. Media Konservasi, V (1), 31-34. Ambari, Muslim. (2013). Walah, luas mangrove di Bekasi terus menyusut. Indonesia Raya News, 12 May. http://indonesiarayanews.com/news/perkotaan/05-12-2013-21-09/walah-luas-mangrove-dibekasi-terus-menyusut Antara News. (2009). Garis pantai RI terpanjang ke empat di dunia. 28 August, Press conference with Rizald Max Rompas the Secretary of Indonesian Maritime Board. http://www.antaranews.com/view/?i=1235451241&c=WBM&s= Appell, GN. (1993). Hardin's myth of the commons: The tragedy of conceptual confusions Working Paper 8: Social Transformation and Adaptation Research Institute. Arifin, Zainal. (2005). Pollution prevention and reduction strategies and implementation in the Jakarta Bay. Paper presented at the Workshop on ecosystem based management of interrelated river basins, estuaries and coastal seas - 1-3 June 2005, Masan, Republic of Korea. Arifin, Zainal. (2008). Kajian kecenderungan perubahan kontaminan logam berat di perairan Teluk Jakarta. In Ruyitno, A. Syahailatua, M. Muchtar, Pramudji, Sulistijo & T. Susana (Eds.), Kajian perubahan ekologis perairan Teluk Jakarta (pp. 211-228). Jakarta: LIPI Press - Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi. Arifin, Zainal (2011, 22 December 2011). [Panjang garis pantai Teluk Jakarta (personal communication)]. Asril, Sabrina, & Soebijoto, Hertanto. (2001). Foke: Jakarta tak akan tenggelam! Kompas Online, 7 February. http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2011/02/07/16260732/Foke.Jakarta.Tak.Akan.Tenggelam Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. (2009). Dokumen Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun (REPELITA). Retrieved 15 April, 2010, from http://www.bappenas.go.id/node/42/1700/dokumenrencana-pembangunan-lima-tahun-repelita/ Bayu-Aji, RN. (2010). Uji UU Wilayah Pesisir; DPR tak hadir dan ahli tak siap. Mahkamah Konstitusi Online, 8 April. http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=3900 Bello, Walden. (2011). Indonesia: a family planning model for the Philippines? INQUIRER.net. http://opinion.inquirer.net/7691/indonesia-a-family-planning-model-for-the-philippines Berita Jakarta Online. (2009). KLHD Jakut pastikan kematian ikan karena pencemaran. Berita Jakarta, 28 May. http://www.beritajakarta.com/2008/id/berita_detail.asp?nNewsId=33679&idwil=3
Bird, Eric C F, & Ongkosongo, Otto S R. (1980). Environmental changes on the coasts of Indonesia. Retrieved 25 October, 2011, from http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80197e/80197E00.htm BPLHD DKI Jakarta. (2006). Kondisi dan upaya pengelolaan Teluk Jakarta. Paper presented at the Leaders Forum and Workshop on Sustainable Development of Indonesia’s Coasts and Oceans, Jakarta. BPS Kabupaten Bekasi. (2010a). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kabupaten Bekasi. Kabupaten Bekasi: Badan Pusat Satistik Kabupaten Bekasi. BPS Kabupaten Bekasi. (2010b). Kabupaten Bekasi dalam angka 2010. Kabupaten Bekasi: Badan Pusat Satistik Kabupaten Bekasi. BPS Kabupaten Bogor. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kabupaten Bogor. Kabupaten Bogor. BPS Kabupaten Tangerang. (2010a). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kabupaten Tangerang. Kabupaten Tangerang. BPS Kabupaten Tangerang. (2010b). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kota Tangerang Selatan. Kabupaten Tangerang. BPS Kabupaten Tangerang. (2010c). Kabupaten Tangerang dalam angka 2010. Kabupaten Tangerang: Badan Pusat Satistik Kabupaten Tangerang. BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara. (2010). Hasil sensus penduduk 2010 Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara data agregat per kecamatan. Jakarta Utara: BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara. BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara. (2011). Jakarta Utara dalam angka 2011. Jakarta Utara: BPS Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara. BPS Kota Bekasi. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kota Bekasi. Kota Bekasi: Badan Pusat Satistik Kota Bekasi. BPS Kota Bogor. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kota Bogor. Kota Bogor. BPS Kota Denpasar. (2010). Hasil sensus penduduk 2010 data agregat per kecamatan Kota Denpasar. Kota Denpasar: BPS Kota Denpasar. BPS Kota Depok. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kota Depok. Kota Depok. BPS Kota Tangerang. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kecamatan di Kota Tangerang. Kota Tangerang. BPS Provinsi Banten. (2011). Banten dalam angka 2011. Serang: BPS Provinsi Banten. BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta. (2010). Hasil sensus 2010 data agregat per kabupaten/kota Provinsi DKI Jakarta. Jakarta: BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta. BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta. (2011). Jakarta dalam angka 2011. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Satistik Provinsi DKI Jakarta.
BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta. (2012). PDRB atas dasar harga berlaku menurut lapangan usaha DKI Jakarta (juta Rupiah). Retrieved 4 April, 2013, from jakarta.bps.go.id/index.php?bWVudT0yMzEzJnBhZ2U9ZGF0YSZzdWI9MTMmaWQ9NDA= BPS Provinsi Jawa Barat. (2011). Jawa Barat dalam angka 2011. Bandung: BPS Provinsi Jawa Barat. BPS RI. (2009). Statistik lingkungan hidup Indonesia 2009. Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Pusat. BPS RI. (2012a). Jumlah dan Persentase Penduduk Miskin, Garis Kemiskinan, Indeks Kedalaman Kemiskinan (P1), dan Indeks Keparahan Kemiskinan (P2) Menurut Provinsi, 2011. Retrieved 6 September, 2012, from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=23¬ab=1 BPS RI. (2012b). Laju Pertumbuhan Penduduk menurut Provinsi. Retrieved 6 September, 2012, from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=12¬ab=2 BPS RI. (2012c). Penduduk Indonesia menurut Provinsi 1971, 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000 dan 2010. Retrieved 6 September, 2012, from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?kat=1&tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=12¬ab=1 BPS RI. (2012d). Produk domestik regional bruto atas dasar harga berlaku menurut provinsi, 2004 - 2011 (juta Rupiah). Retrieved 4 April, 2013, from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=52 BPS RI. (2013). Penduduk Indonesia menurut provinsi 1971, 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000 dan 2010. Retrieved 17 July, 2013, from http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=12 Brill, Jonathan E. (2008). Likert scale. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 428-430). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Brinkman, JanJaap, & Hartman, Marco. (2008). Jakarta Flood Hazard Mapping Framework: Deltares. Brown, Barbara E. (1986). Background to reef damage in South East Asian waters and bordering IndoPacific regions. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 3-11). Paris France: The United Nations Educational. Burbridge, Peter R. (1982). Management of mangrove forest exploitation in Indonesia. Applied Geography (2), 39-54. Central Intelligence Agency. (2009, 11 September 2009). The World Factbook. Retrieved 21 September, 2009, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html Choong, Elvin T., Wirakusumah, R. Sambas, & Achmadi, Suminar S. (1990). Mangrove forest resources in Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, 33-34, 45-57. Christie, Patrick. (2005). Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable? Ocean & Coastal Management, 48 (3-6), 208-232. Christie, Patrick, Lowry, Kem, White, Alan T., Oracion, Enrique G., Sievanen, Leila, Pomeroy, Robert S., . . . Eisma, Rose-Liza V. (2005). Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated coastal management process sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48 (3-6), 468-483. Chua, Thia-Eng. (1993). Essential elements of integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 (1-3), 81-108.
Chua, Thia-Eng. (1998). Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastal management in Southeast Asia. Ambio, 27 (8), 599-610. Chua, Thia-Eng. (2006). The dynamics of integrated coastal management: practical applications in the sustainable coastal development in East Asia. Quezon City: PAMSEA (GEF/UNDP/IMO). Chua, Thia-Eng. (2008, 20-24 October 2008). A tale of two initiatives: Integrated coastal management in Xiamen and Batangas Bay region. Paper presented at the Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment, 5th World Fisheries Congress 2008, Yokohama, Japan. Chua, Thia-Eng, Bonga, Danilo, & Bermas-Atrigenio, Nancy. (2006). Dynamics of integrated coastal management: PEMSEA’s experience. Coastal Management, 3 (34), 303–322. Cicin-Sain, Biliana. (1993). Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 (1-3), 11-43. Cicin-Sain, Biliana, & Knecht, Robert W. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practices. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Clark, John R. (1997). Coastal zone management for the new century. Ocean & Coastal Management, 37 (2), 191-216. doi: 10.1016/s0964-5691(97)00052-5 Cleary, Daniel FR, Suharsono, & Hoeksema, Bert W. (2006). Coral diversity across a disturbance gradient in the Pulau Seribu reef complex off Jakarta, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation (15), 3653–3674. Cordova, Muhammad Reza, Zamani, Neviaty P, & Yulianda, Fredinan. (2012, 8-12 July 2012). Heavy metals accumulation and malformation of Green mussel (Perna viridis) in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia. Paper presented at the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering CIGR-AgEng, Valencia, Spain. Costanza, Robert, d’Arge, Ralph, Groot, Rudolf de, Farberk, Stephen, Grasso, Monica, Hannon, Bruce, . . . Belt, Marjan van den. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Creswell, John W. (2009). Research design – Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Third ed.). California: Sage. Curtin, Leslie B, Johnson, Charles N, Kantner, Andrew B, & Papilaya, Alex. (1992). Indonesia's national family planning program: ingredients of success Occasional Paper (Vol. No. 6). Dahuri, Rokhmin. (2012). Blue economy for sustainable coastal development (Part 1 of 2). 13 August. Retrieved 5 September, 2012, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/08/13/blueeconomy-sustainable-coastal-development-part-1-2.html Dahuri, Rokhmin, & Dutton, Ian M. (2000). Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia. from www.crc.uri.edu/publications.php Dahuri, Rokhmin, Rais, Jacub, Ginting, Sapta Putra, & Sitepu, MJ. (2008). Pengelolaan sumber daya wilayah pesisir dan lautan secara terpadu Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita. Delinom, Robert M. (2007). Groundwater management issues in the Greater Jakarta area, Indonesia. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Integrated Watershed Management for Sustainable Water Use in a Humid tropical Region; JSPS-DGHE Joint Research Project, Tsukuba, Japan.
Delinom, Robert M, Assegaf, Abdurrahman, Abidin, Hasanuddin Z, Taniguchi, Makoto, Suherman, Dadan, Lubis, Rachmat Fajar, & Yulianto, Eko. (2009). The contribution of human activities to subsurface environment degradation in Greater Jakarta Area, Indonesia. Science of the Total Environment, 407 (9), 3129-3141. Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan. (2007). Laporan workshop National Ocean Summit. Jakarta, Indonesia: Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan. Dinas Kelautan dan Pertanian Provinsi Jakarta. (2010). Potensi dan kebijakan pengelolaan wilayah persisir dan pulau-pulau kecil di Provinsi DKI Jakarta. Jakarta. Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta. (1996). Sejarah Teluk Jakarta. Jakarta: Dinas Museum dan Sejarah DKI Jakarta. Dinas Tata Ruang DKI Jakarta. (2011). Tata guna lahan Jakarta Utara 2007. Jakarta: Dinas Tata Ruang DKI Jakarta. Dirhamsyah, D. (2006). Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 49 (1-2), 68-92. Djafar, Alamsyah M. (2012 ). Kisah sunyi nelayan muroami. Kompas Online, 2 March. http://sosbud.kompasiana.com/2012/03/02/kisah-sunyi-nelayan-muroami/ Djaja, Rochman, Rais, Jacub, Abidin, Hasanuddin Z, & Wedyanto, Kuntjoro. (2004). Land Subsidence of Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Paper presented at the 3rd FIG Regional Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia. Djamali, Asikin, & Parino. (2008). Jenis-jenis ikan dari Teluk Jakarta. In Ruyitno, A. Syahailatua, M. Muchtar, Pramudji, Sulistijo & T. Susana (Eds.), Kajian perubahan ekologis perairan Teluk Jakarta (pp. 135-165). Jakarta: LIPI Press - Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi. Duxbury, Jane, & Dickinson, Sarah. (2007). Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters. Ecological Economics, 63 (2-3), 319-330. Effendy, Bahtiar. (2011). Insight: Public apathy and the politics of indifference. The Jakarta Post, 7 November. www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/11/07/insight-public-apathy-and-politicsindifference.html English, Brian J. (2003). Integrated coastal resource management: A prescription for sustainable development. Electronic Green Journal, 1 (19). FAO. (1998). Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry and fisheries Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8440e/w8440e00.htm FAO. (2005). © 2005-2012. Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Small-scale and artisanal fisheries. Topics Fact Sheets. Text by Jan Johnson. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. 27 May. http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14753/en Farhan, A. R., & Lim, S. (2010). Integrated coastal zone management towards Indonesia global ocean observing system (NA-GOOS): Review and recommendation. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53, 421-427. Farhan, A. R., & Lim, S. (2012). Vulnerability assessment of ecological conditions in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 65, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.04.015
Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219-245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363 GESAMP. (1996). The contributions of science to Integrated Coastal Management. Rome: FAO. Gillham, Bill. (2010). Case Study Research Methods. London GBR: Continuum International Publishing. Google Earth. (accessed on 12 March 2013). Google Map. (retrieved 15 November 2013). Mauk and Angke. Google Map. (retrieved 18 November 2013). China. Google Map. (retrieved 22 February 2013). Jakarta Bay. Government of the Netherlands. (2011). Dutch experts help Jakarta in battle against the sea. 6 July. http://www.government.nl/news/2011/07/06/dutch-experts-help-jakarta-in-battle-against-thesea.html Grahadyarini, Lukita. (2011). Robohnya pilar keluarga nelayan. Kompas Online, 1 February. http://cetak.kompas.com/read/2011/02/01/02453573/robohnya.pilar.keluarga.nelayan, Gunawan, Restu. (2010). Gagalnya sistem kanal: Pengendalian banjir Jakarta dari masa ke masa. Jakarta: PT Kompas Media Nusantara. Hadar, Ivan A. (2008). Kota yang memihak kaum miskin. Kompas Online, 26 April. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2008/04/26/01061992/kota.yang.memihak.kaum.miskin Hadi, Safwan, Ningsih, Nining Sari, & Pujiana, Kandaga. (2005). Studi awal pemodelan medan gelombang di Laut Jawa dan karakteristik spektrum energi gelombang di Teluk Jakarta. Indonesian Journal of Marine Science, 10(3), 169-176. Hadi, Safwan, Radjawane, Ivonne M, Widiaratih, Rikha, & Riawan, Edi. (2008). Dampak kenaikan muka laut di pantai utara Jakarta dan Kepulauan Seribu. In P. R. W. L. d. S. N. H. (Indonesia) (Ed.), Kenaikan muka laut relatif dan kerentanan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil di Indonesia: status report hasil-hasil penelitian (pp. 110-124). Indonesia: Pusat Riset Wilayah Laut dan Sumberdaya Non Hayati Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan. Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (13 December 1968), 1243–1248. Harvey, Nick, & Caton, Brian. (2003). Coastal management in Australia. South Melbourne, Vic. ; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, Nick, & Hilton, Mike. (2006). Coastal management in the Asia-Pacific Region. In N. Harvey (Ed.), Global change and Integrated Coastal Management (pp. 39-66). The Netherlands: Springer. Hayes, Adrian C. (2010). The status of family planning in Indonesia today: a story of success and fragmentation. Paper presented at the UNFPA and ICOMP Regional Consultation on Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific: Addressing the Challenges, Bangkok. Hayes, Adrian, Lewis, Gary, & Vogel, Russ. (2003). The national family planning program in Indonesia: review of past achievements, future directions (a briefing notes). STARH Program USAID. Hehanussa, PE, & Hehuwat, F. (1980). Morphogenesis of the northern coastal plain of west Java between Cirebon and Jakarta: Its implications for coastal zone management. Proceedings of the Jakarta
workshop on coastal resources management. Retrieved 25 October, 2011, from http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80130e/80130E00.htm Heriyanto, Retno. (2010). Citarum diandalkan untuk air minum, listrik, perikanan, dan irigasi. Pikiran Rakyat, 17 January. http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/node/173346 Heryati, Sri Hayyu Alynda, & Purnawan, Irfan. (2011). Coastal waste management at Jakarta Bay and Seribu Islands. Paper presented at the The 4th Environmental Technology and Management Conference (ETMC), Bandung, Indonesia. Hosono, Takahiro, Su, Chih-Chieh, Delinom, Robert, Umezawa, Yu, Toyota, Tomoyo, Kaneko, Shinji, & Taniguchi, Makoto. (2011). Decline in heavy metal contamination in marine sediments in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia due to increasing environmental regulations. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 92 (2), 297-306. Hotta, Kenji, & Dutton, Ian. (1995). Coastal management in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues and approaches. Tokyo: Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation. Hull, TH, Hull, VJ, & Singarimbun, M. (1977). Indonesia's family planning story: success and challenge. Population Bulletin, November 32 (6), 1-52. Hutasoit, Lambok M, & Pindratno, M Haris. (2004). Amblesan tanah di DKI Jakarta. In H. S. Naryanto, S. Prawiradisastra & B. Marwanta (Eds.), Permasalahan, kebijakan dan penanggulangan bencana tanah longsor di Indonesia (pp. 131-148). Jakarta: P3-TPSLK BPPT dan HSF. Hutomo, Malikusworo, & Adrim, Muhammad. (1986). Distribution of reef fish along transects in Bay of Jakarta and Kepulauan Seribu. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 135-156). Paris France: The United Nations Educational. Ikhwan, Khairul. (2009). Ini demokrasi kebablasan. detikNews, 3 February. http://news.detik.com/read/2009/02/03/225354/1079090/10/ini-demokrasi-kebablasan Ilahude, AG, & Liasaputra, S. (1980). Sebaran "normal" parameter hidrologi di Teluk Jakarta. In A. Nontji & A. Djamali (Eds.), Teluk Jakarta: Pengkajian fisika, kimia, biologi dan geologi tahun 1975-1979 (pp. 1-47). Jakarta: Lembaga Oseanologi Nasional LIPI. Interviewee 1 (2010). [Interview with former minister for marine affairs and fisheries on the 27th of July]. Interviewee 2 (2010). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 29th of July]. Interviewee 3 (2010). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 29th of July]. Interviewee 4 (2010). [Interview with a staff of the Environmental Management Agency, Province of Jakarta on the 30th of July]. Interviewee 5 (2010). [Interview with a staff of the Tomini Bay SUSCLAM (Sustainable Coastal Livelihood and Management) Program on the 5th of August]. Interviewee 6 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Social Services Office, Jakarta Province, on the 26th of January]. Interviewee 7 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Industrial Office, North Jakarta City, on the 28th of January].
Interviewee 9 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Housing and Local Government Building Office, Jakarta Province on the 1st of February]. Interviewee 11 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Housing and Local Government Building Office, North Jakarta City on the 8th of February]. Interviewee 12 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Public Works Office, Province of Jakarta on the 9th of February]. Interviewee 13 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Tourism Office, Jakarta Province on the 11th of February]. Interviewee 14 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Industrial Office, Jakarta Province, on the 14th of February]. Interviewee 18 (2011). [Interview with a staf of the Animal Husbandy, Fisheries and Marine Affairs of North Jakarta on the 16th of February]. Interviewee 19 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Marine Affairs and Agricultural Office, Jakarta Province on the 17th of February]. Interviewee 20 (2011). [Interview with a staf of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 21st of February]. Interviewee 22 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 21st of February]. Interviewee 23 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 21st of February]. Interviewee 24 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the National Planning Agency on the 21st of February]. Interviewee 25 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Environment on the 23rd of February]. Interviewee 26 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Environment on the 23rd of February]. Interviewee 27 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Cleanliness Office, Jakarta Province, on the 24th of February]. Interviewee 32 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Regional Planning Agency, Jakarta Province on the 1st of March]. Interviewee 33 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Tourism Office, North Jakarta City, on the 8th of March]. Interviewee 34 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Cooperatives, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Trading, Jakarta Province on the 8th of March]. Interviewee 35 (2011). [Interview with a staff of the Public Work Office, North Jakarta City, on the 8th of March]. Interviewee 37 (2013). [Interview with a staff of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries on the 29th of January and the 5th of February]. Interviewee C1 (2011). [Interview with Jakarta Bay stakeholders].
Interviewee C2 (2011). [Interview with Jakarta Bay stakeholders]. Interviewee C3 (2011). [Interview with Jakarta Bay stakeholders]. Interviewee C4 (2011). [Interview with Jakarta Bay stakeholders]. Interviewee C5 (2011). [Interview with Jakarta Bay stakeholders]. Jamaludin, Jajang. (2001). Masterplan Jakarta 2010 harus dibekukan. Tempo Interaktif, 13 February. http://www.tempo.co.id/hg/jakarta/2001/02/13/brk,20010213-39,id.html Karen, Bakker. (2007). Trickle Down? Private sector participation and the pro-poor water supply debate in Jakarta, Indonesia. Geoforum, 38 (5), 855-868. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.11.011 Kenchington, Richard, & Crawford, David. (1993). On the meaning of integration in coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 109-127. Keputusan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup nomor 51 tahun 2004 tentang baku mutu air laut (2004). Kompas Online (Ich/Naw). (2011). Pulau kecil terancam. Kompas Online, 1 June. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2011/06/21/03471164/pulau.kecil.terancam Kompas Online (Lkt). (2008). HP3 Ancam Usaha Nelayan. Kompas Online, 12 March. http://www1.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/03/12/00461999/hp3.ancam.usaha.nelayan Kompas Online (Lkt). (2011). Nelayan tradisional alih profesi. Kompas Online, 6 January. http://cetak.kompas.com/read/2011/01/06/03451772/nelayan.tradisional.alih.profesi Kompas Online (Mdn). (2011). Ribuan ikan mati di Marunda. Kompas Online, 4 June. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/06/04/04463587/Ribuan.Ikan.Mati.di.Marunda Koran Tempo Nasional. (2010). Walhi ragu fitoplankton penyebab kematian ikan. Koran Tempo Nasional, 13 October. http://bataviase.co.id/node/416678 Leisch, Harald. (2002). Gated communities in Indonesia. Cities, 19 (5), 341-350. Maarif, Syamsul. (2008). Sambutan Dirjen KP3K pada acara pembukaan pertemuan akhir MCRMP. KP3K Department of Marine Affair and Fishery Republic of Indonesia. Jakarta. Maharani, Dian. (2013). Ini 4 penyebab banjir Jakarta. Kompas Online, 22 January. http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2013/01/22/1053289/Ini.4.Penyebab.Banjir.Jakarta Martínez, M. L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., & Landgrave, R. (2007). The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, 63 (2– 3), 254-272. Mata News. (2009). Privatisasi Ancam 6 Ribu Pulau. Mata News, 4 September. http://beta.matanews.com/2009/09/04/privatisasi-ancam-6-ribu-pulau/ Melisa, Fenny. (2013). BNPB: Jumlah pengungsi banjir Jakarta capai 18.019 jiwa. Republika Online, 18 January. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/13/01/18/mgtad6-bnpb-jumlahpengungsi-banjir-jakarta-capai-18019-jiwa
Merdeka Online. (2006). Fenomena kematian massal ikan akan selalu terjadi tiap tahun. Merdeka, 7 September. http://www.merdeka.com/pernik/fenomena-kematian-massal-ikan-akan-selalu-terjaditiap-tahun-v6cbv2t.html Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2013, 29 January). [Rekapitulasi wilayah pesisir negara kesatuan Republik Indonesia tahun 2012 (per Oktober 2012)]. Moll, H, & Suharsono. (1986). Distribution, diversity and abundance of reef corals in Jakarta Bay and Kepulauan Seribu. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 112-125). Paris France: The United Nations Educational. Muchtar, Muswerry. (2008). Fluktuasi kandungan zat hara Fosfat, Nitrat dan Silikat di Teluk Jakarta. In Ruyitno, A. Syahailatua, M. Muchtar, Pramudji, Sulistijo & T. Susana (Eds.), Kajian perubahan ekologis perairan Teluk Jakarta (pp. 101-111). Jakarta: LIPI Press - Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi. Munawir, Khozanah. (2005). Pemantauan kadar pestisida organoklorin di beberapa muara sungai di perairan Teluk Jakarta Oseanologi dan Limnologi di Indonesia (37), 15 - 25. National Disaster Management Agency. (2013). Banjir Jakarta: 20 meninggal dan 33.502 masih mengungsi. 22 January. http://www.bnpb.go.id/news/read/1217/banjir-jakarta-20-meninggal-dan33502-masih-mengungsi Nichols, K. (1999). Coming to Terms with “Integrated Coastal Management”: Problems of Meaning and Method in a New Arena of Resource Regulation. The Professional Geographer, 51 (3), 388-399. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00174 Nontji, Anugerah, & Setiapermana, Deddy. (1996). Integrated coastal zone planning and management in Indonesia: the experience of MREP project. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Chabahar, Iran. Nur, Y., Fazi, S., Wirjoatmodjo, N., & Han, Q. (2001). Towards wise coastal management practice in a tropical megacity--Jakarta. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44 (5-6), 335-353. Olsen, Stephen. (2003a). Crafting coastal governance in a changing world. In S. B. Olsen (Ed.), Coastal Management Report: The Coastal Resources Management Program. Olsen, Stephen. (2003b). Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46 (3-4), 347-361. Olsen, Stephen, Tobey, James, & Hale, Lynne Z. (1998). A learning-based approach to coastal management. Ambio, 27 (8), 611-619. Ongkosongo, Otto SR. (2008). Perubahan daratan pesisir di sekeliling Teluk Jakarta. In Ruyitno, A. Syahailatua, M. Muchtar, Pramudji, Sulistijo & T. Susana (Eds.), Kajian perubahan ekologis perairan Teluk Jakarta. Jakarta: LIPI Press - Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi. Ongkosongo, Otto SR, Ilahude, AG, & Praseno, DP. (1980). The oceanographic features of the coastal region between Jakarta and Cirebon. Proceedings of the Jakarta workshop on coastal resources management. Retrieved 25 October, 2011, from http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80130e/80130E00.htm Ongkosongo, Otto SR, & Sukarno. (1986). Background to the study sites in the Bay of Jakarta and Kepulauan Seribu. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 56-79). Paris France: The United Nations Educational.
Onodera, Shin-ichi. (2011). Subsurface Pollution in Asian Megacities - Groundwater and Subsurface Environments. In M. Taniguchi (Ed.), (pp. 159-184): Springer Japan. Onodera, Shin-ichi, Saito, Mitsuyo, Sawano, Misa, Hosono, Takahiro, Taniguchi, Makoto, Shimada, Jun, . . . Delinom, Robert. (2009). Erratum to "Effects of intensive urbanization on the intrusion of shallow groundwater into deep groundwater: Examples from Bangkok and Jakarta". Science of the Total Environment 407 (9), 3209-3217. Pasang, Haskarlianus, Moore, Graham A., & Sitorus, Guntur. (2007). Neighbourhood-based waste management: A solution for solid waste problems in Jakarta, Indonesia. Waste Management, 27 (12), 1924-1938. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.010 Patlis, Jason M, Dahuri, Rokhmin, Knight, Maurice, & Tulungen, Johnnes. (2001). Integrated coastal management in a decentralized indonesia: how it can work. Pesisir dan Lautan, 4 (1). Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. (1967). Rencana induk Jakarta 1965-1985. Jakarta: Pemerintah DKI Jakarta. Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. (1984). Jakarta 2005 - Rencana umum tata ruang 19852005. Jakarta: Pemerintah DKI Jakarta. Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. (2008). Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta Nomor 1 Tahun 2008 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah Tahun 2007-2012. Jakarta: Pemerintah Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. (2010). Penanganan banjir/genangan di Provinsi DKI Jakarta. Jakarta: Pemerintah Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta. Peraturan Daerah Nomor 1 Tahun 2012 tentang Rencana tata ruang wilayah 2030 (2012). Pemerintah Daerah Kota Denpasar. (2010). Jumlah penduduk Kota Denpasar menurut agama, kecamatan dan jenis kelamin tahun 2010. Retrieved 1 April, 2013, from http://www.denpasarkota.go.id/bankdata2010/data2010/Penduduk-Kecamatan-2010.pdf PEMSEA. (2010). Indonesia scales up integrated coastal management. PEMSEA News, 26 October. beta.pemsea.org/news/indonesia-scales-integrated-coastal-management Pollnac, Richard B., & Pomeroy, Robert S. (2005). Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48 (3-6), 233-251. Pramudji. (2004). Pengelolaan dan rehabilitasi mangrove di kawasan pesisir Teluk Jakarta. Manajemen Bioregional Jabodetabek, 389-399. Pramudji. (2008). Informasi hutan mangrove di kawasan pesisir Teluk Jakarta. In Ruyitno, A. Syahailatua, M. Muchtar, Pramudji, Sulistijo & T. Susana (Eds.), Kajian perubahan ekologis perairan Teluk Jakarta (pp. 59-73). Jakarta: LIPI Press - Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi. Prihadiyoko, Imam, & Suprihadi, Marcus. (2012). Pesisir utara Jakarta rusak, nelayan terabaikan. Kompas Online, 14 February. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2012/02/14/1303100/Pesisir.Utara.Jakarta.Rusak.Nelayan.Tera baikan Priliawito, Eko. (2011). Tata ruang Jakarta sangat berorientase proyek. Viva News, 26 August. http://us.metro.news.viva.co.id/news/read/243390-syarat-proyek-pada-perda-tata-ruang-jakarta
Priliawito, Eko, & Aquina, Dwifantya. (2011a). Contoh Belanda, DKI bangun tanggul raksasa. Viva News, 26 January. http://metro.vivanews.com/news/read/201499-dki-percepat-proyek-bendunganraksasa Priliawito, Eko, & Aquina, Dwifantya. (2011b). Perda RTRW 2030 dituding hancurkan Jakarta. Viva News, 8 September. http://us.metro.vivanews.com/news/read/245617-perda-rtrw-2030-ditudinghancurkan-jakarta Provincial Government of Batangas. (2007). Strategic environmental management plan 2005-2020 Province of Batangas. Batangas, the Philippines: Provincial Government of Batangas, PG Environment and Natural Resources Office (PG-ENRO), GEF/UNPD/IMO Regional Programme on Building Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). Rachello-Dolmen, P. G., & Cleary, D. F. R. (2007). Relating coral species traits to environmental conditions in the Jakarta Bay/Pulau Seribu reef system, Indonesia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 73 (3-4), 816-826. Radjawane, Ivonne M, Hadi, S, & Suciati, P. (2008). Prediksi daerah rendaman akibat kenaikan muka laut, penurunan muka tanah, dan banjir di Jakarta Utara In P. R. W. L. d. S. N. H. (Indonesia) (Ed.), Kenaikan muka laut relatif dan kerentanan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil di Indonesia: status report hasil-hasil penelitian (pp. 135-144). Indonesia: Pusat Riset Wilayah Laut dan Sumberdaya Nonhayati Kementrian Kelautan dan Perikanan. Ramadhani, Mutia. (2012). Sampah di Teluk Jakarta menggunung. Republika Online, 14 February. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/regional/jabodetabek/12/02/14/lzd8qi-sampah-di-teluk-jakartamenggunung Razak, Jusuf (Cartographer). (2010). Atlas Indonesia dan dunia. Undang-undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2000 tentang Program Pembangunan Nasional (Propenas) tahun 20002004 (2000). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 55 Tahun 2001 tentang Pembentukan Kabupaten Administrasi Kepulauan Seribu Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta (2001). Undang-undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2004 tentang Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (2004). Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2007 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional Tahun 2005–2025 (2007a). Undang-undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2007 tentang Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil (2007b). Republik Indonesia. (2010a). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Kementerian/Lembaga (Renstra-KL) 2010-2014. Jakarta: Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). Republik Indonesia. (2010b). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) Tahun 20102014; Buku I Prioritas Nasional. Jakarta: Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). Republik Indonesia. (2010c). Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) Tahun 20102014; Buku II Memperkuat Sinergi Antarbidang Pembangunan; Bab X Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan Hidup: Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS).
Republika Online. (2009). Kerang hijau Teluk Jakarta mengandung racun. Republika Online, 28 November. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/breaking-news/lingkungan/09/11/28/92219-keranghijau-teluk-jakarta-mengandung-racun Ricci, Glenn, & Crawford, Brian. (2012). Capacity assessment of Mitra Bahari: for climate change community resilience and adaptation planning: USAID. Rusmiwari, Sugeng, Purwatiningsih, Annisa, Hardyanto, Willy Tri, & Aminulloh, Akhirul. (2012). Reinventing governance: inter-regional cooperation efforts to reduce government arrogance and public apathy. International Journal of Science and Technology, 1 (4). Saudale, Vento. (2013). Ciliwung river research shows swelling problems. The Jakarta Globe, 25 March. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/ciliwung-river-research-shows-swelling-problems/ Setiawan, Dani. (2011). Utang Indonesia sudah Rp 1.900 triliun, pemerintah diminta stop biayai pembangunan dari utang. Republika Online, 6 September. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/ekonomi/makro/11/08/05/lpftg3-utang-indonesia-sudah-rp-1900triliun-pemerintah-diminta-stop-biayai-pembangunan-dari-utang Shimada, Jun. (2011). Chemical and Physical Evidences in the Groundwater Aquifer Caused by OverPumping of Groundwater and Their Countermeasures in the Major Asian Coastal Cities Groundwater and Subsurface Environments. In M. Taniguchi (Ed.), (pp. 289-309): Springer Japan. Silalahi, Mustafa. (2012). Berharap Ancol bebas upeti. Tempo, 18-24 June. Simons, Helen. (2009). Case study research in practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Singarimbun, Masri. (1968). Family Planning in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 4 (10), 48-55. Siregar, Dimas, Surbakti, Arihta U, & Wuragil. (2013). 6 penyebab banjir besar Jakarta. Tempo Online, 18 January. http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/01/18/083455237/6-Penyebab-Banjir-BesarJakarta Siregari, Anata. (2010). Petambak kerang hijau alih profesi jadi pemulung. Bataviase, 15 May. http://bataviase.co.id/node/211630 Small, C., & Nicholls, R. J. (2003). A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research, 19 (3), 584-599. Sorensen, Jens. (1997). National and international efforts at Integrated Coastal Management: definitions, achievements, and lessons. Coastal Management, 25, 3-41. Sorensen, Jens. (2002) Baseline 2000 background report: the status of integrated coastal management as an international practice. Stoddart, DR. (1986). Umbgrove's islands revisited. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 80-98). Paris France: The United Nations Educational. Sudiarta, I Ketut. (2012). Sustainable tourism development: Case study in Denpasar Municipality, Bali, Indonesia. Tropical coasts, 17 (2), 46-56.
Sudmeier-Rieux, Karen, & Ash, Neville. (2009). Environmental guidance note for disaster risk reduction Healthy ecosystems for human security, Revised edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Suherman. (2003). Hutan mangrove di kawasan pantai utara Jakarta. Jakarta Kota Pantai (3), 32-53. Sukardjo, Sukristijono. (1979). The mangrove ecosystem of the northern coast of West Java. Paper presented at the Coastal resources management, Jakarta. Sukardjo, Sukristijono. (2002a). Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Indonesia: a view from a mangrove ecologist. Southeast Asian Studies, 40 (2), 200-218. Sukardjo, Sukristijono. (2002b). Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Indonesia: a view from a mangrove ecologist. Southeast Asian Studies, 40(2). Suku Dinas Peternakan Perikanan dan Kelautan Jakarta Utara. (2010). Buku saku 2010. Jakarta Utara: Suku Dinas Peternakan Perikanan dan Kelautan Jakarta Utara. Susanti, Peni. (2009). Integrated management of Jakarta Bay and Ciliwung River. Paper presented at the The East Asia Seas Congress, Manila, the Philippines. Syafputri, Ella. (2012). Hati-hati makan seafood Teluk Jakarta. Antara News, 13 June. http://www.antaranews.com/berita/315797/hati-hati-makan-seafood-teluk-jakarta Tellis, Winston. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 3 (No. 2 July 1997). Texier, Pauline. (2008). Floods in Jakarta: when the extreme reveals daily structural constraints and mismanagement. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17 (3), 358-372. The United Nations. (1992a). Agenda 21. Retrieved 18 May, 2012, from http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ The United Nations. (1992b). Agenda 21; Section II Conservation & Management of Resources for Development; Chapter 17 Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed & semienclosed seas, & coastal areas & the protection, rational use & development of their living resources. Retrieved 7 April, 2010, from http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_17.shtml The World Bank. (1996). Guidelines for integrated coastal zone management. In J. C. Post & C. G. Lundin (Eds.), Environmental Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series Washington DC: The World Bank. Tim Ekspedisi Pesisir Jakarta. (2007). Tempat berlabuh yang terenggut pembangunan. Sinar Harapan Online, 28 August. http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0708/28/sh03.html Tomascik, Tomas, Mah, Anmarie Janice, Nontji, Anugrah, & Moosa, Mohammad Kasim. (1997a). The ecology of Indonesian seas; Part 1 Chapter 1-12 (Vol. VII). Singapore: Periplus Editions. Tomascik, Tomas, Mah, Anmarie Janice, Nontji, Anugrah, & Moosa, Mohammad Kasim. (1997b). The ecology of Indonesian seas; Part 2 Chapter 13-23 (Vol. VIII). Singapore: Periplus Editions. Triana, Neli. (2010). RTRW DKI 2030; Kembalikan kota sesuai fungsinya. Kompas Online, 20 December. http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2010/12/20/16312895/Kembalikan.Kota.Sesuai.Fungsinya
Triana, Neli. (2011). Segeralah menata Pantura Jakarta. Kompas Online, 28 November. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/11/28/03022432/Segeralah.Menata.Pantura.Jakarta Trochim, William M. (2006). The research methods knowledge base, 2nd edition (internet www page at URL: - version current as of October 20, 2006). Retrieved 14 November, 2013 Umezawa, Yu, Hosono, Takahiro, Onodera, Shin-ichi, Siringan, Fernando, Buapeng, Somkid, Delinom, Robert, . . . Taniguchi, Makoto. (2009 ). Erratum to “Sources of nitrate and ammonium contamination in groundwater under developing Asian megacities”. Science of the Total Environment (407), 3219–3231. Uneputty, Prulley A, & Evans, SM. (1997). Accumulation of beach litter on islands of the Pulau Seribu Archipelago, Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34 (8), 652-655. UNESCO. (1995). Citarum. In K. Takeuchi, A. Jayawardena & Y. Takahasi (Eds.), Catalogue of rivers for Southeast Asia and the Pacific - Volume I (pp. 1-12). Hongkong: The UNESCO-IHP Regional Steering Committee for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO. (2004). Ciliwung. In Y. Tachikawa, R. James, K. Abdullah & M. N. B. M. Desa (Eds.), Catalogue of rivers for Southeast Asia and the Pacific - Volume V (pp. 33-44). Japan: The UNESCO-IHP Regional Steering Committee for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Untung, W. (2013). Kerugian banjir Jakarta bisa tembus Rp 15 triliun Tempo Interaktif, 18 January. http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/01/18/214455359/p-Kerugian-Banjir-Jakarta-Bisa-TembusRp-15-Triliun van der Meij, Sancia E. T., Suharsono, & Hoeksema, Bert W. (2010). Long-term changes in coral assemblages under natural and anthropogenic stress in Jakarta Bay (1920-2005). Marine Pollution Bulletin. Verstappen, Herman Th. (1988). Old and new observations on coastal changes of Jakarta Bay: An example of trends in urban stress on coastal environments. Journal of Coastal Research, 4 (4), 573-587. Ward, P., Marfai, M., Yulianto, F., Hizbaron, D., & Aerts, J. (2011). Coastal inundation and damage exposure estimation: a case study for Jakarta. Natural Hazards, 56 (3), 899-916. doi: 10.1007/s11069-010-9599-1 Wescott, Geoff. (2002). Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and universities working together. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45 (9–10), 549-571. White, A. T., Christie, P., D'Agnes, H., Lowry, K., & Milne, N. (2005). Designing ICM projects for sustainability: Lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48 (36), 271-296. Williams, TM, Rees, JG, & Setiapermana, D. (2000). Metals and trace organic compounds in sediments and waters of Jakarta Bay and the Pulau Seribu complex, Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 4 (3), 277-285. Willoughby, NG. (1986). Man-made flotsam on the strand-lines of the Thousand Islands (Kepulauan Seribu) Jakarta, Java. In B. E. Brown (Ed.), Unesco reports in marine science: Human induced damage to coral reef (pp. 157-163). Paris France: The United Nations Educational.
Wresti, M Clara. (2011). Kerang hijau tak boleh diternakkan di Teluk Jakarta. Kompas Online, 25 October. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/10/25/14404642/Kerang.Hijau.Tak.Boleh.Diternakkan.di.T eluk.Jakarta Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case study research Design and methods Fourth edition (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Inc. Yuliastuti, Dian. (2005). Peledakan jumlah plankton penyebab kematian ikan di Ancol. Tempo Interaktif, 24 April. http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/jakarta/2005/04/24/brk,20050424-05,id.html Yun. (2011). Indonesia miliki 13.466 pulau. Kompas Online, 8 April, announcement from Asep Karsidi (the head of Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Pemetaan Nasional). http://cetak.kompas.com/read/2011/04/08/03050788/indonesia.miliki.13.466.pulau
Appendix 1 List of regulations Laws Number
Subject Enacted in 1960s
Basic regulations of agrarian
Indonesian continental shelf
Enacted in 1970s Enacted in 1980s 5/1983 5/1984
Indonesian exclusive economic zone Industry Enacted in 1990s
5/1990 16/1992 24/1992 6/1996 30/1999
Conservation of biological resources and the ecosystems Quarantine of animals, fish and agricultures Spatial plan (later revised to Law 26/2007) Indonesian waters Arbitrage
25/2000 22/2001 3/2002 28/2002 7/2004 19/2004 25/2004 32/2004 33/2004 38/2004 17/2007 26/2007 27/2007 29/2007 30/2007 17/2008 18/2008 43/2008 4/2009 10/2009 22/2009 30/2009 32/2009 45/2009
National Development Program – Propenas 2000-2004 Oil and natural gas National defence Building Water resources Forestry (along with the Government Regulation Substitute for Law 1/2004 & Law 41/1999) National Development Planning System - SPPN Regional government Financial distribution between central and regional government Road National long term development plan – RPJP 2005-2025 Spatial use management Coastal and small islands management The province of Jakarta as the Capital City of the Republic of Indonesia Energy Shipping Solid waste management Territory Mining, minerals and coal Tourism Traffic and road transport Electricity Environmental Protection and Management Fisheries
Cultural heritage Housing and residential areas
Enacted in 2000s
Enacted in 2010s
Number 12/2011 2/2012
Subject Legislation making process Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest
Government regulations Number 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
82/2001 38/2007 41/2007 26/2008 19/2010 27/2012
Subject Marine pollution and destruction control (supported by Minister of Environment Decree 51/2004) Water quality management and water pollution control Government affairs distribution Regional organisation National spatial plan Authorities and duties of a governor Environmental permits
Presidential decrees Number 1
Subject Reclamation in the north coast of Jakarta Spatial plan of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi, Puncak, Cianjur (Jabodetabekpunjur) region National medium term development plan 2 - RPJMN 2 2010-2014 Spatial plan of Java-Bali region
Ministerial regulations Number
Subject Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
3 4 5 6
17/2008 18/2008 20/2088 14/2009
Community involvement in managing coastal areas and small islands Norms, standards and guidance for developing coastal and small islands documents Conservation area Accreditation program Utilisation of small islands and surrounding waters Maritime Partners Ministry of Environment
51/1995 112/2003 51/2004
Effluent quality standard for industrial activity (along with the Minister of Environment Regulation 122/2004) Domestic wastewater quality standards Marine water quality standards Ministry of Home Affairs
Technical procedures for regional cooperation
Provincial regulations Regulation Number
Subject Banten Province
1 2 3
6/2007 1/2010 2/2011
Government affairs Long-term development plan of Banten Province 2005-2025 Spatial plan of Banten Province 2010-2030
1 2 3 4 5
5/1984 8/1995 6/1999 10/2008 1/2012
General Spatial Plan of Jakarta Province - RUTR 2005 Implementation of reclamation and spatial plan the coast of North Jakarta Regional Spatial Plan of Jakarta Province - RTRW 2010 Governmental organisation of Jakarta Province Spatial plan of Jakarta Province - RTRW 2030
West Java Province 1 2 3
9/2008 10/2008 22/2010
Long-term development plan of West Java Province 2005-2025 Government affairs Spatial plan of West Java Province 2009-2029
Municipal regulations Number
Subject Tengerang Regency
Governmental organisation of Tengerang Regency Bekasi Regency
Governmental organisation of Bekasi Regency (along with Bekasi Regency Regulation 7/2009)
Appendix 2 Questionnaire Date: Data collection for a research regarding
JAKARTA BAY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PART I Please circle as appropriate: 1. The hierarchical level of your office: a. National
2. Please identify your office: ........................................................................................................... 3. Please describe the linkage (responsibilities) of your office with the management of Jakarta Bay: ................................................................................................................................. 4. Please state how long you have been working in the office: ....................................................... 5. Please identify your position in the office: ....................................................................................
PART II The following questions evaluate actions taken by your office in managing Jakarta Bay in 15 months (from January 2010 to March 2011). Please tick (√) the appropriate answer in the suitable
6 7 8
Attempted but stopped
Underway but impeded
In significant progress
Assessment of the environmental issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Regular environmental quality monitoring Development of the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plans
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Adoption of sustainable development principles as the goal for the Jakarta Bay strategic plan Assessment of the social issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Involvement of relevant private sector, residents, NGOs and scientists in developing Jakarta Bay strategic plan Implementation of the Jakarta Bay action plan Involvement of other relevant government sectors in developing the Jakarta Bay strategic and action plan Assessment of the institutional issues in Jakarta Bay and the implications for the management measures needed to be done Dissemination of information about the Jakarta Bay management program to the community at the bay regularly Regular social condition monitoring Establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for managing the bay Establishment of a stakeholders coordinating mechanism Establishment of a regulation to facilitate a coordinating mechanism for Jakarta Bay Adoption of the Jakarta Bay coastal and marine areas in local government development plan
Attempted but stopped
Underway but impeded
In significant progress
PART III The following questions are about management system of Jakarta Bay, which includes problems occurred, regulations related to the problems and the regulations enforcement that conducted by your office. Please give details on the answer to each question. Please also describe your vision (related to the duties and functions of your office) in managing the Bay in the future and the proposed financing mechanism to implement the vision. 21. What are the main problems that are encountered in Jakarta Bay related to the responsibilities of your office? 22. What are the main regulations affecting the management efforts of Jakarta Bay undertaken by your office?
23. In order to implement these regulations in question 22, what are the efforts or the programs conducted by your office? 24. How is the financing mechanism for the efforts or the programs? 25. What are the obstacles encountered in implementing the efforts or programs? 26. Please describe if there are any obstacles in managing Jakarta Bay that arise from other government sectors. 27. What are the efforts undertaken by your office to address the obstacles as per question 25 and 26? 28. How is the vision of your office to manage Jakarta Bay in the future? 29. Please give advice regarding the form of inter-sectoral management framework to manage Jakarta Bay. 30. Please describe your financing mechanism suggestion to finance the inter-sectoral management framework in question 29. 31. Would you like to know the result of this research? Please tick as needed. No
Yes, email address : ….…………………………............………………
Thank you for your participation