Assessment of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: a Case Study in the Seribu Islands, Indonesia

ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY IN THE SERIBU ISLANDS, INDONESIA

Aulia Riza Farhan A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SCHOOL OF SURVEYING AND GEOSPATIAL ENGINEERING FACULTY OF ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES MARCH 2013

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorize University Microfilms to use the 350-word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………...... Date ……………………………………………......

ABSTRACT

The sustainability of marine and coastal environments has received significant attention since the Earth Summit in 1992, where Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was proposed as a framework for cooperation among decision makers and decisive action in the interests of better coastal management.

Vulnerability assessment is one of the methods currently being used to measure the ocean and coastal sustainability in order to enable better evaluation and redesign of land-based development and policy-making. Because of different geological and geographical formations, the elements that comprise the vulnerability indicators are different from each other, and there are various vulnerability equations that have been used. At the present time, there are no fixed vulnerability indicators that can be applied universally in every country.

The Seribu Islands, Indonesia, also known in English as the Thousand Islands, have been chosen as a study site for vulnerability assessment according to the basic principles of ICZM theory. The Seribu Islands region, consisting of 106 islands, is located to the north of Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. The assessment focuses on spatial analysis using Geographic Information System (GIS) data on physical/biophysical change, and is carried out in conjunction with qualitative analysis of socio-economic and governance factors, including reviewing ocean and coastal policies in Indonesia. The history of spatial changes in the study area was crucial for identifying the vulnerability indicators and qualitatively assessing them in terms of socio-economic factors. Governance factors added valuable information for enhancing the accuracy and validity of the results.

The results showed that the region possesses sustainability from a social and economic perspective; however, its environment is severely degraded. Urban pressures, over exploitations of fishery and pollutants from four major rivers in Daerah Khusus Ibu Kota Jakarta i.e. Special Capital Region of Jakarta, Banten Province and West Jawa Province have played a significant role in this environmental degradation. As a result, six islands from within the Seribu Islands region had been lost by 2012. The research also found that the policies designed to maintain the balance of social, economic and environmental ii impacts on the region have failed to protect the region from change. The ambiguity and powerlessness of law enforcement is another factor responsible for environmental damage in the region.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of a number of institutions and the guidance and help of several individuals, who contributed in various ways to the preparation and completion of this study.

First and foremost, I am indebted to the Australian Development Scholarships scheme, which funded my study and gave me the support I needed to produce and complete my thesis.

It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support, guidance and encouragement of my supervisor, Professor Samsung Lim, who with his patience and knowledge has supported me throughout my thesis, while allowing me the room to work in my own way.

Besides my supervisor, I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Dr. Craig Roberts, and Professor Chris Rizos, Head of the School of Surveying and Geospatial Engineering at UNSW, for their encouragement and insightful comments.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to those institutions that helped with the collation of the research data and material that enabled me to conduct this research. Without them, I could not have written this thesis. They are: the Local Government of the Seribu Islands region, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia, the Indonesian Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences and the Royal Tropical Institute of Amsterdam.

Special thank you to Dr. Keith Foulcher, who helped in the writing and editing stages and has made this thesis look remarkable.

My sincere thanks to students and staff of the School of Surveying and Geospatial Engineering for their support and assistance.

I would also like to thank my beloved parents and families for their continuous moral support throughout all of my studies.

Not to be forgotten are my cheerful group of fellow research students, Irja Simbiak, Dyah Santi Dewi, Asep Permana, Muhamad Undu, who were always there for me, from the beginning until the completion of this thesis. I cannot find words to thank you all for your support and encouragement.

Last but not least, this thesis would have remained a dream had it not been for my lovely wife, Kurwiany ‘Dessy’ Ukar, who has always supported me in so many ways. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue this degree.

LIST OF PUBLICATION AND CONFERENCES

Published Journal Papers: 1. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2010. Integrated coastal zone management towards Indonesia global ocean observing system (INA-GOOS): Review and recommendation." Ocean and Coastal Management, 53(8): 421-427. 2. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2011. Resilience assessment on coastline changes and urban settlements: A case study in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54(5): 391-400. 3. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2012. Vulnerability assessment of ecological conditions in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 65, 1-14. 4. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2013. Improving vulnerability assessment towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): a case study of small islands in Indonesia. Journal of Coastal Conservation, DOI:10.1007/s11852-013-0269-9.

Conference Proceedings Papers: 5. LIM, S., FARHAN, A. R. HAN, S. 2010. “Resilience Assessment on the Urban Development and Coastal Management”, Proceedings of International Symposium on Benefiting from Earth Observation, 4-6 October 2010, Kathmandu, Nepal.

6. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2012. “Integrated assessments on small islands region towards the sustainable development: a case study in Seribu Islands, Indonesia", Proceedings of the 50th ECSA Conference, 3-7 June 2012, Venice, Italy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF PUBLICATION AND CONFERENCES VI TABLE OF CONTENTS VII ABBREVIATIONS X LIST OF FIGURES XII LIST OF TABLES XVI

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1 1.2 RESEARCH AIM 2 1.3 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY 4 1.4 THESIS STRUCTURE 5

CHAPTER 2 INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA 6

2.1 INTRODUCTION 6 2.2 THEORY OF INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 7 2.3 INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION 10 2.4 SUSTAINABILITY AND PROBLEMS WITHIN ICZM IMPLEMENTATION 11 2.5 PROBLEMS WITH INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA 12

2.6 THE INDONESIAN GLOBAL OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM (INA-GOOS) AS A SUPPORT FOR ICZM 16 2.7 AN APPROACH TO ICZM IMPLEMENTATION IN INDONESIA 19 2.7.1 ENHANCING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE 19 2.7.2 STRENGTHENING INA-GOOS 20 2.8 THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AS A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM 21 2.9 SUMMARY 25

CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 26

3.1 INTRODUCTION 26

vii

3.2 INDONESIA AS AN ARCHIPELAGIC STATE AND ITS SMALL ISLANDS 26 3.3 STUDY AREA 30 3.4 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 33 3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN 34 3.6 SUMMARY 40

CHAPTER 4 RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT OF THE SERIBU ISLANDS 41

4.1 INTRODUCTION 41

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF URBAN SETTLEMENT ON THE SERIBU ISLANDS AS A RESILIENCE

INDICATOR 41 4.3 METHODOLOGY 45 4.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47 4.5 SUMMARY 59

CHAPTER 5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ISLANDS NEAR JAKARTA BAY 60

5.1 INTRODUCTION 60

5.2 JAKARTA BAY 60 5.3 METHODOLOGY 62 5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 65 5.5 SUMMARY 80

CHAPTER 6 ASSESSMENT OF OCEAN AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 82

6.1 INTRODUCTION 82 6.2 POLITICAL REFORMATION AND THE DECENTRALISATION PROCESS 82 6.3 INDONESIAN POLICIES ON OCEAN AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT 86 6.3.1 BEFORE THE REFORMATION ERA 87 6.3.2 AFTER THE REFORMATION ERA 90

6.4 METHODOLOGY 92 6.4.1 POLICY IMPACT 92 6.4.2 POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND VALIDATION 92 6.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 93 6.5.1 GOVERNANCE 103 6.5.2 PUBLIC/LOCAL COMMUNITY 104

viii

6.5.3 DEVELOPMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING 105 6.6 SUMMARY 107

CHAPTER 7 INTEGRATED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOWARDS INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 109

7.1 INTRODUCTION 109 7.2 THE HISTORY OF INDONESIAN COASTAL EXPLORATION AND DATA COLLECTION 109 7.3 METHODOLOGY 110 7.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 111 7.4.1 ZONE 1 113

7.4.2 ZONE 2 114 7.4.3 ZONE 3 122 7.4.4 ZONE 4 130 7.5 VULNERABILITY COMPUTATION 135 7.6 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO ICZM 143 7.6.1 INTERSECTORAL INTEGRATION 143 7.6.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTEGRATION 146 7.6.3 SPATIAL AND DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION 148 7.7 SUMMARY 150

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 152

8.1 INTRODUCTION 152 8.2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE VULNERABILITY APPROACH IN THIS THESIS 152 8.3 IMPROVING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR ICZM 154 8.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS 157 8.5 FURTHER RESEARCH 158

REFERENCES 161

APPENDIX A: UNSW ETHIC APPROVAL 168 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDELINES 169 APPENDIX C: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FROM 1983-2009 170 APPENDIX D: COASTAL VULNERABILITY COMPUTATION 171

ABBREVIATIONS

APN Asia Pacific Network ASEAN Association of Southeast Asia Nations AUSAID Australian Agency for International Development BAKOSURTANAL Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional (Indonesia National Agency) BPPT Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (Indonesia National Agency) BPS - Indonesia Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia (Indonesia National Agency) CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COREMAP Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project CRM Coastal Resource Management CVI Coastal Vulnerability Index DSS Decision Support System EVI Environmental Vulnerability Index FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information Systems GEOSS Global Earth Observing System of Systems GOOS Global Ocean Observing Systems ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management IMO International Maritime Organisation INA-GOOS Indonesia Global Ocean Observing Systems IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency LIPI Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia MCA Multi Criteria Analysis MGI Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Geologi Laut MNP Marine National Park

PEMSEA Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia PORSEC Pan Ocean Remote Sensing Conference REPELITA Rencana Pembangunan Lima Tahun SEACORM Southeast Asia Center for Ocean Research and Monitoring SOPAC South Asia Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission TNC The Nature Conservancy UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Issues related to Indonesian waters (Source: Research Centre for Marine Technology, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Indonesia) ______19 Figure 3.1 The location of small island regions in Indonesia ______28 Figure 3.2 Study Area (Source of Map: BAKOSURTANAL and Source of Marine National Park Boundary: Local Government of Seribu Islands) ______32 Figure 3.3 Research Framework ______33 Figure 3.4 Steps in the process of defining resilience and vulnerability indicators ___ 34 Figure 3.5 Spatial Data Coverage ______37 Figure 4.1 Methodology ______47 Figure 4.2 Coastline Change on Tidung Besar Island______48 Figure 4.3 Coastline Change on Tidung Kecil Island ______49 Figure 4.4 Coastline Change in the Pari Islands Region ______50 Figure 4.5 Coastline Change on Panggang Island, Pramuka Island and Karya Island _ 51 Figure 4.6 Coastline Change on Harapan and Kelapa Islands ______52 Figure 4.7 Development on Pramuka Island ______54 Figure 4.8 Development on Panggang Island ______54 Figure 4.9 Development on Harapan, Kelapa and Kelapa Dua Island ______55 Figure 4.10 Development on Pari Island______55 Figure 4.11 Development on Pari Island______56 Figure 4.12 Development on Payung Besar Island ______56 Figure 5.1 Jakarta Bay (Source: Landsat Imagery 1989) ______60 Figure 5.2 The Contraction of Ubi Besar Island ______61 Figure 5.3 Methodology ______64 Figure 5.4 Missing Islands in the Study Area by 1999 ______65 Figure 5.5 Geological Changes in Pari Island (A) and Lancang Besar Island (B) ____ 66 Figure 5.6 Geological Changes in Laki Island (A), Bokor Island (B), Rambut Island (C), Untungjawa Island (D), Dapur Island (E) and Ayer Besar Island (F) ____ 67 Figure 5.7 Geological Changes in Damar Besar Island (A), Damar Kecil Island (B), Nyamuk Kecil Island (C), Kelor Island (D), Bidadari Island (E), Kayangan Island (F) and Onrust Island (G) ______69 Figure 5.8 Pollution Distribution ______71 xii

Figure 5.9 Distribution of Seabed Sediment (Source: based on survey by Marine Geology Indonesia in 1990) ______72 Figure 5.10 Ecological Vulnerability Assessment in Dry Seasons (Derived from Table 5.5) ______77 Figure 5.11 Ecological Vulnerability Assessment in Wet Seasons (Derived from Table 5.5) ______77 Figure 6.1 Indonesian Legislation System ______85 Figure 6.2 Comparative Study between International and Indonesian effort on ICZM (modified from Vallega (2001b) ______86 Figure 6.3 Qualitative data Analysis based on development, economy, environment, socio- and governance issues ______95 Figure 6.4 Issues on Seribu Island region using Matrix Coding analysis based on news media between 1965-2012 (X-axis represents the issues on study area and Y-axis represents numbers of news media references) ______97 Figure 6.5 Issues on Seribu Islands Region ______98 Figure 6.6 Missing Islands by year 2012 ______100 Figure 6.7 Destructive development on Ayer Island ______102 Figure 6.8 Policy issues on Seribu Islands region from 510 articles (between 1965- 2012) in NVIVO software (X-axis represents the issues on study area and Y-axis represents the numbers of news media references) ______103 Figure 7.1 Methodology ______111 Figure 7.2 Zone classification based on its pressures ______112 Figure 7.3 Geological Changes in Tidung Besar (A) and Tidung Kecil Island (B).__ 116 Figure 7.4 Geological Changes in Karangkeling Island (A), Payung Kecil Island (B), Payung Besar Island (C), Ayer Island (D) and Karang Beras Island (E) _ 117 Figure 7.5 Geological Changes in Kotok Kecil Island (A), Kotok Besar Island (B), Gosong Keroya Island (C), Karya Island (D), Sekati Island (E), Panggang Island (F) and Pramuka Island (D) ______118 Figure 7.6 Geological Changes in Karang Bongkok Island (A), Gosong Pandan Island (B), Gosong Layar Island, Semak Daun Island (D) and Sempit Island (E). ______119

xiii

Figure 7.7 Geological Changes in Kelapa Island (A), Harapan Island (B), Kaliage Besar Island (C), Kaliage Kecil Island (D), Semut Island (E), Opak Besar Island (F), Opak Kecil Island (G) and Paniki Island (H). ______120 Figure 7.8 Geological Changes in Panjang Kecil Island (A), Panjang Besar Island (A), Kelapa Dua Island (C) and Pemagaran Island (D) ______122 Figure 7.9 Geological Changes in Kayuangin Bira Island (A), Kuburan Cina Island (B), Bira Kecil Island (C), Bulat Island (D), Macan Besar Island (E), Kayuangin Genteng Island (F), Genteng Kecil Island (G), Genteng Besar Island (H), Macan Kecil Island and Macan Gungul Island (J). ______124 Figure 7.10 Geological Changes in Putri Barat Island (A), Putri Timur Island (B), Sepa Barat Island (C), Sepa Timur Island (D), Papatheo Island (E), Pelangi Island (F), Belanda Island (G) and Bira Besar (H). ______126 Figure 7.11 Geological Changes in Semut Kecil Island (A), Melintang Besar Island (B), Melintang Kecil Island (C), Tongkeng Island (D), Kayuangin Melintang (E), Panjang Island (F), Kayuanginputri (G) and Perak Island (H) _____ 128 Figure 7.12 Geological Changes in Yu Barat Island (A), Yu Timur Island (B), Kelor Barat Island (C), Kelor Timur Island (D), Jukung Island (E), Satu Island (F), Melinjo Island (G), Cina Island (H), Besar Island (I) ______129 Figure 7.13 Geological Changes in Rengat Island (A), Sebaru Besar Island (B), Sebaru Kecil Island (C), Nyamplung Island (D), Lipan Island (E), Bunder Island (F), Kapas Island (G), Pantara Barat Island (H) and Pantara Timur Island (I) ______132 Figure 7.14 Geological Changes in Pabelokan Kecil Island (A), Pabelokan Besar Island (B), Gosong Rengat Island (C), Dua Barat Island (D), Dua Timur Island (E), Jagung Island (F), Pateloran Barat Island (G), Penjaliran Barat Island (H), Pateloran Timur Island (I) and Penjaliran Timur Island (J) ______133 Figure 7.15 Environmental Issues Based on Matrix Coding Classification of 213 Articles (published between 1965 and 2012) using NVIVO Software (X- axis represents the issues concerning the study area and Y-axis represents the number of references) ______143 Figure 7.16 Infrastructure Development Issues Based on Matrix Coding Classification of 78 Articles (published between 1965 and 2012), using NVIVO Software

xiv

(X-axis represents issues concerning the study area and Y-axis represents the number of references) ______144 Figure 7.17 Representation of Population Migration to the Mainland, (if coping capacity fails to address fundamental social and economic needs in the region). (modified from Renaud (2006) ______145 Figure 7.18 Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation in the Seribu Islands Region ____ 147

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Global Vulnerability Assessment ______24 Table 4.1 The Lesson Drawing Method, adapted from Rose (1991) ______42 Table 4.2 Number of Inhabitants (Indonesia-BPS, 2009) ______42 Table 4.3 Vulnerability Indexes for the Seribu Islands Region (Modified from SOPAC environmental index) ______53 Table 4.4 Vulnerability Indexes on Populated Islands ______57 Table 4.5 Vulnerability on Populated Islands ______57 Table 5.1 Vulnerability Indicators and Classification______73 Table 5.2 CVI Classification Based on Land Use, Coastline Changes, Island Location, and Pollutant Area ______74 Table 5.3 CVI Classification Based on Coral Changes and Dead Coral Reefs ______75 Table 5.4 Weight for Vulnerability Index ______75 Table 5.5 Coastal Vulnerability Index ______76 Table 6.1 Content Analysis ______94 Table 7.1 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 2 ______115 Table 7.2 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 3 ______123 Table 7.3 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 4 ______131 Table 7.4 Vulnerability Indicators for Each Zone of the Seribu Islands ______135 Table 7.5 Vulnerability Indicators and Classification (modified from Farhan and Lim, 2012)______136 Table 7.6 Weight for Vulnerability Indicators ______136 Table 7.7 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 1, Modified from Chapter 5 ______137 Table 7.8 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 2 ______138 Table 7.9 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 3 ______139 Table 7.10 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 4 ______140

xvi

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background Essentially, oceans are the primary routes for trade and commerce in most of the world, especially for people living in coastal areas. Increased population and urbanisation in coastal areas has caused coastal erosion, pollution, tourism, oil spills, coastal eutrophication, ecosystem changes and declining fish stocks. The preservation of natural habitats and resources is an urgent problem affecting the economy, which also has strong social and business impacts. In any process of economic reform, and particularly in Indonesia, the health of the oceans must always be a primary consideration.

Indonesia as an archipelagic country consisting of more than 17,504 large and small islands1. As such, it faces challenging problems in terms of island management and the provision of ocean services to the coastal community. As one of the most populous countries in the world, Indonesia is also a key country in the global concern with environmental issues. It is endowed with enormous natural resources, but it faces serious environmental problems. Poor legislation or weak or non-existent law enforcement (Dirhamsyah, 2006) has had a serious impact in areas like forestry, agriculture, fisheries and the marine environment, and pollution resulting from urban development is also a major concern as described by Bird and Ongkosongo (1980); and Cesar et al. (1997). Both the central government and local governments have shown a willingness to overcome these problems, but the implementation of reform lags far behind declared intentions (Fauzi and Anggraini Buchary, 2002).

Population growth (BPS Indonesia, 2011), especially in coastal areas, and declining natural resources caused by overfishing and overexploitation, are some of the biggest concerns, both for the central and local governments in Indonesia. Another problem is

1 Based on the Center of Statistical Data and Information, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Republic of Indonesia. 2013, http:// www.kkp.go.id 1 inconsistency in the top-down policy frameworks of governments at all levels as described by Patlis (2005). This has led to issues with policy implementation, including the rejection of government policies by coastal communities, especially fishermen.

During the Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was conceptualised as an integrated management process for the coastal sustainability in geographical, political and environmental senses (Vallega, 2000). It is crucial for the proposed ICZM to proceed by making full use of existing institutions and mechanisms, taking account of currently operating systems and data that has already been collected. Only in an incremental way can the gaps in current capabilities be progressively filled. As part of this process, the strengths and weaknesses of some of the major existing mechanisms (e.g. local/district systems, and regional conventions) need to be critically analysed and a new approach and formula needs to be developed and tested. One of the methods that can be used in this undertaking is resilience and vulnerability theory.

1.2 Research Aim The aim of this research is to assess ICZM using resilience/vulnerability theory in order to develop guidelines and principles for sustainable development goals. The research will be limited to the Seribu Islands region which consists of many small islands in Indonesian waters and located in the northern part of the Special Capital City Region of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta).

To apply ICZM principles to a small islands region in Indonesia, there are four elements for integration of coastal zone management which will be assessed in this study, i.e. environmental, governance, economic and socio-cultural. They form part of three working hypotheses that are to be assessed and investigated, as follows: Hypothesis 1: Small islands in Indonesia are more undeveloped than main islands.

Hypothesis 2: Geographical factors in Indonesia make small islands in Indonesia environmentally vulnerable.

Hypothesis 3: Policy factors in Indonesia lead to a concentration on the main islands, leaving small islands untouched by existing policies.

The following research questions will be addressed in order to investigate these hypotheses: a. To what extent are coastal community groups vulnerable in terms of bio-geo- physical changes? b. How resilient are coastal communities in overcoming these changes? c. To what extent has the management of these changes been affected by ocean and coastal policies, and how adaptive have these policies proved in the face of these changes? d. How can a vulnerability framework be developed and computed? e. What are the potential indicators for evaluating the degree of vulnerability?

Essentially, this research consists of two main phases in relation to planning, implementing and managing ICZM in Indonesia, i.e. the development of a Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) and the development of policy guidelines for ICZM. The research will be conducted by using quantitative and qualitative methods. In its first phase, it will analyse and focus on spatial modeling using the Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing in order to develop a coastal vulnerability index (CVI).

Assessment and development of a CVI for developing countries, especially Indonesia, is crucial. In order to implement the ICZM effectively, it is essential that firstly, policy makers understand how vulnerable their coasts and oceans are, so that they can establish priorities in devising policies for managing and evaluating their coastal regions (Crawford et al., 1993). Secondly, in order to achieve sustainability in the management of coasts and oceans, it is very important to have a measure of vulnerability that can guide the formulation of suitable policy and regulation in that area.

Most vulnerability studies in coastal areas have produced indicators i.e. indices and sub- indices based on areas of interest and discipline such as land indices, socio-economic indices, and so on, which will be explained further in Chapter 2. These indicators must be examined thoroughly to provide reliable information on how the study area has changed and analyses have to be developed to indicate possible parameters to be included

3 in the index. Available information, information gaps and events affecting the small islands in Indonesia need to be collected and investigated.

The most important aspect of defining the index of vulnerability is that a new approach and formula equation is needed in the case of each area under investigation, because all indicators in every coastal area will be different and all indicators will have different units of measurement as described by Hilhorst and Bankoff (2004). Importantly, they must be mapped onto the same scale using a weighted method in order to make a reliable analysis.

The results will be used as fundamental information for policy makers to understand how vulnerable their coasts and oceans are, so they can establish priorities in devising policies for managing and evaluating their coastal regions.

The second phase of this research is a comparative study of the legal/policy aspects of coastal management in Indonesia in order to define a suitable policy component to support the ICZM in a particular area, which can then be used to define the role of each island using the basic principles of ICZM theory as mentioned by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998).

There are two main outcomes of this research, the first being a CVI on small island Indonesia that is at least applicable at the regional level and can specify the level of vulnerability in the study area. The second outcome is a set of guidelines for the operation, management and development of ICZM in accordance with Indonesian legislation and policies.

1.3 Contribution of the study The main contributions of this thesis are:  An identification of the problems of ocean and coastal management in Indonesia  A resilience and vulnerability index for small islands  The formulation of suitable methods to determine the vulnerability approach for small island regions in archipelagic states

 The formulation of guidelines for marine and coastal policy for sustainable development of small island regions

At the Indonesian policy level, this research will enable the creation of a partnership among environmental agencies, the industrial sector, scientific and technological communities, all of which have a part to play in achieving sustainable development, especially for fishermen and coastal communities. This partnership between different levels of political administration, researchers and the private sector will be fundamental in the process of planning the management of Indonesia’s marine and coastal resources in the future.

1.4 Thesis structure This thesis is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 1 presents the research background, research objectives and its aims. Chapter 2 describes an in-depth theory of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and illustrates the condition of Integrated Coastal Management in Indonesia, especially its problems and the possible solutions for overcoming existing conflicts. Chapter 3 describes the condition of Indonesian oceans and coastal regions, followed by a discussion of the general condition of the study area, and the methodology for addressing the research aims. Chapter 4 clarifies the preliminary findings on resilience in the populated islands compared to other islands. Chapter 5 delivers the vulnerability assessment in term of the ecology of islands located near the sources of anthropogenic pressures, using a series of remote sensing data and GIS calculations. Chapter 6 discusses the historical aspects of ocean and coastal policy based on qualitative assessment with GIS visualisation for added detail on the problems, also describing the conflicts among managers and islanders over generations. Chapter 7 analyses the integration between vulnerability assessment of environmental, social, developmental, economic and governance factors, based on a series of quantitative assessment (GIS) and qualitative assessment (NVIVO) data. Chapter 8 evaluates the vulnerability assessment and explains how improvements in the vulnerability of small islands in an archipelagic country can be achieved, as well as describing the guidelines and principles of ICZM in the study area.

Chapter 2 Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Indonesia

2.1 Introduction Indonesia is the largest archipelagic state in the world, consisting of more than 17,504 islands, more than 104,000 km of coastline, and with 70% of its territorial area covered by oceans. These unique characteristics produce benefits in economy, which can serve as the statistical basis for the improved management of agriculture, fisheries, water supply, aquaculture, and tourism. However, in spite of the benefits, Indonesia also faces significant problems in terms of island management as well as in the provision of services to coastal communities. As a result, in 1987, the Indonesian government adopted and implemented a program of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) (Tridoyo, 2008, Sukardjo, 2002). This program was reinforced under the Indonesian State Ministry of the Environment in 1992 as part of an international agreement reached in the same year at the Earth Summit and continues to the present day. However, the results of the program have been unsatisfactory, leading to problems in terms of management and funding. The program has also faced rejection by coastal communities. Moreover, the government did not establish regulations and guidelines to support the program financially, which has meant that ICZM has relied solely on international donors.

To overcome these issues, in 1999, the Indonesian government finally established a new department named the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries2, which is responsible for both policy and coastal/marine development within Indonesian waters in order to support and enhance the welfare of coastal communities. Also in 1999, responsibility for the development of coastal areas shifted from central government authority to local governments. This gives local governments the ability to manage their marine and coastal resources, but the lack of management knowledge at this level and emphasis on profits rather than ecological and coastal environment sustainability, have brought more problems than benefits to coastal communities. Moreover, the development of coastal

2 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Republic of Indonesia, http://www.kkp.go.id 6 infrastructure such as commercial and fishing ports in a number of Indonesian regions has resulted in a severe increase in the pollution of marine environments.

In 2002, to sustain ICZM programs, wide-ranging regulations were announced under a decree by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (decree no. 10 of 2002) entitled “Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Planning”. These regulations were renewed in decree no. 16 of 2008 entitled “The Planning and Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands”. These decrees have enabled the central and local governments to promote the program and maintain the funding of ICZM. However, in Indonesia, much of the marine ecosystem information produced at the central level is not available at the local government level (Dutton, 1997). Consequently, many local governments were unaware of ICZM programs.

For regional areas in Indonesia to be fully aware of ICZM, there is a need for support from both levels of government, as well as the establishment of a national ocean observation system. Once this is achieved, implementation of integrated management schemes for coastal areas and open seas will become a value-added product for the revenue of all maritime industries. At the same time, international agreements and commercial activities require monitoring and reporting systems for the sustainable exploitation of maritime resources.

2.2 Theory of Integrated Coastal Zone Management ICZM was first introduced in the 1970s. Mutual understanding of, and interest in, ICZM later made the program part of an international agenda. In 1989, a workshop was held in Charleston, South Carolina, USA to review the progress of ICZM over the 20 years since its introduction (Sorensen, 1993). The outcome of this workshop was an agreement on the following definition of ICZM: “a dynamic process in which a coordinated strategy is developed and implemented for the allocation of environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional resources to achieve the conservation and sustainable multiple use of the coastal zone” (Sorensen, 1993, p. 49). It was also agreed that ICZM programs should have all the following elements: ICZM is a continuous process and as a decision-making process, it needs support from government, networking among coastal systems and a definitive geographical boundary. Other authors have tried to define ICZM in terms that 7 are the most acceptable for its stakeholders. According to Cicin-Sain, (1993, p.29), ICZM is “a process that recognizes the distinctive character of the coastal zone itself [as] a valuable resource for the current and future generations”, while Turner and Bower (1999, p.13) state that ICZM is “a continuous, adaptive, day-to-day process which consists of a sets of tasks, typically carried out by several or many public and private entities”. The most commonly used definition of ICZM is “a continuous process with the general aim of implementing sustainable development in coastal zones and maintaining their diversity. To this end, it aims, by more effective management, to establish and maintain optimum (sustainable) levels of use, development and activity in coastal zones, and eventually to improve the state of the coastal environment” (European Commission, 1996).3

These ICZM definitions have in common the understanding that ICZM is fundamental for sustainable coastal development and can only be achieved by strategic coordination of all levels of management. The definitions of ICZM proposed by Cicin-Sain (1993) and the European Commission are more specific, because they were aware that every country has different coastal characteristics and before implementing the ICZM, each country must fully understand its own coastal elements and diversity.

Ultimately, international endorsement and agreement on ICZM came in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro This summit was concerned with the commitment to “sustainable development” and highlighted conservation and preservation of the environment and natural resources. After the Earth Summit, the issues surrounding the oceans and coastal environments led to similar actions in each of the countries involved. In particular, the European Commission encouraged its members to use the concept of ICZM to promote understanding about the environment and to support decision-making processes.

The policy regarding ICZM can be found in Chapter 17 in Agenda 21 of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, entitled “protection of the oceans” (FAO,

3 European Commission. 1996. Overview of ICZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/overview.htm 8

2009), which has seven priorities: (a) “integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas, including exclusive economic zones”, (b) “marine environmental protection”, (c) “sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high seas”, (d) “sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources under national jurisdiction”, (e) “addressing critical uncertainties for the management of the marine environment and climate change”, (f) “strengthening international, including regional, co-operation and co-ordination”, and (g) “sustainable development of small islands”. However these policies were applied to global conditions and challenges (Cicin-Sain, 1993), which made them difficult to implement. All nations need to choose their priorities for implementation and prepare for all necessary action in terms of funding technology, policy and capacity building (Vallega, 1993).

After the Earth Summit, attempts to implement ICZM increased and were undertaken by several countries (Cicin-Sain, 1996). However, many countries experienced difficulties in trying to adopt the policy and implement it. According to Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), there are five capacities required for the successful implementation of ICZM: legal/administrative, financial, technical/equipment and human resources. The implementation of ICZM also has been subject to debate because of the lack of results and differences in the evaluation criteria, especially in developing countries that have very large populations concentrated in coastal areas (Chua and Yu, 1998). This hampers the evaluation of public participation, especially in countries made up of many islands, where each island has different characteristics and local customs.

The difficulties experienced in the implementation of the seven programs named under Agenda 21 were inevitable and the issue became how to make equitable plans for ICZM priorities. In 1996, the seven main programs of ICZM were reduced to five programs (Knecht, 1997) and were declared in a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1996). These were (a) “the management of coastal and ocean resources”, (b) “the action plan for small island developing states”, (c) “the program of action for land-based activities affecting the marine environment”, (d) “dealing with sea level rise associated with climate change”, and (e) “protection of coastal and marine biodiversity” (Knecht, 1997, p. 34).

Globally, there is growing understanding that the coast is a complex natural environment with associated problematic policy issues, where different agencies have different arguments, responsibilities and jurisdictions (Allmendinger et al., 2002). Thus, implementing ICZM in one area is subject to much confusion and effort. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) stress that the crucial fundamental of ICZM implementation is the authoritative framework, which must apply and unite all national agencies. To overcome this problem, good coordination and management across sectors, levels of government, scientific and natural systems need to be established (Allmendinger et al., 2002). Westmacott (2002) argues that there is a cyclic process to planning, implementing and managing ICZM, which is problem/user-need analysis of the scenario and strategy, implementation system, monitoring and evaluation leading to redesigning of the scenario and strategy.

2.3 Integrated Coastal Management in the Asia Pacific Region The establishment of the Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) in 1995 was a benchmark for ICZM in the Asia Pacific Region. There are five goals in the APN Strategic Plans, i.e. enhancing global regional cooperation, strengthening scientific, policy and public services, scientific and technology improvement, and the development of research infrastructure and capacity building (Harvey and Mimura, 2006).

Integrated Coastal Management Implementation in the Asia Pacific Region has been influenced by both local and external factors, particularly the issue of global warming (Harvey and Hilton, 2006). Local influences such as population, community participation, natural resources and traditional fishing methods have led to severe problems in coastal and ocean areas in the region. However, external issues could benefit the Asia Pacific Region in terms of funding, collaboration and technology transfer. In the Southeast Asia region, most ICM projects have been funded by international bodies or donor agencies, such as ASEAN and the United States for Coastal Resource Management (CRM) in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

Most of the developing countries in the Asia Pacific Region are dependent on external donors and usually the programs have a limited time framework. Despite these limitations, ICZM programs are increasing. One example is GEF/UNDP/IMO under 10

Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) for the East Asia Seas management and eleven countries had involved: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, North Korea, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines as described by Chua et al. (2006).

Theoretically, as Turner and Bower (1999) explain, the benefits of ICZM are massive. In practice, however, several countries have experienced severe problems in implementing ICZM. These problems are explained briefly below.

2.4 Sustainability and problems within ICZM implementation For many years, coastal areas have suffered from a lack of management, guidelines and coordination within national and international bodies. Although ICZM has been in operation for several years in many countries, the results have failed to meet expectations, especially in developing countries (Garmendia et al., 2010, Zagonari, 2008, Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007, Christie, 2005, Burbridge and Humphrey, 2003, Cicin-Sain et al., 2000, Burbridge, 1997, Crawford et al., 1993).

In most of these countries, evaluation of ICZM has found that it was not sustainable and there was no integration between governance-social-economic factors and no support from coastal communities. Many countries experienced flaws and lack of understanding in the process of implementing the program. For example in European countries, Shipman and Stojanovic (2007) identified four factors as problems. They were: redundant responsibility, national policy, information exchange and bureaucracy. The common issue in coastal management has been the integration of science, management and policy (Burbridge and Humphrey, 1999).

Another example in the Asia Pacific Region of the problems within ICZM implementation is the issue of rapidly growing population, especially in the poorest countries, along with the impact of past colonisation history (Harvey and Hilton, 2006). There are also shared problems with ocean and coastal issues (Westmacott, 2002) such as rapidly rising coastal settlements, worsening environment quality, decline of critical ecosystems and biodiversity, overfishing, escalating vulnerability to natural hazards and defencelessness in the face of the impact of global warming. Consequently, in the Asia 11

Pacific Region, increasing land changes, pollution and environmental degradation have become inevitable and unpredictable.

In developing countries, there are four common problems. The first issue is the absence of state laws or government regulations that can drive the ICZM program towards its full implementation, which threatens the continuation of ICZM program itself. Secondly, most developing countries have experienced difficulties in providing funding for long- term projects. ICZM has usually been an initiative of the developed countries through grants or loans. These initiatives have usually grown out of feasibility studies conducted by the developed country, with developing countries tending to follow schemes usually implemented with very low participation rates among the coastal communities, who are not involved from the beginning and lack the knowledge to implement them. The third common issue was users’ needs. As Westmacott (2001) explains, before implementing ICZM in one country, one element that must be considered is user need analysis. Most ICZM policies implemented in developing countries have been designed by decision makers rather than the coastal communities involved. Moreover, most countries have focused on the enhancement of their economy through rapid development of their land despite the consequences for the environment. The fourth problem is the lack of educational resources. In this connection, reviews by individuals such as researchers and scientists, or national and international country reports, could be studied by the government (Milne et al., 2004). Eventually, by enhancing their education budget as well as providing information regarding ICZM, developing countries could be better able to evaluate and plan their coastal management issues (Christie, 2005).

2.5 Problems with Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Indonesia Indonesia adopted the ICZM policy for the first time in 1987. Until 1999 it was administered through the Community-Based Coastal Resources Management Project (Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005), with funding from the US agency for International Development. This program emphasised community development, marine protected areas and organised a cooperative and resort owners association. The project was focused in two areas: Segara Anakan (West Java) and Bunaken (North Sulawesi), with over 40 projects being conducted during the program’s lifetime. The program mainly focused on

12 community skills, in order to enhance capabilities in the areas of agriculture, fishing and marine aquaculture.

Despite the improvements recorded in fishermen’s skills, especially in agriculture and marine aquaculture, the project did not produce any enhancement of fishing infrastructure and technology. Lack of government support means that fishermen still use traditional fishing boats without standard safety provisions and fish according to traditional methods, relying on their experience and local customs as described by Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005) and Tridoyo (2008). As a result, they sometimes still make use of cyanide and water bombs to increase their catch. This situation has been aggravated by rapid development of hotels and resorts in Indonesian coastal regions. Lacking waste management facilities, these commercial ventures often discharge waste directly into the ocean, which has a significant impact on environmental sustainability. At present, there are still no regulations from either the central government or local governments regarding the management of waste from households or private sector enterprises like factories, hotels and resorts.

Other ICZM programs that have been instituted in Indonesia are: a project on the island of Komodo funded by Nature Conservancy (TNC) between 1995 and 2009, the Coastal Resources Management (CRMIndo) project from 1997 to 2003, funded by USAID, and finally, the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP) from 1998 to 2009. A comprehensive evaluation of ICZM projects in Indonesia was conducted by White et al. (2005). This evaluation was based on sustainability and community participation and found that only the Komodo and CRMIndo projects were actually working and were successful. However, as it was limited to the issues of funding and community participation, the evaluation failed to address the ICZM concept in its entirety. If this had been done, ICZM in Indonesia would have been shown to be far from successful. As Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005) state, difficulties in terms of integration between community involvement, benefits and sustainability have made ICZM in Indonesia so far unproductive.

Essentially, most of the ICZM projects in Indonesia are one-off projects, lacking in guidelines and sustainability. At first, a number of these projects were funded by donor 13 agencies, such as USAID, UNEP, UNDP, CIDA, JICA, AUSAID, the World Bank and FAO (Tridoyo, 2008). At the conclusion of the funding period, the Indonesian government was unprepared to maintain the sustainability of the projects and most were handed over to local governments as part of the decentralisation process that began in 1999. This was a problem for local governments, because they had usually not been involved from the beginning and lacked ICZM knowledge, skilled human resources, information and appropriate technology to deal with ICZM projects. Eventually, in places like Segara Anakan, Cilacap, Central Java, Bunaken, North Sulawesi and COREMAP, the ICZM projects were simply abandoned.

The main problems and conflicts affecting ICZM projects in Indonesia can be categorised as follows: a. Policy and financial factors: lack of policy, inconsistency, emphasis on agriculture (Sukardjo, 2002)

Policy changes have been a significant problem in the implementation of ICZM projects in Indonesia. The most influential of these was the 1999 declaration on decentralisation, which gave inexperienced local governments the authority to manage the complex issues related to coastal and marine environments. Lack of coordination and knowledge and technology transfer between the central government and local governments after the decentralisation process began also caused a rapid increase in ICZM programs in Indonesia under the management of local governments. In addition, Indonesian policies and laws regulating the sustainability of coastal regions and oceans lie within the authority of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the State Ministry of the Environment, while, according to Indonesian Cooperation Law (Act no 10/2004 article 7), ministerial decrees only concern technical regulations. This means that the regulation of oceans and coastal sustainability has not been taken seriously by local governments. Under Indonesian law, authority is enshrined in central government legislation, in this case a Presidential decree, and local government regulation. Recently, however, these arrangements have been contradicted by the new Indonesian environmental law (Act no. 32/2009, article 23) that states that all undertakings and activities related to environmental issues must be granted by the relevant ministry. 14

Another problem is that Indonesian policy still focuses on agricultural development rather than optimising the natural resources of the oceans and coastal areas. This has had a detrimental effect on coastal communities, leaving fishermen with poor fishing technology and lacking in the knowledge they need to raise their income levels. As a result, fishing communities continue to be among the poorest in Indonesia.

Dependence on donor agencies in several ICZM programs in Indonesia has meant that governments at both the central and local level have not been involved in issues related to the sustainability of the projects. Usually donor agencies follow time frames and guidelines that are not concerned with the sustainability of projects after the funding runs out, and if governments are not involved, the future of these programs is not guaranteed. b. Environmental factors: overfishing and overexploitation of natural resources (Sukardjo, 2002), erosion, abrasion, pollution, lost and declining biodiversity and mismanagement.

Environmental issues in Indonesia are of major concern. In coastal areas, anthropogenic pressures have led to land degradation and pollution on a huge scale. Environmental issues caused both by natural hazards and human-induced changes caused SOPAC4 to issue a significant warning on environmental degradation in the Indonesian region. This report placed Indonesia at the highest level of vulnerability in relation to environmental impact (this indicator reflects the risk to a country through the foreign import materials: i.e. oils and chemicals), habitat conflicts (habitat disturbance, degradation and pollution), biodiversity, ecosystem and habitat loss, poor sanitation and coastal eutrophication. These conclusions are based on a robust methodology and global data, and serve as a warning for Indonesian decision makers. c. Socio-economic factors: emphasis on new infrastructure development rather than optimising the existing infrastructure, regardless of the consequences for the environment, poverty and lack of knowledge.

4 SOPAC (Pacific Islands applied Geosciences Commission): www.sopac.org 15

Rapid development of new infrastructure such as hotels and resorts without consideration of their environmental impact in coastal areas has led to severe problems. Moreover, socio-economic decline resulting in poverty, lack of education and the maintenance of traditional fishing methods have added to the level of environmental damage. Another problem is that a number of ICZM projects in Indonesia have very low participation rates among coastal communities, because the programs themselves have been defined by the central government without coordination between local governments and the coastal communities. Consequently, coastal communities, especially fishermen, have been largely unaware of the benefits they could gain from ICZM projects. Another issue is restrictions on the education budget, which limits the Indonesian government’s ability to obtain appropriate information regarding ICZM materials (Milne et al., 2004). Also important is communication breakdown. For instance, in Indonesia unfamiliarity with the English language has been a barrier to translation of the ICZM concept. d. Ocean and coastal observation: only basic ocean and coastal observation equipment (such as oceanographic buoys and tidal gauges) and lack of maintenance.

Even though Indonesia is an archipelagic state, data and information on Indonesian oceans and coastal environments are very minimal and lacking in integration. Inadequate equipment for real time monitoring and evaluation in the Indonesian region is one of the elements affecting ICZM implementation listed by Cicin-Sain (1998). Westmacott (2002) considered the Indonesian government lacking in vision with regard to the condition of the country’s oceans and coastal regions. Laws and policies related to the management of oceans and coastal regions need to reflect, and be adapted to, current conditions, so that they make a significant impact on the environment.

2.6 The Indonesian Global Ocean Observing System (INA-GOOS) as a Support for ICZM The complexity and broad extent of coastal regions and oceans in Indonesia have resulted in problems with management, safety and security. There are five national issues involved

16 in ocean and marine management5: a. Conservation and restoration management: marine ecosystem-based management and ICZM. b. Operation and management of marine infrastructure: ocean and coastal infrastructure, mitigation and adaptation to climate change. c. Ocean and coastal data management: management of scientific data and information, marine information and communication technology. d. Maritime security management: maritime boundaries, marine safety and maritime spatial planning. e. Ocean and coastal exploration management: ocean energy exploration and seabed mineral resources exploration.

To overcome the problems, there are three requirements. The first is the establishment of national ocean observing systems, followed by operational oceanography in order to understand ocean phenomena and finally, policy and scientific support for sustainable coastal and ocean management.

The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) is an international program (coordinated by UNESCO-IOC) to prepare a stable global framework for ocean observations and the modelling and analysis needed to support ocean services wherever they are needed around the world. A regional approach is an essential component of GOOS and in fact GOOS is being re-organised in Regional Alliances that allow for the development of intergovernmental support for sustained monitoring and forecasting in different regions.

In a more recent initiative, on 3 September 2002, eleven chairmen of Indonesia’s research agencies and four high level university representatives announced a national agreement called the Southeast Asia Center for Ocean Research and Monitoring (SEACORM) as part of the “Bali Declaration” on the occasion of the Pan Ocean Remote Sensing Conference (PORSEC). Following the “Bali Declaration”, on 9 August 2005, on the

5 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Vision , mission and Objective: http://kkp.go.id/index.php/arsip/c/8278/VISI-MISI-TUJUAN-DAN-SASARAN- STRATEGIS/?category_id=65 17 occasion of the Indian Global Ocean Observing System, the Indonesian Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries launched a national program called the Indonesian Global Ocean Observing System (INA-GOOS). The program’s mission is to set up a comprehensive monitoring of and prediction skills for the ocean and its interaction with the atmosphere in Indonesian waters and the surrounding oceans. It aims to achieve comprehensive and sustained observation of ocean climate phenomena and natural and human-induced related disasters through setting up a monitoring system and predictive schemes for the coasts, straits, and the adjacent areas of the Indonesian seas.

Furthermore, the INA-GOOS program is designed to meet the Indonesian need for timely and good quality long-term information as a basis for sound decision-making (Figure 2.1). It aims to enhance the delivery of benefits to society in the following areas: a. Understanding, assessing, predicting, mitigating, and adapting to climate variability and change. b. Understanding environmental factors affecting human health and well-being. c. Improving the management and protection of terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystems. d. Supporting sustainable aquaculture. e. Understanding, monitoring, and conserving biodiversity. f. Reducing loss of life and property from natural and human-induced disasters. g. Improving management of energy resources.

In order to support operational oceanography within Indonesian waters and take a leading role in the implementation of GOOS in South-East Asia, the Indonesian Global Ocean Observing Systems (INA-GOOS) must have the following policies, which are all aspects of Indonesian environmental policy: Fishery Policies, Integrated Coastal Zone Management Policies (ICZM) and Operational oceanography policy (Ribotti et al., 2008).

Figure 2.1 Issues related to Indonesian waters (Source: Research Centre for Marine Technology, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Indonesia)

2.7 An Approach to ICZM implementation in Indonesia

2.7.1 Enhancing central government and local government knowledge According to the above reviews, there are two stages in the enhancement of central and local government knowledge. In the first stage, both the central government and local governments must realise and acknowledge that the ICZM program is one way of enhancing the sustainability of coastal regions and the oceans in order to increase the prosperity of coastal communities. This can be done by acknowledging the technical regulations concerning ICZM as issued under ministerial decree and endorsed in local government regulations. Furthermore, due to the decentralisation process, integration of local government regulations and public participation is needed. Only in this way can the sustainability of ICZM programs be assured.

Secondly, international agreements and trends can be drawn on to evaluate the sustainability of coastal regions and oceans in Indonesia for improved management and implementation of ICZM programs. Evaluation by ICZM donor agencies could be used as preliminary data for taking further action on the weakness and flaws of ICZM

19 implementation, so that the programs are better adapted to the characteristics of Indonesian coastal regions and oceans.

2.7.2 Strengthening INA-GOOS For many years, research on coastal and ocean areas in Indonesia has been conducted by institutional agencies without any sustainability focus and has been based on sporadic projects. Moreover, all research data and information has been kept within different institutions and agencies, without any integration. After the establishment of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in 1999, it became difficult to collect and gather ocean data and information through other agencies. This led to insufficient coordination efforts between institutions and agencies in the use of data and information for the public or even within the government itself. Management of information within institutions and agencies needs to be better organised in order to promote better understanding about the oceans and coastal areas in Indonesia and to support decision-makers in the formulation of policy and procedures.

Figure 2.2 Strategic components for ICZM in Indonesia (modified from Bower and Turner, 1998)

In order to deliver ICZM programs in Indonesia in the framework of INA-GOOS, the first consideration must be the basis for integration itself. There are three major areas in which integration is required in coastal management, i.e. environmental, economic and socio-cultural (Burbridge, 1999). These features are very complex and need multidisciplinary analysis and models to enable them to be integrated into coastal management. The basic elements of ICZM as noted by Weide and Vrees (1999) are a level of governance, a management task and tools, instrumentation and the capacity to support the management task. Ideally, suitable component strategies for ICZM in Indonesia would have the components described in Figure 2.2.

As described above, one of the problems facing ICZM implementation in Indonesia is the lack of data and information on coastal areas and oceans. This situation can be improved in three stages: first, more deployment of ocean observation equipment such as oceanographic buoys and tidal gauges; second, collection of global data information from other countries or international agencies and its analysis in terms of Indonesian needs and conditions; and third, a declaration by the Indonesian government making INA-GOOS a frontier national research institute as part of the international GOOS.

2.8 The Vulnerability Assessment as a Decision Support System Over many decades, the Decision Support System (DSS) has been developed to meet the flexibility of dynamic environments (Argent et al., 2009). It is one of the methods or systems that can be used to overcome the complexities involved in the implementation of ICZM, because many decision-makers are required for integration between the socio- economic and bio-geo-physical environments, as well as the formulation of policy decisions. The DSS for Integrated Coastal Management is a computerised system capable of supporting and assisting decision-making in ICZM (Westmacott, 2001) and it can be used to solve the issues of multiple decision-makers and disciplines. It has the ability to integrate the multi-disciplinary environments involved in ICZM as a complex and variable system.

Sprague Jr. (1987) lists three characteristics of the developments of DSS: data, model and user, with support dialogue between the data and model. Data availability has an important role in developing DSS, because the data and knowledge base contains all the 21 information needed to build a model within the DSS engine (Westmacott, 2001). When selecting a model to be used, it is very important to know the source of data availability and scale in order to create different kinds of modelling, such as spatial modelling, hydrodynamic modelling and simulation modelling.

For spatial modelling, recent developments in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are an advantage in developing DSS, because GIS have the capability for visualisation of the DSS in model form, integrated with remotely sensed data. Spatial modelling can be brought into a different scale of modelling. DSS has the capacity to conduct multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and can be combined with spatial modelling using GIS and remote sensed images, which are more suitable for analysis and evaluation of the impact on the coastal zone (Fabbri, 1998). Now many DSS have been developed to assist decision- makers and to improve understanding of the oceans and coastal region dynamics.

One way of adapting the DSS to the environmental-social-economic-governance balance is to include an assessment of vulnerability. In terms of ocean and coastal sustainable development, ‘vulnerability’ is a concept that can be summarised as the susceptibility of an object to damage and as a result of the past activities as described by (Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004). This means that vulnerability is an indicator to link “societies past and present…, their perceptions and knowledge with regards to disaster and development” (Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004). Its opposite is resilience, which means the ability to adapt (Kaly et al, 2002). The vulnerability concept has been an influential tool in describing the relationship between physical and biological elements, social systems, economic systems and policy systems for assisting decision makers to enhance prosperity by reducing risks or hazards (Adger, 2006).

A comparative method for measuring global vulnerability in seven stages has been developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007),6 which specifies that “vulnerability is defined as the extent to which a natural or social system is susceptible to sustaining damage from climate change”. Three IPCC Working Groups were formed to assess the physical aspects (Working Group 1), the

6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://ipcc.ch/index.htm 22 vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems (Working Group 2) and adaptive solutions (Working Group 3). However, this methodology is specifically used to overcome the impact of climate change (Harvey et al., 1999).

Another method described by the South Asia Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC), which works under the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and is focused on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) uses a composite of 50 indicators and 10 sub-indices. This environmental vulnerability index (EVI) program has already measured and produced vulnerability values for all small-island developing states. Because of national/local data limitations, EVI only measured and assessed vulnerability based on the impact and from the perspective of the global network data. The SOPAC Technical Report of 2004 states that there are three aspects that must be considered in terms of vulnerability: resilience, the occurrence of hazards, and damages7.

On the basis of different geological and geographical formations in the world, vulnerability may be classified into several different pressures, changes and mitigation strategies. Each element of the vulnerability indicators will be different from others and there are various vulnerability equations that have been used (Adrianto and Matsuda, 2004; Barrientos, 2010; Boruff and Cutter, 2007; Briguglio, 1995; Cocklin and Keen, 2000; Encontre, 1999; Gornitz, 1991; Gornitz et al., 2001; Guillaumont, 2010; Harvey and Woodroffe, 2008; Julca and Paddison, 2010; Meur-Férec et al., 2008; Pethick and Crooks, 2000; Steckley and Doberstein, 2011) (see Table 2.1). At the present time, there are no fixed vulnerability indicators that can be applied widely for every country. These indicators are also dependent on the availability of individual country data (Turvey, 2007) and must be studied by chronological order (Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004).

7 South Asia Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC): www.vulnerabilityindex.net 23

Table 2.1 Global Vulnerability Assessment Geographical Methods Variables Reference Location Relief, lithology, Coastal geomorphology, land (Gornitz, 1991; Gornitz et Vulnerability Global, USA movements, shoreline al., 2001) Index (CVI) history, tidal movements and waves Coastal Small Island Coastline length, Vulnerability Developing remoteness, population, (Turvey, 2007) Index (CVI) States natural disasters (Harvey and Woodroffe, Small island Environmental Natural hazards and 2008; Julca and Paddison, developing vulnerability climate change 2010; Cocklin and Keen, states 2000) Saint Vincent Social Demography data, disaster (Barrientos, 2010; Boruff and Barbados, vulnerability history and Cutter, 2007) Grenada Small Island (Encontre, 1999; Julca and Economic Developing Qualitative assessment Paddison, 2010; Steckley vulnerability States and Doberstein, 2011) Exposure to risk, Vulnerability management of risk, France (Meur-Férec et al., 2008) Grid remembrance of risk, perception of risk Export of goods and services, agriculture Economic production, natural disaster Global, small (Guillaumont, 2010; Vulnerability index, population size, island Briguglio, 1995) Index remoteness, export, share natural resources, foreign economic import Composite Economic exposure, Economic (Adrianto and Matsuda, Small islands economic remoteness Vulnerability 2004) economic impact Index Coastal recovery-time coastal Vulnerability Global (Pethick and Crooks, 2000) landform Index Ecology, population, Environmental physical and biological Vulnerability Global process, energy flows, (Villa and McLeod, 2002) Index (EVI) synthetic attributes, weighting process

2.9 Summary With its seas and surrounding oceans, Indonesia has an important role to play in the monitoring of global climate change, marine biodiversity and natural and human-induced hazards that potentially affect the safety and welfare of human life on earth. However, these demands have also created complexities in the management of Indonesian coastal regions and oceans.

The implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management programs will have a significant impact on coastal and ocean management in Indonesia and lead to better understanding of coastal and ocean systems. However, in order to achieve this, several issues need to be resolved: a. Regulations and legal frameworks for ICZM must be addressed effectively. This includes regulations at both central government and local government levels. b. The strengthening of INA-GOOS is necessary as part of the future direction of ICZM programs. INA-GOOS could benefit Indonesian ICZM in terms of monitoring and evaluating coastal regions and oceans based on scientific information and evidence. INA-GOOS also could serve as an integration framework between Indonesian research agencies as well as local governments in the search for suitable methods for ICZM implementation and international acknowledgement of sustainability developments in Indonesia. c. A DSS system needs to be developed to facilitate and assist decision-makers in evaluating the aspects of ICZM necessary for better management.

In addition, in the future, the Indonesia Global Ocean Observing System (INA-GOOS) must play an important role in ocean and coastal observation and in monitoring operational oceanography in Indonesia. Nationally, INAGOOS will be a focal point in promoting the South-East Asia Centre for Ocean Research and Monitoring (SEACORM). Internationally, INAGOOS will support GEOSS in addressing the challenges articulated by the United Nations Millennium Declaration and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. As these considerations indicate, ICZM is set to play a crucial role in the Indonesian government’s attempts to achieve sustainable development in an archipelagic state. 25

Chapter 3 Study Area and Methodology

3.1 Introduction Based on the issues examined by Farhan and Lim (2010) and outlined in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 will explain the general condition of small islands in Indonesia, and devote particular attention to the Seribu Islands region as a case study. Steps for assessing the vulnerability of these islands will be explained in detail.

3.2 Indonesia as an Archipelagic State and its Small Islands Indonesia was first declared an archipelagic state on 13 December 1957, in a statement known as the “Deklarasi Djuanda’ or Djuanda Declaration8. This declaration, stating that “Indonesia is an archipelagic state that consists of thousands of islands and has its own characteristics…”, was the basis for an attempt to have Indonesia recognised as an archipelagic state at the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention of 1958, but the attempt failed due to lack of support from a sufficient number of countries, as it was supported by Russia (then Soviet Union), Philippines and Ecuador. After three further attempts, Indonesia’s status as an archipelagic state was finally recognised by the UNCLOS convention of 1982. According to UNCLOS 1982, part IV, article 46, “(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; (b) "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such”.

Despite the fact that it is the world’s largest archipelagic state and is home to vast marine biodiversity (Tomascik et al., 1997), Indonesian policy is still focused on land-based development instead of maritime-based development. Development has been

8 The declaration was named after Raden Djoenda Kartawidjaja (Indonesia Prime Minister 1957-1959). 26 concentrated on Java and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibu Kota Jakarta in Indonesian). Oceans and coastal development in Indonesia have been left behind, as is evident in the country’s inadequate fishing ports, lack of fishing infrastructure and the poor condition of most fishermen’s villages. In 2011, according to official government statistics (Indonesia-BPS, 2010), the number of fishermen living in poverty amounted to 25% of the total population. This is the result of inadequate fishing boats and fishing technology, with less than 2% of fishing boats able to be categorised as modern fishing boats and 32% of fishermen still using traditional boats (State Ministry of Marine Affair and Fisheries, 2010). In addition, the low level of education in fishing communities makes fishermen dependent on traditional fishing customs (based on guesswork and spiritualism) instead of using modern technology such as GPS, fish finders, radar, etc.

In addition, the condition of the Indonesian oceans and coastal environment, especially around Java and the other main islands, has become seriously degraded in recent years. Unprocessed waste from industry and households is the major contributor to this environmental degradation. Small islands, especially those located close to main islands, have been exploited to support the development of the main island, for example, through the exploitation of fish stocks and coral deposits. Excessive coral exploitation and illegal fishing have endangered the ocean environment. In 1992, the Ministry for Population and Environment indicated that most of Indonesia’s coral reefs, located in the Weh Islands (Aceh), Riau Islands (Riau), Seribu Islands (Jakarta), Karimunjawa (Central Java), Karimata Islands (Kalimantan), Nusa Tenggara Barat, Western Bali, Maumere Strait (Flores), Bunaken (Sulawesi), Togian (Sulawesi), Tukang Besi (Sulawesi), Taka Bona Rate (Sulawesi), Pombo (Maluku), Kasa (Maluku), Kei (Maluku), Banda (Maluku), Cendrawasih Strait (West Papua), and Raja Ampat (West Papua) were in decline because of coral bombing (State Ministry of Population and Environment, 19929). This situation has meant that the small islands have experienced severe environmental problems. At the same time, economic inequities have made it more difficult for islanders to cope with environmental pressures.

9 State Ministry of Population and Environment: http://www.menlh.go.id 27

The Indonesian Cooperation Law, Act no. 27 of 2007, defines small islands in Indonesia as those with an area less than 2,000 square kilometres. This Act also states that coastal area and small islands are essential for the social, economic, cultural, environmental wellbeing of the country and support the sovereignty of the nation. As such, they need to be managed in a sustainable way, taking into account the aspirations and participation of their communities.

Based on geological characteristics (Bird and Ongkosongo, 1980; van Bemmelen, 1949), most of the small islands in the Indonesian region are made up of carbonate and atoll forms with corals (both hard and soft). Geographically, small island regions in Indonesia can be divided into two categories: inner small islands i.e. near the main islands, and outer islands i.e. far from the main islands, isolated from other regions or near another country’s boundaries (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 The location of small island regions in Indonesia

Based on the report from the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Indonesia10 and taking into account their respective conditions, the characteristics and problems of the inner and outer islands can be described as follows:

State Laws and State Security Sixty-five years since the declaration of Indonesian Independence in 1945, the small islands of Indonesia, especially the outer islands, are only treated as supplementary units of Indonesian territory, as is indicated by the absence of laws governing the management and development of small islands. Geographical isolation exacerbates this situation. The farther the islands are from local governments, the more difficult it is for laws and regulations to be enforced; moreover, most local governments have inadequate financial resources to cover the entire regions for which they are responsible. Local communities in small islands are based on and live by local or traditional customs rather than state laws, a situation that has made the local communities oblivious of state regulations, especially those with implications for their local customs. The consequences are often destructive to the environment, e.g. the development of housing by using coral and deforestation. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, e.g. coral combing, destructive fishing methods and the use of unregistered fishing vessels, are higher in outer island regions, simply because there are no law enforcement officers in those areas. The security issues are also a problem in the outer islands. The more isolated the region, the less predictable the security issues are. This situation also affects the identity of the local communities, something that could cause more problems for Indonesia as an archipelagic state.

Development The more remote the island, the more undeveloped it is likely to be. Progress in developing infrastructure in areas like education, healthcare and the supply of electricity and fresh water has been slow, not only in the outer islands but in the inner islands as well. In the outer islands, however, lack of basic infrastructure makes the livelihood of the islander communities especially difficult.

10 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries reports http://kkp.go.id/en/index.php/archives/?category_id=2 29

Socio-Economic Status Poverty and social inequality are two issues faced by both outer and inner island communities. In most island communities the majority of the population are fishermen working with traditional boats and traditional knowledge. Economically, the outer island communities depend solely on the fish catch, unlike the situation of local communities in the inner islands, who have access to employment on the main islands. As a result the inner island communities enjoy a higher economic status than those on the outer islands.

Natural Hazards The Indonesian region was formed by the movement of three tectonic plates (the Eurasian plate, the Indo-Australian plate and the Pacific plate) and as a result, the region is subject to the influence of tectonic events that produce natural hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, seamount formation and many other hazardous conditions. Generally, small islands located in the fore-arc basin area have more exposure to natural hazards compared to small islands in the back-arc basin area.

3.3 Study Area The Seribu Islands are inner islands in the Java Sea (Figure 3.2), consisting of 106 islands with a total area of approximately 7,200 square kilometres and a population of 22,818 (Indonesia-BPS, 2010) Administratively, the Seribu Islands are divided into 2 districts and 6 villages. Most of the inhabitants live on the main 12 islands including Pramuka Island, where the Seribu Islands local government is located.

In geological terms, the Seribu Islands are part of the Sunda Shelf which was submerged after the Pleistocene glacial period (Umbgrove, 1949). Some of the island reef clusters that formed the Seribu Islands were the remainder of older Pleistocene reefs (Umbgrove, 1949, van Bemmelen, 1949). From the seabed profile of the region, the depth of the seas surrounding the islands ranges from approximately 25 to 55 metres (MGI, 1990). There are no indications of tidal fluctuations in the region except in Jakarta Bay (Umbgrove, 1949). There is an abundance of heavy minerals such as hornblende-pyroxene located at the river mouth and magnetite-hematite-limonite far from the river mouth that indicate a weathering process from igneous rocks, sediment rocks and metamorphic rocks after the late Pleistocene period (MGI, 1990). 30

Coral reefs in the Seribu Islands are deep-rooted in the muddy seabed. The coral reef growth and the shape of the islands have been influenced by the characteristic monsoons in the region (Umbgrove, 1949). According to official government statistics (Indonesia- BPS 2010), the Seribu Islands have an average incline of 15% with a height of less than 2 m above sea level and are influenced by the tidal process within 15 m. The wind conditions in the islands are influenced by the monsoon that can be classified as East Monsoon (December-March) and West Monsoon (June-September), with an average wind speed of 7-20 knots. Wet seasons usually occur from November to April with the annual rainfall approximately 1700 mm. The number of days on which rain falls ranges between 10 and 20 days per month. Air temperature in the Seribu Islands ranges between 26.5 and 28.50 with humidity between 75% and 99% and an average air pressure of 1009- 1011 mb. Generally, the Seribu Islands have a surface current with maximum speed of 0.5 m/s and a sea wave height between 0.5 and 1.75 m. Sea temperatures are between 25.3 and 31.200. Land use in the Seribu Islands can be classified into five categories: housing (27.21%), industry (23.30%), government and private offices (7.85%), farming (24.34%) and other (17.30%) (Indonesia-BPS, 2010).

Apart from the monsoons, which can be categorised as a natural hazard, anthropogenic factors have also affected the coral reefs in the Seribu Islands. For decades, coral reefs near Jakarta Bay were affected by run-off from three rivers in Jakarta Province, the Angke, Ciliwung, and Citarum Rivers and the Cisadane River from Banten Province. From observations of coastline changes (Bird and Ongkosongo, 1980), it can be concluded that the water run-off from the Cisadane River and the Citarum River has been the most important influence shaping Jakarta Bay. The Ciliwung and Angke Rivers have contributed to the high pollution levels found in the bay, and this is set to worsen, because action has still not been taken to prevent or process the flow of pollutants from these rivers.

Figure 3.2 Study Area (Source of Map: BAKOSURTANAL and Source of Marine National Park Boundary: Local Government of Seribu Islands)

At the present time, the rapid development of the Jakarta Bay area is increasing pollution levels (Windoro, 2010, Kompas, 2012a, Kompas, 2012b). The increase of vessel 32 transportation lines within Jakarta Bay and the Seribu Islands has also endangered marine biodiversity in the region. As numerous researchers have shown (Brown and Suharsono, 1990; De Vantier et al., 1995; Edinger et al., 1998; Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary, 2007; Tomascik et al., 1994; Verstappen, 1988; Williams et al., 2000) the Seribu Islands have been neglected by both the central and local governments for decades.

3.4 Research Framework The research framework for this study is divided into three main phases (Figure 3.3). The first phase aims to determine levels of resilience and vulnerability. This phase will focus on spatial analysis using Geographic Information System (GIS) in conjunction with a literature review analysis in order to develop coastal vulnerability indicators and their computation.

Figure 3.3 Research Framework

The second phase involves an empirical study to enhance the collection of information and to improve the vulnerability indicators. It includes a review of the Indonesian legislation system, analysis of a series of Indonesian news media reports and in-depth

33 interviews with decision makers. To ensure an accurate calculation of vulnerability, these two phases will be integrated and support each other’s data analysis.

The final phase will construct a suitable approach to resilience and vulnerability and define appropriate policy components to support ICZM in the area. This can be used to define the role of each island according to the basic principles of ICZM theory.

3.5 Research Design Based on the small island characteristics listed above, firstly, resilience and vulnerability indicators in small islands of Indonesia must be determined and secondly, those indicators must be evaluated thoroughly in order to produce better and more inclusive vulnerability maps.

Figure 3.4 Steps in the process of defining resilience and vulnerability indicators (Adapted from Maclaren, 1996)

To devise a framework applicable to the Indonesian region, a method for assessing resilience and vulnerability will be adapted and evaluated from Maclaren (1996) and Harvey et al. (1999). The development of a method for measuring resilience/vulnerability in this research will be divided into nine phases of process as follows:

Step 1: Aim The aim will be to produce resilience and vulnerability maps by identifying the resilience and vulnerability indicators that have influenced and contributed to changes in the environment, social conditions, economy, governance, and development in the study area.

Step 2: Scoping This step involves a literature review of the study area in order to define the approximate resilience/vulnerability indicators that will be used. It will also determine which/how many indicators will be used and finally, set up a core set of indicators and their associates that can be developed and made applicable to small island regions in Indonesia.

Step 3: Choosing Indicator Frameworks The research will be based on the “combination framework” described by Maclaren (1996). It will be focused on the five themes of environment, development, economic, social and governance. In order to achieve this objective relevant datasets have been acquired and are analysed using Geographic Information System software (ARC GIS 9.3 software) in conjunction with qualitative software (NVIVO 10 software). The datasets include both spatial and aspatial data: A. Spatial data . Topographic maps of 1913 on a scale of 1:50,000 from the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam . Topographic maps of 1999 on a scale of 1:50,000 from the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping (BAKOSURTANAL, Indonesia). . FORMOSAT 2 satellite imagery of 2007 from the Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT/Indonesia). . Aerial photographs of 1989 from the Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration (Indonesia).

. Landsat satellite imagery of 1989 from the Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration (Indonesia).

Since spatial data coverage in the study area has different coverage areas, the study area will be divided into two GIS analyses (Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5A will be based on Formosat 2 satellite imagery and topographic maps for the year 1999 and Figure 3.5B will be based on hardcopy maps for the years 1913 and 1999.

B. Aspatial data . Coral reef evaluation data on the Seribu Islands (1985-1999) from UNESCO, Jakarta (Indonesia). . Coral reef observation data (2003-2007) from the Indonesian Coral Reef Foundation, Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. . Demographic data and statistics of the Seribu Islands (1983-2009) from the Indonesian Centre for Statistics (BPS Indonesia). . Geological survey data from the Centre of Marine Geology Institute (MGI, Indonesia). . Reports from the Indonesian newspaper Kompas between 1965 and 2012 (Kompas Gramedia Group, Indonesia). . Data from interviews with decision makers (local government) in 2011. The UNSW Ethic approval and interview guidelines can be seen in Appendix A and Appendix B.

The first process is to develop baseline data on the spatial theme. Firstly, the hard copy maps are converted into digital format by scanning and geo-referencing with the Indonesia Ground Control Points maintained by the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping. In this study all maps will be projected under WGS 1984 UTM Zone 48S. This is followed by digitising on-screen using ArcGIS software in order to build spatial data and theme classification. Attribute data such as the island’s name, administrative boundaries and demographic data will be constructed into each of the spatial data mentioned above.

Figure 3.5 Spatial Data Coverage

Both aerial and satellite images are also geo-referenced, followed by spatial analyses consecutively using file sampling. They are then will be re-classified based on topographic data, attribute data and a literature review of previous research. The raster classification in some areas must be examined carefully due to thin cloud in some areas of the Formosat 2 images and for greater accuracy, the field sampling of the pixel value of FORMOSAT 2 images will be generated and validated based on aerial photographs 37 from 1989. Then the raster data were converted into vector data with the following themes: Formosat 2 images focused on the coastline in each of the islands and Landsat Images together with geological survey data from Marine Geology Indonesia were focused on the pollutant map.

To enhance the spatial information, demographic data, geological data and field surveys of ecology data by Estradivari et al. (2009), Mihardja (2001), Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007), Uneputty and Evans (1997), van der Meij et al. (2010), and Williams et al. (2000) were used.

Step 4: Defining Indicator Selection Criteria Firstly, both global and local environmental vulnerability index calculations and report by SOPAC11 will be studied thoroughly in order to obtain suitable indicators for the study area. Local measurements involve the spatial analysis of the bio-geo-physical changes to achieve scientific validation. Each spatial theme is assessed and evaluated based on their influence on the study area. Also each spatial theme is generated and analysed separately in order to build the vulnerable indicators.

Step 5: Identifying a Set of Potential Indicators This step involves qualitative analysis will be derived from two sets of data drawn from Indonesian legislation and the Indonesian news media (Kompas from 1965 to 2012). These references also will be used to determine the weighting indicators that will be identified, based on their degree of impact in the study area.

A first stage is to review Indonesian legislation systems with a focus on Indonesian Cooperation Law. Only the legislation that has implications for oceans and coastal areas will be further analysed. The second stage is document analysis, that is, to analyse and evaluate the legislation documents based on the similarity of their contents in terms of governance-environment-socio-economic factors. Finally, conducting interviews will focus on the decision makers in the Seribu Islands region in order to gather evidences in

11 Global Vulnerability Index report by SOPAC (Pacific Islands applied Geosciences Commission):

:http://www.sopac.org/index.php/environmental-vulnerability-index 38 the region.

The news media will be will be imported and assessed into NVIVO 10 software. In this software, each document will be coded and classified according to the five following themes: environmental, which will be used to gain more understanding of pressures on the region, followed by governance, development, social (population) and economic in order to enhance and strengthen the spatial information in those areas.

Step 6: Evaluating the Indicators and Selection of a Final Set This step aims to superimpose the GIS spatial themes on the map of the study area. A model builder with spatial joint analysis and an intersection tool were used to compute the vulnerability level together with a set of weighting indicators that were produced by step 5. The vulnerability calculation and classification will be determined based on the characteristics of each of the islands and the impacts on them. Principally, each of the islands will be highlighted individually to identify any specific changes.

Step 7: Collecting Data and Analysing the Indicator Results To improve the GIS analysis of the region as well as the vulnerability calculation, all GIS results will be converted and combined with all information that was derived from the other phases into NVIVO 10 software.

Step 8: Preparing and Presenting the Vulnerability Maps The Coastal Vulnerability Index maps will be generated by computing all factors and based on quantitative and qualitative assessments.

Step 9: Assessing Indicator Performance This step will evaluate all indicators in terms of whether they are still valid or no longer influence the study area. This step makes use of data collected from interviews with decision makers in the Seribu Islands region in 2011 under UNSW Ethics number 11144.

3.6 Summary These steps constitute the main framework for this research. Since there are several stages that need to be assessed to determine resilience and vulnerability in this study, the method for the analysis of each set of data will be explained separately and in greater detail in each of the following chapters.

Chapter 4 Resilience Assessment of the Seribu Islands

4.1 Introduction This chapter will discuss and determine resilience indicators for the Seribu Islands, based on the history of physical and developmental changes in the region. In order to identify and to evaluate resilience, a series of spatial and demographic data is used.

4.2 Assessment of Urban Settlement on the Seribu Islands as a Resilience Indicator As mentioned in Chapter 2, after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainable development became the highest priority in the management of oceans and coastal zones around the world. These issues were also the main focus of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States which was held in Barbados in 1994.12 The main concern of this conference was that a small island region is part of the global ocean network and usually more vulnerable than major islands.

Indonesia as an archipelagic country with many small island regions attempted to adopt the sustainable development framework though Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), which was activated under the Indonesian Cooperation Law, Act no. 27 in 2007. However, attempts to implement ICZM have been far from successful and have led to numerous stresses and conflicts (Farhan and Lim, 2010). Some of these problems resulted from the fact that in Indonesia, the ICZM programs were run separately and were not coordinated with each other. If the lessons learnt from previous ICZM programs in Indonesia were studied thoroughly, they could be used as guidelines for overcoming problems within current and future ICZM implementation. This method was described by Rose (1991) as lesson drawing. It consists of 5 different approaches: copying, emulation, hybridisation, synthesis and inspiration (Table 4.1).

12 UNCLEF: http://www.unclef.com/en/globalissues/environment/ 41

Table 4.1 The Lesson Drawing Method, adapted from Rose (1991) Adoption more or less intact of a program already in effect in another Copying jurisdiction. Adoption, with adjustment for different circumstances, of a program Emulation already in effect in another jurisdiction. Hybridisation Combination of elements of programs from two different places. Combination of familiar elements from programs in effect in three or Synthesis more different places. Programs elsewhere used as intellectual stimulus for developing a novel Inspiration program without an analogue elsewhere.

Administratively, the Seribu Islands region consists of two Districts, covering six villages on 11 populated islands with 22,818 inhabitants (Table 4.2). These villages and populated islands are: Kelapa Village (Kelapa Island and Kelapa Dua Island), Harapan Village (Sebira Island and Harapan Island), Panggang Village (Pramuka Island, Panggang Island and Karya Island), Tidung Village (Tidung Besar Island), Pari Village (Pari Island and Lancang Besar) and Untungjawa Village (Untungjawa).

Table 4.2 Number of Inhabitants (Indonesia-BPS, 2009) Districts Villages Male Female Total Harapan 1,078 1,001 2,079 Northern Kelapa 3,001 3,739 6,740 District Panggang 2,952 2,633 5,585 Tidung 2,005 1,908 3,913 Southern Pari 1,456 1,336 2,792 District Untungjawa 901 808 1,709 Total 11,393 11,425 22,818 Population distribution from 1983-2009 is summarised in appendix C

Poor island infrastructure as well as poor fishing infrastructure have made the islanders’ livelihoods precarious. Currently, islands infrastructure such as electricity and fresh water supply are still inadequate to meet the needs of the population. Before the installation of submarine electricity in 2009, the islanders only had an inconsistent supply of electricity between the hours of 6pm and 6am. They are dependent on rainfall for fresh water, and are forced to buy water in order to meet their daily needs. Traditional and inadequate of fishing boats as well public transportation boats between the islands and the capital city

42 of Jakarta add to the difficulties the islanders face. These conditions have forced the islanders to engage in illegal activities such as the exploitation of coral reefs and sand for building houses, and illegal fishing methods using water bombs and cyanide, just in order to survive.

Legislatively, regulations and laws for the Seribu Islands were enacted by the Governor of Jakarta for the first time in 1962, under local government decree No. 7 of 1962. This regulation forbade any exploitation of coral reefs in the Seribu Islands. It was followed by other laws regulating land use (1969), limiting fishing near coral reefs (1970), regulating fishing nets (1970) and regulations and laws on land use and property (1972 and 1970). After Indonesia ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 108,000 hectares in the Seribu Islands became a natural conservation area under a Ministry of Agriculture decree issued on 10 October 1982. This regulation was then followed by other regulations on the conservation zone area, under a series of decrees issued by the Ministry of Forestry (1986, 1995, 2000, 2002). Eventually, the Seribu Islands contained 107,489 hectares of conservation area but it is unknown why the conservation area became less than that from the first regulatory decision.

In principle, the regional authorities must follow Indonesian Cooperation Law (Act No. 27) as the legal framework for ocean and coastal management. This law lists eleven principles that should guide the management of these areas: sustainability, reliability, integrity, legal certainty, partnership, equal distribution, public participation, openness, decentralisation, accountability and fairness. In addition, ocean and coastal management in Indonesia must be guided by the following principles: a. Protection, conservation, rehabilitation, utilisation and enrichment of coastal natural resources and small islands. b. Equal partnership between central government and regional authorities. c. Enhancement of the public participants and government institutions involved, as well as encouragement of local communities, in coastal and small islands natural resources management. d. Enhancement of the socio-economic conditions and culture of local communities. Unfortunately, these regulations have not proved successful in overcoming the region’s environmental problems, as has been indicated by the many studies that have been 43 conducted to identify the environmental pressure trends in the Seribu Islands region. These studies have shown that the Seribu Islands have faced serious issues such as natural hazards (Ongkosongo, 1982), urban pressures (Verstappen, 1988), socio-economic pressures (Crawford et al., 2006; Fauzi and Anggraini Buchary, 2002; Tomascik et al., 1994), coral damage (Cleary et al., 2006; Edinger and Browne, 2000; Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary, 2007) and climate change exposure (Brown and Suharsono, 1990), However, these studies have only measured the environmental pressures (both hazards and damages) without measuring the resilience or the ability to withstand the challenges of the recovery process.

Therefore it is valid to ask the question: Will the Seribu Islands endure in the face of urban settlements?

As mentioned in the previous chapter, before performing a vulnerability assessment, there are several issues and factors that must be considered. Firstly, each country has different coastal characteristics due to different geological processes. Secondly, the three aspects of vulnerability (i.e. hazards, resilience and damage) impact on each country at different rates. Thirdly, the vulnerability of a small island region is different from that of a large island region. Finally, policies and regulations vary in each country.

The first phase of this research is to identify and assess the resilience and vulnerability indicators in the study area. Apart from analysing the environmental pressures, resilience or recovery time, as well as the frequency of damage and hazards, must be identified and measured in order to produce a more reliable evaluation of the vulnerability index (Goklany, 2007).

As Pratt et al. (2004) argue, resilience or the ability to resist and/or recover and/or adapt is important to identify. People are one of the significant resilience indicators in a developing country, as described in the schematic diagram between population, economy and the environment devised by Munn (1990). Also it should be noted that people have different perspectives on vulnerability issues and have different responses to enable them to cope with vulnerability.

4.3 Methodology The method to be used here will be focused on coastline changes and landscapes in the populated islands. Landscapes are defined by Morris and Therivel (2001, p. 105) as “the appearance of the land, including its shapes, texture and colour”. Based on the history of the Seribu Islands, four factors can be identified as contributing to the condition of the landscapes:  Physical parameters e.g. geology, geomorphology, fresh water, and sand/soil.  Population growth.  Anthropogenic/human-induced parameters e.g. land use and infrastructure (buildings, ports and roads).  Oceanographic/climate parameters e.g. wave, tidal, currents, rainfall, and dry seasons.

Evaluation of each factor as well as the relationships between the factors must be conducted thoroughly in order to better understand the condition of the landscapes and to discover the levels of resilience in the region. As the study area is an inner island in close proximity to two main islands (Java and Sumatra) and influenced by micro-tidal movement (Verstappen, 1988) and due to research budget limitations, the assessment of oceanographic/climate factors is ignored in this study.

In order to assess vulnerability levels in the study area, relevant datasets such as topographic maps, remote sensing images and demographic data have been selected, analysed and evaluated, as described in Figure 4.1. The datasets that are analysed using the ArcGIS software include:  Topographic maps produced in 1913 by the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.  Topographic maps produced in 1999 by the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping (BAKOSURTANAL, Indonesia).  Formosat 2 satellite imagery taken 2007, obtained from the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology BPPT, Indonesia).  Aerial photographs taken in 1989 by the Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration (Indonesia).  Demographic data and statistics on the Seribu Islands from 1983 – 2009, produced by the Centre for Indonesian Statistics (BPS Indonesia).

Figure 4.1 shows that there are three stages to developing a vulnerability index in the Seribu Islands region. In Stage 1 (data preparation), topographic maps, aerial photos and satellite imagery are adjusted and projected according to the Indonesian Ground Control Point (GCP) reference in the region. Then the satellite imagery from the Formosat Satellite is analysed, based on Band 4 (near infrared) for coastline mapping together with Band 1 (blue) and Band 2 (green) to perform the spatial analysis in Stage 2. Since the research did not include fieldwork study, aerial photography is used to improve the spatial identity of the Formosat imagery.

In Stage 2 (data analysis), all maps and satellite imagery are converted to the vector format in order to facilitate the spatial analysis. Topographic maps and aerial photos are digitised, and the principal component analysis is followed by a reclassification that uses the satellite imagery in order to separate the objects from the land and the ocean.

The secondary datasets of demographic material are used for reference and input into the reclassification function to obtain a more accurate interpretation of the objects and boundaries. Finally, the overlay function is used for better understanding of changes in the region.

In order to develop the vulnerability index, the datasets are divided into five themes and are analysed separately: coastline changes, island development, demography, geology and geomorphology in order to analyse the chronological changes in each theme.

A series of computation processes is constructed in order to produce a scoring mechanism for the vulnerability index. A weighting process as well as a scoring process are developed and implemented in order to evaluate vulnerability, because there is no reference in terms of vulnerability indicators and its classification to vulnerability in Indonesia nor in any archipelagic state. Then the classification is implemented, based on significant changes in each island, and the indices are assigned, based on the highest and the lowest values of the changes.

Figure 4.1 Methodology

4.4 Results and Discussion Comparison of results from the three maps for the years 1913, 1999 and 2007, shows that the populated islands in the Seribu Islands region, such as Tidung Besar, Pramuka, Panggang, Harapan and Kelapa, have changed significantly in line with population growth. However, instead of becoming more vulnerable, population pressures have made each island more resilient in terms of its coastlines.

The most significant change resulting from population growth has been in Tidung Besar Island (Figure 4.2) where the island’s area decreased from 683,537 m2 in 1913 to 670,197 m2 in 1999 and 619,444 m2 in 2007. This is particularly evident in the northern and southern areas of the island. The highest levels of abrasion occurred in the southwest and southeast of the island, as a result of mangrove deforestation. Coastal communities tend to build their houses on the northern part of the island.

Figure 4.2 Coastline Change on Tidung Besar Island

Figure 4.3 shows that the area of Tidung Kecil in 1913 was 179,512 m2. It increased to 246,250 m2 in 1999 due to the land-claim of mangrove swamps by the local government and became 218,512 m2 in 2007. However, three small islands in the northern and eastern areas that existed in 1913 had vanished completely by 1999. The abrasion in Tidung Kecil occurred mostly in the southeast part of the island, although slight abrasion on the eastern part of the island is also evident. As preparation for population growth on Tidung Besar and to add to the tourist facilities in the region, in 2009 the local government built a connecting bridge about 2Km in length between Tidung Besar and Tidung Kecil.

However this bridge was disconnected in 2011. A local government report13 states that this happened because of lack of maintenance and the fact that most of the time fishermen used the bridge as a port.

Figure 4.3 Coastline Change on Tidung Kecil Island

An examination of Pari Island and its surrounding islands (Figure 4.4) shows that their area of 542,853 m2 in 1913 became 564,262 m2 in 1999, due to expansion of the northern part of the island. However, significant abrasion in the eastern and western areas of the island had reduced the area to 523,593 m2 by year 2007. Kongsi Timur Island and Tikus Island show significant change too. Strong abrasion from the northeast direction had a significant impact on the shape of their coastlines. However, this was not the case with the coastlines of Kongsi Barat Island, Kongsi Tengah Island, Tengah Island and Burung Island. By the year 2007 these three islands had expanded in land area.

13 Kompas multimedia daily news http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2011/12/20/09005417/Jembatan.Cinta.di.Pulau.Tidung.Roboh 49

Figure 4.4 Coastline Change in the Pari Islands Region

Pramuka Island and its surrounding islands (Panggang Island and Karya Island) show only a slight change in their coastlines (Figure 4.5). On Pramuka and Karya Island the coastline has become more fixed. A slight change occurred in the southern part of Panggang Island due to the settlement development, which expanded the area of Panggang Island from 125, 573 m2 in 1999 to 128,794 m2 by the year 2007. However, the area of Karya Island expanded from 75,728 m2 in 1999 to 82,660 m2 in 2007. Pramuka Island also expanded from 216,6453 m2 in 1999 to 222,037 m2 in 2007, because of the development of ports in the western part of the island. Some slight abrasion also occurred, but only on the western and southern parts of the island. The development of a floating marine aquaculture in the western part of the Panggang Islands in 2007 has become a significant generator of income for the whole region.

Figure 4.5 Coastline Change on Panggang Island, Pramuka Island and Karya Island

More significant changes are evident in the coastlines of Harapan Island and Kelapa Island. Both these coastlines have expanded, due to the development of housing and infrastructure (Figure 4.6). The government connected these two islands in the 1990s, with further development to locate the district office in the southern part of the islands, which have continued to expand in area since 2007. Two small islands emerged in the southern part of Kelapa Island as a result of the connection of the two islands (Kelapa and Harapan), which created a silting-up process. In these two small islands, mangroves have been planted by coastal communities, who have utilised the islands as a marine aquaculture area. This figure also shows that abrasion in the southwest of Panjang Besar Island, and the development of an airfield on the island since the early 2000s, has slightly changed the island’s coastline. Land reclamation for housing development on Kelapa Dua Island also slightly altered this island’s coastline.

Figure 4.6 Coastline Change on Harapan and Kelapa Islands

Based on the coastline changes, it can be concluded that urban settlements, population density and hard infrastructure in the study area significantly influenced the resilience factor of the islands, i.e. by preventing or slowing down the weathering process. The more these three factors have impacted on the islands, the more resistant they have become to weathering, oceanographic processes such as waves and tides, and geological processes such as abrasion, as seen in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Vulnerability Indexes for the Seribu Islands Region (Modified from SOPAC environmental index14)

Parameters/ Weathering Significance Calculation method indicators process Settlements area that increased Settlements area/total Settlements area None - Low the resilience of the region area * 100% The more dense, the greater the Ln (Total population Population density development of the settlements in one island/wide None - Low area in the region area of island) Total area of Infrastructure that influenced Hard infrastructure infrastructure/total None - Low the impact of the resilience area of island *100% Total area of abrasion The occurrence of Geological process and erosion/total area Low-high abrasion/erosion in the area * 100%

In addition, observations based on development of the islands between 1999 and 2007 were included in the final vulnerability calculation. This development is indicated in the following figures for Pramuka Island (Figure 4.7), Panggang Island (Figure 4.8), Harapan, Kelapa and Kelapa Dua Island (Figure 4.9), Pari Island (Figure 4.10), Tidung Besar Island (Figure 4.11), and Payung Besar Island (Figure 4.12). Harapan, Kelapa, and Panggang Islands show that the islands are overcapacity and more than 50% of the island has been occupied. In term of islands sustainability, those three islands are more sustain compared to other islands, however have unhealthy livelihood in term of sanitation and clean water.

Based on the islands’ characteristics, a unique vulnerability index classification and scoring method appropriate to this locality is developed in Table 4.4. The overall vulnerability indeces for populated islands in the region are shown in Table 4.5.

14 SOPAC (Pacific Islands applied Geosciences Commission): http://www.sopac.org/index.php/environmental-vulnerability-index 53

Figure 4.7 Development on Pramuka Island

Figure 4.8 Development on Panggang Island

Figure 4.9 Development on Harapan, Kelapa and Kelapa Dua Island

Figure 4.10 Development on Pari Island

Figure 4.11 Development on Pari Island

Figure 4.12 Development on Payung Besar Island

Table 4.4 Vulnerability Indexes on Populated Islands

Vulnerability Index Parameters/indicators Very Low Low Medium High Very High Settlements area >50% 40%-30% 30%-20% 20%-10% <10% Population density >10 7-9 7-5 5-0 0 Hard infrastructure >30% 20%-30% 10-20% 5%-10% 0-5% Geological process <10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30%-40% >50% Vulnerability Index score 1 2 3 4 5

Table 4.5 Vulnerability on Populated Islands Total V Island Indicators Total Calculation V Indicator Index Settlements area 104384.85 47% Low Population density 1015 people 5.4 Medium 2.75 Pramuka (Population 2009) (Medium) Hard infrastructure 15974.59 7% High Geological Process 5055.27 2 % Low Settlements area 116830.16 89% Very Low Population density 4570 3.6 High 2.5 Panggang (Population 2009) (Medium) Hard infrastructure 3084.82 2% High Geological Process 10573.22 8% Very Low Settlements area 73408.707 70% Very Low Population density 2079 High 3.6 2.5 Harapan (Population 2009) (Medium) Hard infrastructure 25608.41 8% High Geological Process 6515.54 6% Very Low Settlements area 148532.06 72% Very Low Population density 6403 High 3.5 2.75 Kelapa (Population 2009) (Medium) Hard infrastructure 1406.94 1% Very High Geological Process -12927.52 none Very Low Settlements area 18942.89 60% Very Low Population density 2.75 Kelapa 337 4.5 High (Population 2009) (Medium) Dua Hard infrastructure 2632.07 8% High Geological Process 5860.46 19% Low Settlements area 65212.53 11% High 3.5 Pari Population density 2792 5.3 Medium (High) (Population 2009) 57

Hard infrastructure 14239.15 3% Very High Geological Process 54907.74 10% Low Low Settlements area 273330.49 44%

Population density Tidung 3913 5 High 4 Besar (Population 2009) (High) Hard infrastructure 16913.26 3% Very High Geological Process 329340.84 54% Very High Settlements area 33825.33 12% High Population density 237 7 Medium Payung (Population 2009) 3 Besar (Medium) Hard infrastructure 14025.84 5% High Geological Process -9512.60 0% Very Low VI will be scored 1- 5 according to Table 2 (very low = 1, low = 2, medium = 3, high = 4 and very high = 5) Overall VI = Average (Settlement area +Population density + Hard Infrastructure + Geology Process)

Based on coastline changes, island development and the vulnerability calculations in Table 4.5, these results show that the higher the population, the more resilient the island is. Both Panggang and Harapan Islands have a higher degree of resilience compared to other islands. However, because of significant population pressure, Kelapa Island shows 12, 927 m2 of increment area in the northern part of the island. This is because most of the islanders excavated the coral and used it to expand the island for their settlement zones. Thus, it can be concluded that Kelapa Island has better resilience than Panggang and Harapan. Tidung Besar Island has the highest score and is more vulnerable compared to other islands, because Tidung Besar has the highest level of erosion, reaching more than 50%. This is likely to be because Tidung Besar Island is located in the far east of the region and is not surrounded by other islands, which makes it more exposed to oceanographic factors such as waves and tidal movement.

A significant level of port development in most of the islands began when the Seribu Islands became a new administrative district (Kabupaten Pulau Seribu) in 2002. This also contributed to the resilience of the populated islands, since hard infrastructure has made the coastline more secure. This can be seen in Pramuka Island, which, as the location of the local government office, has well-developed port facilities.

Three populated islands, Sebira, Lancang Besar and Untungjawa, were not included in the computations, because of map coverage. Sebira Island is the most isolated in the Seribu region. It is home to 255 people, most of whose houses are built from wood and who rely on a single water well and diesel generator. The other islands, Lancang Besar and Untungjawa, could not be included because of map coverage. Both of these islands are located near Jakarta Bay, which means they share common problems in terms of marine debris and ocean pollution. Pethick and Crooks (2000) state that sustainability depends on the period of recovery from any disturbance. In that sense, the human factor in Seribu Islands is a significant resilience factor.

In addition, the sustainable development of coastal zones must be properly coordinated in its environmental, socio-cultural, and institutional aspects as well as regulations and laws. The proposed vulnerability index will be adjusted as needed to meet these requirements.

4.5 Summary From the spatial analysis results, it can be concluded that urban settlement in the Seribu Islands should be considered as one of the resilience factors, along with the geological and geomorphological conditions. The resilience factors in the Seribu Islands are classified into four categories: 1) settlements area, 2) population density, 3) hard infrastructure such as airfields, ports and roads, and 4) geological process such as abrasion and erosion.

In addition to these resilience factors, the unique geographical conditions and the geological stability of the Seribu Islands have made the outer islands in the region a barrier protecting the inner islands from oceanographic conditions. However, the impact of population growth has brought significant changes in terms of ecology, water, sanitation and pollution within the region.

Chapter 5 Vulnerability Assessment of Islands near Jakarta Bay

5.1 Introduction This chapter analyses the ecological vulnerability of islands located near Jakarta Bay and proposes a system of zone classification for the Seribu Islands based on environmental pressures. The vulnerability analysis examines changes in the islands and coral reefs on the basis of an assessment of spatial images and with the support of a qualitative assessment based on previous research.

5.2 Jakarta Bay Jakarta Bay lies to the north of the Special Capital City Region of Jakarta (DKI Jakarta), the capital city of Indonesia. Its ecological conditions are influenced by five major rivers coming from three different provinces, the Cisadane river from Banten province, the Angke and Ciliwung rivers from DKI Jakarta, and the Bekasi and Citarum rivers from West Java province (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Jakarta Bay (Source: Landsat Imagery 1989)

Over a period of decades, these five major rivers have developed a complex delta system along Jakarta Bay, described by Bird and Ongkosongo (1980) and Verstappen (1988). Comparative study based on a Landsat photo of 1976 and a topographic map of 1883/1885 discussed by Bird and Ongkosongo (1980), shows that both the Citarum and Bekasi rivers have exerted a strong influence on the eastern part of Jakarta Bay and have produced significant accretion that influences the nearby islands.

Land deforestation in DKI Jakarta, as a result of agriculture and aquaculture activities and the development of infrastructure, industry and housing, has created massive changes along the rivers and waterways of the Jakarta river system, as noted by Bird and Ongkosongo (1980). This has also impacted on the nearby islands in Jakarta Bay. For instance, Damar Kecil Island (formerly known as Alkmaar Island) has experienced extensive mining of coral for road building (Bird and Ongkosongo, 1980). Ubi Kecil Island (formerly known as Schiedam Island) also experienced coral mining, as noted by Umbgrove (1949) and Ubi Besar Island (formerly known as Rotterdam Island) experienced significant pollutant and sedimentation problems, as reported by UNESCO15 below.

Figure 5.2 The Contraction of Ubi Besar Island

Furthermore, the increasing population of DKI Jakarta, which reached 9,583,247 in 2010 (Indonesia – BPS, 2010), is set to create more problems and increase the level of pollutants from unprocessed industrial and household waste. This will have a major effect on the city and Jakarta Bay in the coming years. In 1989, the Indonesian government

15 http://www.unesco.org/csi/act/jakarta/pulau.htm 61 attempted to overcome the problem of river pollution through a 5-year project called the Clean Rivers Program (Program Kali Bersih, PROKASIH). Despite claims by the DKI Jakarta government that the program succeeded in raising the awareness of companies along the riverbank and forcing several companies in DKI Jakarta to make statements promoting and supporting the program, a UNESCO report16 declared that the program was a failure in terms of community involvement. Apart from industrial waste, the communities along the riverbanks in DKI Jakarta have increased environmental pressures on the river system through poverty and shanty town development (UNESCO, 2000). This situation also reflects the living conditions of fishermen and coastal communities in DKI Jakarta, Banten and West Java province. It can be concluded that increasing population pressures on the mainland will make Jakarta Bay ever more susceptible to environmental damage, impacting on the nearby islands and eroding the survival rate of ecosystems in the Bay area.

5.3 Methodology In this chapter, the analysis will be focused on the islands near Jakarta Bay, which have been influenced by anthropogenic factors. In order to evaluate ecological vulnerability, relevant datasets have been acquired and analysed using Geographic Information System software (ARC GIS v9.3 software), as described in Figure 5.3. The datasets include both spatial and aspatial data: A. Spatial data  Topographic maps of 1913 on a scale of 1:50,000 from the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam  Topographic maps of 1999 on a scale of 1:50,000 from the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping (BAKOSURTANAL, Indonesia).  Landsat satellite imagery of 1989 from the Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration (Indonesia). B. Aspatial data  Coral reef evaluation data on the Seribu Islands (1985-1999) from UNESCO, Jakarta (Indonesia).

16 http://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/conference/ex_id_15_pir.htm 62

 Coral reef observation data (2003-2007) from the Indonesian Coral Reef Foundation, Marine and Agriculture Office of the Seribu Islands Government Administration and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.  Demographic data and statistics on the Seribu Islands (1983-2010) from the Centre of Indonesian Statistics (BPS Indonesia).  Geological survey data of 1990 from the Centre of Marine Geology Institute (MGI, Indonesia).

In the first stage of this study, the hard copy maps were converted into a digital format by scanning. Both the hardcopy maps and the Landsat satellite imagery were geo-referenced with the Indonesia Ground Control Points maintained by the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping. In addition, this stage involved a literature review based on field survey data by Estradivari et al. (2009), Mihardja (2001), Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007), Uneputty and Evans (1997), van der Meij et al. (2010) and Williams et al. (2000). These references were examined carefully order to identify vulnerability indicators that influenced the study area.

In Stage 2, six spatial themes (island land use, island remoteness, coastline changes, coral reef changes, pollutants and geology) were generated. The land use theme was created on the basis of data from Indonesia-BPS (2010) for island management. The remoteness theme was created on the basis of GIS, using distance analysis, measured from the port of Jakarta. Coastline changes and coral reef changes were created on the basis of GS analysis, and maps superimposed on the maps of 1913 and 1999. A model builder with spatial joint analysis and an intersection tool were used in the analysis. The pollutant theme was constructed on the basis of Landsat imagery from 1989 and a geology map presented as distribution of seabed sediment based on a field survey by MGI (1990).

Stage 3 aims to produce a vulnerability map. Vulnerability indicators, vulnerability classifications and weighting values were assessed on the basis of the results from scoping on the attribute data, in conjunction with the spatial themes in stage 2. Vulnerability is evaluated according to two equations for the two seasons (dry and wet) and each of the Seribu Islands will be highlighted individually to identify any specific changes.

Figure 5.3 Methodology

Figure 5.4 Missing Islands in the Study Area by 1999

5.4 Results and Discussion Based on the spatial analysis for the period 1913-1999, the Seribu Islands have lost 4 islands, as shown in Figure 5.4. They are Ubi Besar Island (formerly known as Rotterdam Island) (Figure 5.4A), Ubi Kecil Island formerly known as Schiedam Island (Figure 5.4B), Ayer Kecil Island (formerly known as Haarlem Island known) (Figure 5.4C) and Nyamuk Besar Island (formerly known as Leiden Island) (Figure 5.4D). It is widely accepted that the loss is due to coral mining and fish bombing (van der Meij et al., 2010). A comprehensive study by De Vantier et al. (1995), part of a UNESCO project in Jakarta, classified the coral reefs in the Seribu Islands into three groups: Jakarta Bay reefs, mid- region reefs (15-50 km from Jakarta Bay) and outer-region reefs (50-70 km from Jakarta Bay). Ten-year observations between 1985 and 1995 showed that there was a slight decrease in the coral reefs (of 1m depth) in those islands located approximately 18km or less from Jakarta, although the coral reefs located more than 18 km from Jakarta remained the same as in 1985. Another study by Estradivari et al. (2009) indicated that the biodiversity of the Seribu Islands decreased significantly because of strong anthropogenic

65 influences from Jakarta Bay, and as a result, most of the coral reefs near Jakarta Bay lost their function.

Figure 5.5 Geological Changes in Pari Island (A) and Lancang Besar Island (B)

Pari Island and its associated islands (Tikus, Burung, Kongsi Barat, Tengah and Kongsi Timur), shown in Figure 5.5A, can be portrayed as one region in the sense that they are covered by the same wide-ranging reefs. The wide-ranging coral reefs are significantly eroded on their north-eastern side, which produces an environmental impact on Kongsi Timur. One of the significant changes in the coastline since 1913 occurred in Kongsi Timur, where a single island in 1913 became split into three small islands by 1999. Western and eastern areas of Pari and Tikus were eroded significantly, but only minor erosion occurred in Kongsi Barat and Tengah. In spite of the erosion, the Pari region expanded. For instance, in 1999 a new island, Kongsi Tengah, was located between Kongsi Timur and Tengah. Northern and southern areas of Pari Island were developed in 1999 as a result of population growth and mangrove plantations. Other islands such as Burung, Tengah and Kongsi Barat were also developed. Based on the observation data for the Pari region (Estradivari et al., 2009), there was a significant decrease of hard coral 66 reefs in the northern area. The decrease in the northern area was approximately 7% higher than that of the southern area in 2005, but the difference became smaller in 2007, i.e. approximately 22.1% in the northern area and 27.6% in the southern area. The observation data for 1985 and 1995 collected by De Vantier et al. (1995) indicates that both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs in Tikus Island had slightly increased, by 2%.

Lancang Besar Island and Lancang Kecil Island, shown in Figure 5.5B, share the same reefs and therefore can be classified as the same region, i.e. the Lancang region. In contrast to the Pari region, conditions in the Lancang region were already severely degraded by 1999. The coral reefs in the western area were significantly eroded, with a loss of 417,663m2 of land area and 842,621m2 of coral reefs in 1999. This can be considered excessive, compared to the 3% increase of hard coral reefs and the 20% increase of branching coral reefs in 1995. Also there was an abundance of crown-of- thorns starfish (Estradivari et al., 2009).

Figure 5.6 Geological Changes in Laki Island (A), Bokor Island (B), Rambut Island (C), Untungjawa Island (D), Dapur Island (E) and Ayer Besar Island (F)

Laki Island, illustrated in Figure 5.6A, exhibits significantly eroded areas along its coastline, especially on the northern side. The erosion removed approximately 96,845m2 of land area. However, the island’s coral reefs were well developed by 1999. By contrast, Bokor Island, shown in Figure 5.6B, suffered erosion of its coral reefs. Hard coral reefs slightly decreased, by 5%. Branching coral had increased by 5% in 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995) and an abundance of crown-of-thorns starfish was found in this area.

Rambut Island, shown in Figure 5.6C, shows similarities with Bokor Island, i.e. significant changes in its coral reefs, especially in the north-eastern and south-western areas. There was some erosion of the coastline (approximately 20,070m2) and several incremental areas by 1999 (approximately 38,531m2), especially in the northern part of the island. Untungjawa Island, shown in Figure 5.6D, is located approximately 800m from Rambut Island. It was almost completely destroyed because of the erosion of both land (approximately 112,991m2) and coral reefs (approximately 290,278m2). The data shows that the destruction began in the north-eastern part of the island. However, development of coral reefs in the southern part of the island was identifiable in 1999.

Dapur Island, shown in Figure 5.6E, also has similarities with Untungjawa Island, in that the north-eastern area was almost completely destroyed (Umbgrove, 1949). However, there was a significant increase in both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs (approximately 35%) that could be considered an environmental improvement (De Vantier et al., 1995). Ayer Besar Island, shown in Figure 5.6F, shows some erosion of the coastline, especially in the south-eastern part of the island. In contrast to the 10% decrease of both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs in 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995), an increment in the coral reefs was observed in 1999.

The erosion of coral reefs in Damar Besar Island, seen in Figure 5.7A, contrasts with the development of the coastline in 1999. Hard coral reefs increased by 15%, while branching coral reefs decreased by 5% in 1995. Damar Kecil Island, shown in Figure 5.7B, shows some improvement in the coral reef areas, although the island’s coastline was highly eroded by 1999. Surprisingly, both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs remained the same between 1985 and 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995). Both the coastline and coral reefs in Nyamuk Kecil Island were almost completely destroyed by 1999 (Figure 5.7C), 68 even though hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs remained the same for the 10 years before 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995). This phenomenon also occurred in Kelor Island, seen in Figure 5.7D. By 1999, land and coral reefs were eroded by approximately 13,672m2 and 70,212m2 respectively. Bidadari Island, shown in Figure 5.7E, is one of the resort islands in the Seribu region. It showed some increment in the coastline areas, especially on the northern side of the island. There were also small changes in the coral reefs in the northern and southern areas. Both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs in Bidadari Island remained the same until 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995). Located close to Bidadari Island, Kayangan Island, shown in Figure 5.7F, has been almost completely destroyed. Approximately 12,384m2 of land area and 83,409m2 of coral reefs were eroded by 1999. Onrust Island, shown in Figure 5.7G, has eroded areas on the northern part of its coastline. There was a 2% decrease of both hard coral reefs and branching coral reefs in the 10-year period before 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995).

Figure 5.7 Geological Changes in Damar Besar Island (A), Damar Kecil Island (B), Nyamuk Kecil Island (C), Kelor Island (D), Bidadari Island (E), Kayangan Island (F) and Onrust Island (G)

Based on the literature review and the GIS analysis above, the main factors influencing environmental conditions in the Seribu Islands can be identified as follows: a. Land use Population distribution and associated land use contributes to the state of the environment in the Seribu Islands. Despite environmental problems such as waste and littering (Uneputty and Evans, 1997), some populated islands seem sustainable as the habitats tend to be adapted to changes. Islands in the region can be divided into three management types: Native, government and private. Private islands are usually subject to a greater degree of environmental protection, hence private islands are considered less vulnerable. Government islands are designated moderately vulnerable because of the limitations in government protection measures. Populated islands and unpopulated islands are designated highly vulnerable and very highly vulnerable respectively, on the basis of the analysis results already mentioned. b. Coastline changes Coastline changes measure the amount of change between 1913 and 1999. The condition of coral reefs is computed by using the in-situ data from 1920 to 2005. c. Island location The distance from Jakarta Bay is included as one of the factors because of the strong anthropogenic influences coming from Jakarta Bay. d. Island remoteness Island remoteness indicates whether or not the island is surrounded by other islands. Islands that are surrounded by other islands are more sustainable (Farhan and Lim, 2010). e. Coral reef changes Coral reef changes are computed in a similar manner to coastline changes. Coral reef changes measure the amount of change in the Seribu Islands between 1913 and 1999. f. Pollutant areas Pollutant maps were constructed from Landsat satellite imagery in year 1989. File sampling pixel value based on colour differences was validated with field survey data by (Estradivari et al., 2009, Mihardja, 2001, Williams et al., 2000, Willoughby et al., 1995), as described in stage 1 (Figure 5.8). Then the pollutant boundaries were digitised and classified according to their vulnerability. There are two rivers that contribute to the high pollution in Jakarta Bay, the Ciliwung River in DKI Jakarta and 70

the Cisadane River in Banten Province. In addition to the pollution from the two rivers, container vessels and oil tankers in the parking area of Jakarta Bay and the aquaculture area of Banten Province also contaminate the coastal area. Pollutant areas become worse in wet seasons and may expand far beyond the Seribu Islands (Uneputty and Evans, 1997, Willoughby et al., 1995). g. Geological conditions Sedimentation of the Seribu Islands, illustrated in Figure 5.9, can be considered one of the factors influencing coral reef development. Coral development in the Seribu Islands can be clearly observed in sandy mud, silt, muddy sediment and pebble mud areas (MGI, 1990).

Figure 5.8 Pollution Distribution

Figure 5.9 Distribution of Seabed Sediment (Source: based on survey by Marine Geology Indonesia in 1990)

In order to compute the vulnerability of the Seribu Islands, thematic maps representing the contributing factors above were assessed for spatial changes, and these changes were then classified, as illustrated in Tables 5.1 - 5.3. The classifications and indicators were based qualitative research on work by SOPAC17 . Based on the historical data for the study area, each indicator is then weighted, as seen in Table 5.4. The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) of the Seribu Islands in Table 5.5 was developed on the basis of an average mean calculation of vulnerability due to land use (Vlu), vulnerability due to coastline changes (Vcl), vulnerability due to island location (Vil), vulnerability due to island remoteness (Vir), vulnerability due to pollution (Vp), vulnerability due to coral changes (Vc) and vulnerability due to dead coral reefs (Vdc). The CVI maps in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 (for dry and wet seasons respectively) are derived from the CVI values in Table 5.5.

Table 5.1 Vulnerability Indicators and Classification

Vulnerability Vulnerability classification Indicator Very low Low Moderate High Very high Land use None Private Government Native Unpopulated Coastline ≤10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-50% >50% changes Island location >16 km 12-16 km 8-12 km 4-8 km ≤4 km Highly Island protected Semi- Protected Unprotected none remoteness (concrete protected base) Coral changes ≤8% 9%-16% 17%-24% 25-32% >32% Dead coral reefs ≤5% 5-10% 11-15% 16-20% >20%

17 SOPAC (Pacific Islands applied Geosciences Commission): http://www.sopac.org/index.php/environmental-vulnerability-index

Table 5.2 CVI Classification Based on Land Use, Coastline Changes, Island Location, and Pollutant Area

Coastline Island Pollutant Island Name Management Land use Vlu changes Vcl Vir distance area (%) km Vid Vpd Vpw Ayer Besar Private Resort 2 29.31 3 5 8.20 3 2 5 Bidadari Private Resort 2 6.50 1 3 3.29 5 2 3 Bokor Government Wildlife 3 12.43 2 5 7.00 4 3 4 Burung Private Resort 2 196.66 1 3 16.13 1 1 3 Damar Besar Government Security 3 1.84 1 5 15.15 2 1 3 Damar Kecil Populated Housing 4 35.80 4 5 12.51 2 2 4 Dapur Unpopulated None 5 20.01 3 5 10.82 3 1 2 Archaeology Kayangan Government 3 45.77 4 5 2.09 5 2 3 park Archaeology Kelor Government 3 66.74 5 5 3.63 5 2 3 park Kongsi Barat Government Resort 3 35.67 1 2 16.98 2 1 2 Kongsi Government Resort 3 100.00 1 2 17.08 1 1 2 Tengah Kongsi Timur Government Resort 3 38.35 4 2 17.14 1 1 2 Laki Private Resort 2 30.17 4 5 5.76 4 2 4 Lancang Populated Housing 4 43.96 4 2 9.41 3 2 4 Besar Lancang Private Resort 2 32.98 4 2 8.54 3 2 4 Kecil Nyamuk Government Navigation 2 69.76 5 5 10.04 3 2 5 Kecil Archaeology Onrust Government 3 8.11 1 3 2.12 5 2 3 park Housing/ Pari Populated 4 3.94 1 2 16.15 1 1 2 Resort Rambut Government Wild life 3 3.84 1 3 4.08 4 2 4 Tengah Private Resort 2 21.96 1 2 16.74 1 1 2 Tikus Private Resort 2 24.49 3 2 16.84 1 1 2 Untungjawa Populated Housing 4 21.16 3 3 4.65 4 2 4

Table 5.3 CVI Classification Based on Coral Changes and Dead Coral Reefs

Coral Dead Coral VI Island Name Vc Vdc VI Changes (%) (1985-2007) description Ayer Besar 24.05 1 25% 5 3 moderate Bidadari 9.01 2 remained 1 2 low Bokor 38.36 5 10% 2 4 high Burung 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Damar Besar 35.06 5 25% 5 5 very high Damar Kecil 43.08 1 10% 2 2 low Dapur 85.11 5 5% 2 4 moderate Kayangan 66.68 5 20% 4 5 very high Kelor 42.39 5 10% 2 4 high Kongsi Barat 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Kongsi Tengah 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Kongsi Timur 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Laki 50.90 5 15% 3 4 high Lancang Besar 15.13 2 25% 5 4 high Lancang Kecil 15.13 2 25% 5 4 high Nyamuk Kecil 61.09 5 10% 2 4 high Onrust 19.06 3 15% 3 3 moderate Pari 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Rambut 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Tengah 4.18 1 25% 5 3 moderate Tikus 14.86 2 10% 2 2 low Untungjawa 36.61 5 20% 4 5 very high

Table 5.4 Weight for Vulnerability Index

Indicator Dry Season Weight Wet Season Weight

Coral reef coverage 5 5 Dead coral reefs 4 4 Coastline changes 3 3 Land use 2 2 Pollution 1 3

Table 5.5 Coastal Vulnerability Index

East Monsoon (Dry Season) West Monsoon (wet season) Island Name Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Score Index Score Index Ayer Besar 6.86 high 8.71 very high Bidadari 4.43 moderate 5.43 moderate Bokor 8.14 very high 9.43 very high Burung 5.29 moderate 6.43 high Damar Besar 8.86 very high 10.00 very high Damar Kecil 6.00 high 7.43 high Dapur 8.71 very high 9.43 very high Kayangan 10.14 very high 11.14 very high Kelor 9.43 very high 10.43 very high Kongsi Barat 5.57 moderate 6.29 high Kongsi Tengah 5.43 moderate 6.14 high Kongsi Timur 6.71 high 7.43 high Laki 9.14 very high 10.57 very high Lancang Besar 8.14 very high 9.57 very high Lancang Kecil 7.57 high 9.00 very high Nyamuk Kecil 8.86 very high 10.71 very high Onrust 6.57 high 7.57 high Pari 5.71 moderate 6.43 high Rambut 6.14 high 7.57 high Tengah 5.14 moderate 5.86 moderate Tikus 5.00 moderate 5.71 moderate Untungjawa 9.57 very high 11.00 very high Vulnerability classification: 0-2 very low, 2-4 low, 4-6 moderate, 6-8 high, >8 very high

Figure 5.10 Ecological Vulnerability Assessment in Dry Seasons (D erived from Table 5.5)

Figure 5.11 Ecological Vulnerability Assessment in Wet Seasons (Derived from Table 5.5)

On the basis of the vulnerability analysis results, most of the islands can be categorised as highly to very highly vulnerable, with the exception of the resort island, Bidadari. The results show that coral reefs in most islands in close proximity to the three major rivers were severely degraded. This was also the case for coral reefs in populated islands. This impact is set to increase, in line with the growing population of DKI Jakarta and Banten and West Java provinces. This is indicated by the loss of biodiversity at a depth 0-5 m (De Vantier et al., 1995; Estradivari et al., 2009), especially in the islands near Jakarta Bay.

In early history, the population of the Seribu Islands region was the major cause of damage to coral reefs, as a result of excessive mining and water bombing, which was responsible for the loss of some islands (see Figure 5.4). However, the results show that population has also played an important role in increasing resilience. This is indicated by the geological changes in most populated islands and private islands, which enabled them to withstand erosion more than was the case in unpopulated islands such as Nyamuk Kecil Island and Dapur Island, which can be classified as at a critical stage, due to enormous levels of erosion.

The pre-historical geology of the study area (Kuenen, 1950; Tomascik, et al., 1997 and Umbgrove, 1949) has made the location of the Seribu Islands region exceptional. Firstly, the islands are located in “sheltered-intra-archipelagic seas” as part of a “stable geo- syncline” where natural disturbances are rare. Secondly, the sheltered position of the Seribu Islands region also protects the islands from excessive influence of wind and currents. The ocean currents and wind influences were not used as indicators for this study area, but those elements could be included as indicators for some islands in the northern part of the region and the islands located on the flanks of the Seribu Islands, as noted by Kuenen (1950) and Tomascik, et al. (1997).

Rises in sea levels and coral bleaching events resulting from climate change in the Seribu Islands region in 1983 and 1998 (Estradivari, et al., 2009; Brown and Suharsono, 1990) were also not included in the vulnerability indicators for this study, for two reasons.

Firstly, there was no evidence that climate change influenced all the islands in the study area and secondly, there was no evidence that climate change occurrences will continue over time in the region.

Tourism activities such as snorkelling and diving can impact on the region’s environment and therefore need to be included in the vulnerability calculations, however, none of the 22 islands in this study has tourism infrastructure. Hence tourism was not taken into account as one of vulnerability indicators in this study.

The Seribu Islands region was declared a Marine National Park (MNP) by the Ministry of Forestry in 1986. The park is divided into 4 different zones of utilisation, namely: a conservation zone, protected zone, tourism zone and settlement zone (see Figure 5.11). At that time, the 22 islands in the study area were not part of the Marine National Park plan. If the zoning definition were used as “a set of regulatory measures to implement marine spatial plans” as proposed by Agardy (2010, p. 6), then the initiation of the Seribu Islands region as an MNP should have incorporated the whole region, with the zone as the integrator.

The Marine National Park was supposed to be a starting point for the establishment of sustainability in the region. However, instead of integration, the National Marine Park resulted in disputes over authority and economic management between the decision makers (Yates, 1994). There are four Indonesian government agencies that are involved, i.e. the DKI Jakarta government (responsible for oil mining and tourism development), the Ministry of Transportation (responsible for public and private transportation in the islands, the Ministry of Forestry (responsible for the MNP) and finally, the Seribu Islands government which is solely responsible for the 11 populated islands. As a result, the revenue from each sector was managed independently by each agency without regard to its contribution to the environment. This has made it difficult for the local government to monitor and evaluate the Seribu Islands region over time.

For almost three decades, regulations concerning the Marine National Park, as well as its boundaries, have not undergone any process of reform. If this continues, biodiversity could be further degraded, and more islands could disappear in the near future.

The Seribu Islands require immediate attention from each level of Indonesian government and the coastal communities because of their high vulnerability. DKI Jakarta, and Banten and West Java provinces, must collaborate with the Seribu Islands local government in order to decrease the pollution flowing into the islands’ waters. Utilisation of the Seribu Islands region must be placed under a collaborated management framework involving dynamic processes and enabling adaptation to change in order to ensure sustainability. In addition, policy enforcement has to take place through collaboration between the agencies, in order to implement ICZM in Indonesia. Indonesian Cooperation Laws, especially Act No. 27 of 2007 (Integrated Development of Coastal and Small Islands Act) and Act No. 32 of 2009 (Environmental Act) must be prioritised by the local government.

5.5 Summary From the vulnerability analysis results, it can be concluded that urban pressures from two provincial districts influence the Seribu Islands and that vulnerability is worse during the wet season. This is evidenced by the loss of 4 islands and significant erosion of coral reefs by the year 1999.

The vulnerability index of the Seribu Islands is a useful indicator for decision makers responsible for formulating policies to protect the sustainability of the region. However, the computation of vulnerability by weighting would require further investigation in order to accurately represent the ecological conditions of the Seribu Islands.

In principle, each island faces different issues, diverse pressures and adaptation challenges. For instance some islands face population pressures, others biodiversity issues, marine debris problems, climate change, oil spills and so on. This means that the vulnerability equation needs to be computed separately, based on each island’s vulnerability indicators.

Qualitative assessments based on literature reviews or in-depth interviews with islanders and decision makers are needed to create a set of policies that can overcome the problems and the GIS limitations in terms of data accuracy. The connection between social, economic and environmental elements must be studied comprehensively in order to bring about ICZM in the region. The Marine National Park area must be broadened to cover all the islands in the region and the present zoning must be reformed. This needs to be followed by strict regulations to protect the whole region in terms of management and law enforcement. The local government needs to commission a set of regulations and make them fully operational, as well as strengthen the public participation of coastal communities in the promotion of environmental sustainability.

Chapter 6 Assessment of Ocean and Coastal Environmental Policy

6.1 Introduction This chapter describes the history of ocean and coastal policy in Indonesia, with the aim of reviewing and assessing its implementation in the study area, based on qualitative assessment and visualisation using GIS analysis.

6.2 Political Reformation and the Decentralisation Process The Reformasi Era, the period of political reformation following the fall of Suharto in 1998, was a benchmark in Indonesia’s management of ocean and coastal issues. In November 2000, the government established a new department, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, in order to develop and implement governmental policies in the marine and fishery sector18. This development coincided with an ambitious program of decentralisation through a policy of regional autonomy begun in 1999, under which regional authorities were given the jurisdiction to administer their own ocean and coastal areas, for the benefit of their local economies.

In the spirit of political reformation and decentralisation, the Indonesian Cooperation Law Act No. 22 of 1999 19 required that the central government accord regional administrations the highest authority in their respective regions. The basis for this Act was specified as follows:

· With reference to the Indonesian Constitution of 1945, regional authorities must carry the process of autonomy into effect. · Autonomy must be exercised in consideration with the principles of democracy, public participation, and equity of natural resources and biodiversity.

18 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Republic of Indonesia http://kkp.go.id/en/index.php/archives/c/2072/MMAF-History/?category_id=53

19 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 82

· Responding to both national and international developments, as well as globalisation, it is necessary for regional authorities to manage their autonomy with greater responsibility for the arrangement, distribution and utilisation of natural resources. · According to the Ministry of State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, replacement of Indonesian Cooperation Law No. 5 of 1974 (state gazette No. 38 and additional government gazette No. 337) and Indonesian Cooperation Law No. 5 of 1979 (state gazette No. 56 and additional state gazette No. 3153) is necessary.

Act No. 22 of 199920, Article 10, ensured that local governments had full authority over their natural resources and had full responsibility to maintain ocean and coastal environments. The jurisdiction of the regional authorities according to this article was described as encompassing the following areas:

· Exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of ocean resources · Administrative management · Spatial planning · Law enforcement of regional and/or central government regulations · Enforcement cooperation for the state’s security and sovereignty

However, this jurisdiction only applied to marine environments up to 12 nautical miles from the coastal boundaries of the administrative districts known as Kabupaten. Beyond 12 nautical miles, regional authorities had to act under the coordination of, and in accordance with, central government acts and regulations.

In 2004, Act 22 was deemed no longer compatible with the development of state policies and the demands of regional autonomy. It was replaced with Act 32 of 2004, which emphasised the division of jurisdictions between the central government and local governments, as stated throughout Article 10. This act made clear that the jurisdiction of local governments was limited by six fundamental policy areas: foreign affairs, defence,

20 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 83 security, judicial affairs, monetary (national fiscal) policy and religion. This act also provided more explanation of matters concerning ocean and coastal management, which is discussed in Article 18 with the same authority previously defined in Act 22 of 2004. However, Chapter 14 (”Other Provisions”) of Act 32 (article 225) stated that areas with special status and autonomy otherwise regulated by this law were also subject to the provisions specifically set forth in other legislation. This meant that special administrative regions such as Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, DKI Jakarta, Yogyakarta and Papua had the authority to create their own local acts or regulations.

The process of decentralisation brought about shifts in many areas of regulation. Act No. 10, 200421, Article 7 states that the Indonesian Constitution is the highest authority within Indonesia, followed by Indonesian Cooperation Law, Government regulations, Presidential regulations and Regional Authority regulations (consisting of Provincial and District/Local regulations). Prior this Act, all regional authority regulations were made by the central government’s House of Representatives, which had full authority over the issuing of all regulations, whether they applied to the central government or local administrations. These regulations were usually formulated without knowledge of the potential of each province, and usually regulations were generalised, which contributed to uneven development in Indonesia.

21 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 84

Highest Order

Indonesian Constitutions

Indonesian Cooperation Law

Government regulation

Presidential regulation Technical regulation

President decree Provincial regulation

Ministerial decree

Regional Authorities regulation

Lowest Order

Figure 6.1 Indonesian Legislation System

With the 2004 Act, regional authorities, together with the local parliament, acquired the authority to enact local regulations according to their perception of their area’s potential (Act 10, Articles 26 to 31). Moreover, local communities were accorded the right to provide input into the formulation of local regulations. Apart from these regulations, there were also other regulatory measures to support this Act, namely the Presidential Decree and Ministerial Decree. Both these types of decree act as technical regulations to support Presidential regulations and Regional Authority regulations (see Figure 6.1). Since the implementation of Act No. 32, 200422, regional authorities have attempted to control and manage the affairs of their regions. However, most regional authorities are still concerned with the development of the land rather than coastal and marine environments Lack of experience and inadequate human resources within regional administrations meant that coastal and marine environments were left without effective management (Farhan & Lim, 2010), and this problem worsened with the complexity of regulations defining the

22 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 85 division of powers between the central government and regional authorities (Dirhamsyah, 2006).

Figure 6.2 Comparative Study between International and Indonesian effort on ICZM (modified from Vallega (2001b)

6.3 Indonesian Policies on Ocean and Coastal Management Indonesia consists of five main islands, and many thousands of smaller islands of varying size. From a comparative study of international efforts in ocean management as described by Vallega (2001a), and Indonesian efforts towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), as shown in Figure 6.2, it can be concluded that the implementation of environmental laws in ocean and coastal management can be differentiated before and after the Reformation Era.

6.3.1 Before the Reformation Era There were no specific laws that exclusively addressed ocean and coastal management before the Reformation Era (Dirhamsyah, 2006). However, four laws enacted before 1998 did have implications for ocean and coastal management. Those four laws were articulated in Indonesian Cooperation Law23, namely, Act No. 4 of 1982 regarding environmental management, Act No. 9 of 1990 regarding the tourism industry, Act No. 24 of 1992 regarding spatial planning management and Act No. 23 of 1997 regarding environmental management.

Act No. 4 of 1982 was the first piece of Indonesian legislation concerning environmental management. It did not specifically mention oceans or coastal regions, but it stated that it was necessary to take action on environmental conservation to support sustainable development with integrated policies. Article 1 defined the environmental system as consisting of biological resources, non-biological resources, artificial resources and social environments that influence the livelihood and prosperity of the Indonesian people. Public participation was acknowledged in Articles 5, 6 and 12, although the actual coverage of public participation was very limited. Under this law, there were three types of jurisdiction in environmental management: country-wide environmental management, administered by the relevant national minister, regional environmental management to support national coordination, performed by the relevant national department, and local environmental management, endorsed by the local government. Article 8 stated that the central government held the power of policy action in relation to sustainable development in any area concerning environmental issues, for instance, collecting environmental taxes and issuing environmental permits and licences (Article 7) or fines (Article 21), in order to repair any environmental damage or to improve the environment. However, environmental issues were not a priority for the government and thus environmental taxes were used by the central government only for rapid land-based development and infrastructure such as office buildings, roads, hotels/resorts and so on.

23 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 87

Tourism, as one of the biggest contributions to the Indonesian economy, received special emphasis during this period. It was one of Indonesia’s most important industries, especially in coastal regions of islands such as Bali, which have unique natural resources and local customs. Many regional authorities drew the attention of both national shareholders and international investors to their tourism industries, and they tended to choose coastal areas for the development of tourist attractions. Inadvertently, this behaviour changed the environmental conditions of many coastal areas in Indonesia. Deforestation and the development of social infrastructure such as concrete walls along the beachfront became common all over the country. The rapid development of hotels and resorts, that were typically built only a few metres away from the beach, created conflicts of interest between local people and the government, because the beach in front of the hotels or resorts was claimed as a private area for guests only, off limits to others such as local people. Not only was there social conflict, but also environmental destruction, because of the removal of coral reefs to produce fine-looking, sandy-white flat beaches. Although the central government had issued Act No. 9 of 1990, known as the tourism act, this regulation focused on economic issues (Article 1) and the development of tourism services (Article 5). The central government had full jurisdiction over the type of tourist attractions to be promoted in every Indonesian region (Article 16). Public participation was specified in Sub-article 1 of Article 30, which declared that the Indonesian people were to have the same opportunities within the tourist industry as the government. However, in Sub-article 2 of the same article, it was stated that decisions regarding the tourist industry were in the hands of the central government and therefore public participants could only provide suggestions.

Conflicts of interest and debates among regional authorities and local communities were common problems in coastal areas of Indonesia. Debates often concerned the distribution of profits from the tourist industry rather than environmental conservation. Articles 35- 39 addressed the question of punishment for damage to the environment, but taking legal action was very difficult due to the following conditions:

· An absence of coordination between the central government and regional authorities concerning the prosecution of environmental damage · An absence of spatial and strategic planning amongst decision makers 88

· An absence of data and information about environmental conditions and environmental values in the region · Very few public participants willing to report environmental damage · No immediate impact on the environment after legal action

To address these problems, the government issued Act No. 24 of 1992, known as the Spatial Planning Act, which was enacted with the following considerations:

· Indonesia, as an archipelagic state, must be environmentally protected but be managed so as to achieve national development. · Management of natural resources must be coordinated and integrated along with human resources, in order to comply with the sustainable development plan. (Source: Ministry of State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia)

This law enabled management based on planning, utilisation and control of spatial features that were administratively integrated into national and regional planning. According to Article 1, spatial planning in Indonesia is applied to 5 territorial zones, these being the Conservation Zone, Cultivation Zone, Village (including farming) Zone, Town/City Zone and Strategic Zone. “Strategic Zone” means that the area is defined nationally and must be prioritised, as stated in Sub-article 3 of Article 10; the purpose of this zone is to improve the function of the conservation zone as well as the cultivation zone. Ocean regions were included in Sub-article 1 of Article 1 and Article 9.

The spatial planning regulation was valuable to regional authorities because it regulated development in their area. However, this regulation was unclear about the spatial openness between zones. As a result, zone selection was mainly based on the central government’s priorities and interests, rather than those of the regional authorities. Article 12 stated that spatial planning had to be conducted by the central government with public participation.

The supremacy of the central government’s jurisdiction made the regional authorities ineffective and did not allow them to have enough influence in managing their own areas. Moreover, the central government controlled all development in the regional areas, as 89 well as the allocation of finance between the central government and the local governments. Regional development was generally land-based and did not take into account the impact on ocean and coastal areas.

Act 23 of 1997, known as the Environmental Act, and replacing Act No. 4 of 1982, was probably the most comprehensive law in terms of environmental management enacted during this period. In Article 1, this regulation defined environmental management in general terms, using the concepts of environment, management, sustainable development, ecosystem, conservation, environmental support capability, natural resources, standardisation, pollution, impact assessment, environmental organisation, auditing and ministerial jurisdiction.

There were two main objectives of this regulation, which can be categorised as conservation and sustainable development (Article 4). The acknowledgment of public rights (Article 5) was a new beginning in environmental management in Indonesia. However, jurisdiction for environmental management remained with the central government and the appointed minister as coordinator (Articles 8 and 10). This regulation emphasises environmental issues, with Article 18 requiring all infrastructure development and waste disposal to meet the requirements of a licence and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), including spatial planning, public participation and governmental recommendation.

6.3.2 After the Reformation Era Following the instigation of the Reformation Era in 1998 and the ratification of Act 32 in 2004, the central government began to pay more attention to ocean and coastal areas, especially small islands. Act No. 27 of 2007 and Act No. 32 of 200924 both address ocean and coastal management, with Act No. 27 of 2007 being the policy that specifically relates to ocean and coastal issues (including small islands). This regulation emphasises that:

· Coastal areas and small islands must be protected and utilised for the Indonesian people now and in the future.

24 Cabinet Secretariat of The Republic of Indonesia: http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 90

· Sustainable and global development must take account of public welfare and national values.

This regulation was enacted in consideration of Articles No. 20, 21, 25A and 33 of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945. It stipulates that regional authorities must observe eleven principles in regard to ocean and coastal management: sustainability, reliability, integrity, legal certainty, partnership, equal distribution, public participation, openness, decentralisation, accountability and fairness. The purpose of ocean and coastal management should encompass:

· Protection, conservation, rehabilitation, utilisation and enrichment of coastal natural resources and small islands · Equal partnership between the central government and regional authorities · Greater local community participation in coastal natural resource management · Improvement in the socio-economic and cultural standards of the local communities

In 2009, Act no 23 of 1997 was replaced by Act 32 of 2009 as the Environmental Act, which focuses on environmental protection and management with attention to the following:

· Indonesian human rights in relation to the environment · Sustainable national development · Local autonomy · Global warming · A better environment and protection of all Indonesian ecosystems. (source: Ministry of State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia)

Articles 4 and 5 of Act 32 articulate environmental planning, development, monitoring, protection, management, and law enforcement. Article 6 articulates environmental values concerning the nation’s islands and matters relating to natural resources, utilisation, governance, damage and conflict.

The Environmental Impact Assessment regulation, defined in paragraph 5 (articles 22- 33), requires all developments by private individuals or companies to have an EIA before they can be approved. The EIA must include an impact assessment plan, an evaluation of the surrounding environment, public acknowledgment, impact forecast, holistic evaluation of the project’s eligibility and management plan, as well as monitoring.

6.4 Methodology In the light of these developments, policies regarding the coastal environment of small islands are a significant factor in ICZM in Indonesia. In order to measure the consequences of the administration’s policies, this research involved two steps as follows:

6.4.1 Policy Impact In the first step, all policies that have a direct or indirect impact on the ocean and coastal environment of the study area were fully investigated, on the basis of the content of each policy. Each of the policies was then studied further, based on the ICZM concept in relation to environmental, socio-economic and governance factors. The study focused on Indonesian Cooperation Law because it is legislation of the second highest order and the fundamental reference for both central and local government regulations.

6.4.2 Policy Analysis, Evaluation and Validation The analysis at this stage involved NVIVO 10 software and was divided into three sub- phases. Firstly, historical documents on the Seribu Islands were thoroughly investigated. A total of 471 articles published in Indonesian national newspapers between 1965 and 2011, and literature reviews from past research were used to provide a better understanding of the region. This was followed by coding under five themes: development, environment, social issues, economic issues and governance. Secondly, methodologies using Geographic Information Systems (ArcGIS 9.3.1 version), and spatial data by Farhan and Lim (2011, 2012) were used to assess the regional issues and these results were entered into NVIVO under the selected coding themes devised in first phase. Thirdly, interviews with high-level decision-makers of the Seribu Islands local government were conducted in 2010 (see APPENDIX B), and the digital interview data was analysed. This step is important in constructing the principal guidelines for successful implementation.

6.5 Results and Discussion Content analysis was conducted to identify the similarity among policies and to determine respective indicators and sub-indicators (Table 6.1). On the basis of content found to be common to all policies, five themes were defined: spatial issues, public/local community issues, economic issues, governance issues, and international issues. Sub-indicators were then determined, based on the environmental history of the Seribu Islands, as described by Alder et al. (1994a, 1994b), Bird and Ongkosongo (1980), Boyle (1998), Cleary et al. (2006), Crawford et al. (1993), De Vantier et al. (1995), Farhan and Lim (2012), Farhan and Lim (2011), Farhan and Lim (2010), Hardjono (1991), Williams et al. (2000), Willoughby et al. (1995), Patlis (2005), Pollnac and Pomeroy (2005), Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007), Sukardjo (2002), White et al. (2005), White (1989), WorldBank (1994), Yates (1994). Each of the sub-indicators was checked thoroughly to see whether the issues were resolved through the policy’s implementation.

The qualitative data analysis shown in Figure 6.3 found that the development of the Seribu Islands began in 1965 as an outcome of the Conference of the New Emerging Forces (CONEFO) initiated by Soekarno, the first president of the Republic of Indonesia. Soekarno determined that development of the islands was to be completed within a one- year period and be focused on transportation, electricity and resort development. At that time, the Seribu Islands were under the jurisdiction of DKI Jakarta and therefore development was coordinated by the Governor of Jakarta. However, with the transition from Soekarno to Soeharto that began in 1966, the CONEFO project was abandoned and the development of the Seribu Islands became a matter of lower national priority. This was indicated in the slow progress of the development of supplies of electricity, fresh water, sanitation, education, telecommunications and public transport.

Table 6.1 Content Analysis

INDONESIAN COOPERATION LAW INDICATOR Act 9 1990 Act 24 1992 Act 23 1997 Act 32 2009 Spatial Spatial planning and N Y Y Y management Ocean or coastal Y Y N Y Conservation N Y Y Y Protection Y Y Y Y Sustainable development Y Y Y Y Marine protected area N N N Y Guidelines N N N N Public/Local Community Public Participation Y Y Y Y Public Information Y Y Y Y Public guidelines Y Y N N Governance Government in charge M/L C/L/P C/M C/L/M Law enforcement Y N Y Y Guidelines N N N Y Integration Y Y N Y Economic State income Y Y Y Y Infrastructure development Y Y Y Y International N N Y Y Note: Y= N= M= De= C= central L= local P= public Yes No ministry department government government participant

Figure 6.3 Qualitative data Analysis based on development, economy, environment, socio- and governance issues (Derived from Indonesia newspaper from 1965 and 2011)

From 1965 to 2002, electricity supply on populated islands relied solely on diesel generators which only ran between 6pm and 6am. The development of submarine electricity power was initiated in 2007, but power was often unstable and coverage was still limited, reaching only as far as Karya Island. At this time, the islanders still relied on rainwater wells for fresh water. The long drought of 2002 forced the islanders to buy fresh water from Jakarta, adding to the hardships they faced in their daily lives.

At that time, the education sector was served by 14 primary schools on the populated islands, 4 junior high schools and one senior high school on Pramuka Island. However, most of these schools lacked infrastructure such as laboratories and other technical equipment, and transportation for students and teachers was inadequate. Another developmental problem was that public transport between the islands and Jakarta was inadequate. Most boats were sub-standard and did not observe safety regulations. Passenger overload and an absence of buoys were common.

Subsequently, on the basis of matrix coding analysis using NVIVO software, it was found that governance issues, in particular law enforcement and the resolution of disputes, dominated the literature under review (about 57 references and 56 references respectively). This was followed by environmental issues concerning pollutants (45 references) and tourism (34 references). Other issues can be seen in Figure 6.4.

Before Act No. 4 of 1982 (Environmental Act) was amended, the Seribu Islands as well as other small islands in Indonesia were designated “open access”, meaning that no restrictions were placed on their utilisation. For example, Kaliage Island in the Seribu Islands had been rented to a foreigner in 1968. The Seribu Islands also experienced fishing bombs, sand exploitation and coral mining activities (Umbgrove, 1949; Verstappen, 1988; Romimochtarto, 1976). In an attempt to begin addressing these problems, the Indonesian Navy took on the responsibility for law enforcement in 1972, and in the following year, the Governor of Jakarta declared that people must receive special clearance from the governor in order to enter the Seribu Islands. However, the number and distribution of the islands in the group meant that the region as a whole was beyond the ability of DKI Jakarta to patrol effectively (Sadikin, 1970). Fish bombing as well as coral mining continued in the region until the 1990s. In 1973, only two islands 96 had been designated as tourism districts: Putri Island (Figure 6.5Q) and Nirwana Island which is also known as Nyamuk Kecil (Figure 6.5X) and detailed in Figure 6.6X5). To improve accessibility and support the tourism industry, an airstrip was built in the same year on Panjang Island (Figure 6.5L). Also in 1973, the first oil spill occurred in Jakarta Bay. It resulted in a major fire in the port of Jakarta and caused the relocation of fishermen to Muara Angke (at present the public transport hub for the Seribu Islands).

Figure 6.4 Issues on Seribu Island region using Matrix Coding analysis based on news media between 1965-2012 (X-axis represents the issues on study area and Y-axis represents numbers of news media references)

In 1975, the Seribu Islands were divided into three zones (Figure 6.5), namely Zone A (Putri Island and its surrounding islands, designated for international tourism), Zone B (islands near Jakarta Bay, for coastal tourism) and Zone C, known as the populated islands and designated as a fishing area (Kasijanto, 1975b). Two sanctuary islands were also assigned: Rambut Island (Figure 6.5F) as fauna sanctuary and Bokor Island as botany sanctuary (Figure 6.5G).

Figure 6.5 Issues on Seribu Islands Region

Four other islands were designated as a historical/archaeology museum known as the Museum of Eighteen Centuries, under the protection of the Momentum Ordonnantie 98

STBL of 1931 and decrees issued by the Governor of Jakarta since 1972. These Islands, shown in 3A, are Cipir Island (Figure 6.5B), Onrust Island (Figure 6.5C), Kelor Island (Figure 6.5D) and Sakit Island (Figure 6.5E). Sakit Island was rented by private companies and its name became Bidadari Island in 1976 (Ambarita, 1976).

In 1976, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences located in the Pari Islands (Figure 6.5H) stated that the Seribu Islands were endangered because of its long history of fish bombing and coral mining, as well as marine debris from the rivers in DKI Jakarta (Kasijanto, 1975a). However, this warning was not taken seriously by the local governments and the destruction was aggravated by the development of housing, resorts and infrastructure in and around Jakarta Bay (Soekarno, 1989). The corals, especially the giant clam (tridacna spp), had been exploited for the tile industry since 1978 (Ongkosongo, 1994). The degree of sand mining in particular continued to increase, in response to the development of the Jakarta Bay area (Figure 6.5A) and Bokor Island (Figure 6.5F). As mentioned in Chapter 5, by 1999 the Seribu Islands had experienced the loss of four islands near Jakarta Bay. Spatial analysis indicates that it is likely that a further two islands had been lost by 2012 (See Figure 6.5X and its details on Figure 6.6). These are Dapur (formerly Dapoer) Island (Figure 6.6X1), Ubi Kecil Island (formerly known as Schiedam Island) (Figure 6.6X2), Ubi Besar Island (formerly known as Rotterdam Island) (Figure 6.6X3), Ayer Kecil Island (formerly known as Haarlem Island) (Figure 6.6X4), which had all been lost by 1999, and Nyamuk Kecil Island (formerly known as Enkuizen Island) (Figure 6.6X5) and Nyamuk Besar Island (formerly known as Leiden Island) (Figure 6.6X6) by 2012. It is accepted that the loss is due to coral mining and fish bombing (Van der Meij et al., 2010).

Following the enactment of Environmental Act No. 4 of 1982, the Seribu Islands were also declared a Marine National Park (MNP) by the Ministry of Forestry. In 1986, the park was divided into four different zones of utilisation (Radjamandalu, 1987), namely: the Conservation Zone, Protected Zone, Tourism Zone and Settlement Zone (Figure 6.5). This Ministerial decree was ambiguous, because it omitted 25 islands from the designated MNP area, i.e. 22 islands near Jakarta Bay, the Pabelokan Islands (Figure 6.5U, namely, Pabelokan Besar Island and Pabelokan Kecil Island), and Sebira Island (Figure 6.5V) which is the most remote island in the northern part of the region (approximately 23 km from Dua Barat Island). Surprisingly, in the following year, the Governor of Jakarta 99 declared a new tourism project, the Pulau Seribu Marine Project, in two islands (Pantara Barat Island and Pantara Timur Island) (Figure 6.5P), which are located between the MNP Protected Zone and Conservation Zone. The plan was to develop 38 hectares of the islands into a resort consisting of 220 cottages and various tourist attractions. This was possible, because the MNP focused on only two zones (the Conservation and Protection Zones) and did not take surrounding islands into account. This was a major weakness of the MNP project.

Figure 6.6 Missing Islands by year 2012

At the present time, the coral reefs of Untungjawa Island located approximately 2-15 km from Jakarta Bay have become more endangered due to the following three factors: high pollution due to its proximity to Jakarta Bay, under-population and lack of management.

The financial burden of managing the whole region had forced the government of Jakarta to privatise 15 islands back in 1982 (Khodyat, 1982). After the declaration of the Tourism Zone in the MNP and the enactment of Tourism Act No. 9 of 1990, the government of Jakarta increased its local revenue. This resulted in a negative impact on the Seribu Islands region in terms of increased privatisation. Privatised islands for tourism purposes

100 had reached a total of 60% in the region by 1990. Furthermore, 52 cases of illegal development and permit deviations in the region were noted. For example, an illegal resort with 21 bungalows was developed on Macan Island (Figure 6.5M) and illegal developments took place on the eastern part of Pari Island (Figure 6.5H) as well as Karang Kudus Island (Hermawan, 1989) and Ayer Island (Figure 6.5J). These developments have changed the region’s shape dramatically (Figure 6.7). Subsequently, the government of Jakarta also permitted another 30 islands to be converted into tourist islands by 2012. This means that the government of Jakarta eventually became responsible for only 63 islands (51 unpopulated islands and 12 populated islands), while the other 42 islands became private islands.

After the enactment of Act No. 24 of 1992 (Spatial Planning Act), the government of Jakarta enforced the regulation of demarcation lines, which required that a villa/bungalow not be built within 20 metres of the coastline. Even so, land disputes have still occurred. For instance, after the deforestation of mangroves on Bira Island (Figure 6.5S), a golf course appeared on the island in 1994. It was only noticed by the authorities after the development was complete. Similarly, Belanda Island (Figure 6.5R) and Kayuangin Bira (Figure 6.5T) were both designated conservation islands, although they later became private islands (Ardirakhman, 1990). Since 1982, several tourist islands have become private islands, for example Laki Island (Figure 6.5I), Cina Island (Figure 6.5N) and Melinjo Island (Figure 6.5O) (Ardirakhman, 1990). Disputes over land ownership and management have occurred in relation to another 22 islands (Figure 6.5W). There were natural resource disputes between the governments of Jakarta and Banten in 2000, and they were still ongoing in 2011.

101

Figure 6.7 Destructive development on Ayer Island

In the Seribu Islands region itself, figures for population growth and density in the study area as given by the Indonesia-BPS (2009), indicate that population density in Kelapa Village (2355 people/km2) is higher than in other villages. It is clear, however, that population growth and density have both a negative and positive impact on the resilience of the islands. Positively, population in the region has protected the islands from erosion, and since the 1990s, the inhabitants have extended the land area of some of the islands using a ‘cut and fill method’ from the coral reefs in order to create more settlement zones. For instance, some populated islands have expanded as described in Chapter 4. However, these settlement zones do not have water sanitation and therefore have been responsible for increased degradation of coral, mangrove and ecological systems in every year of the study period. This has made the coral restoration process proceed more slowly than on non-populated islands (Farhan and Lim, 2012). Surprisingly, the coral reefs in non- populated islands were restored after thirty years, as noted by van der Meij et al. (2010).

Referring to the issues above and based on the matrix coding reclassification using NVIVO Software described in Figure 6.8, it can be concluded the ineffectiveness of policies that led to the increased vulnerability of the region can be classified according to the following three indicators.

102

Figure 6.8 Policy issues on Seribu Islands region from 510 articles (between 1965-2012) in NVIVO software (X-axis represents the issues on study area and Y-axis represents the numbers of news media references)

6.5.1 Governance The Seribu Islands became a local government jurisdiction known as ‘Kabupaten Kepulauan Seribu’ (Seribu Islands District) in 2002. In practice, this decree resulted in confusion and rendered the local government powerless to manage the islands as a whole, as it turned out that the local government had jurisdiction only over populated islands. Since there are five Indonesian government agencies (Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Ministry of Transportation, Central Government of DKI Jakarta and Local Government of the Seribu Islands region) involved in management of the region, regional coordination to overcome environmental problems is difficult. Financing environmental rehabilitation is also problematic, because the overall authority for the region (the DKI Jakarta administration) is prone to changing local regulations according to Jakarta’s development interests. Since there are no firm policy guidelines and regulations in place, disputes and jurisdiction problems are endemic.

Under these circumstances, some environmental issues such as illegal developments, oil spills and disputes over other issues have been settled outside of court. This was also the case in relation to the National Marine Park boundaries. Based on an interview transcript which mentioned a tanker incident involving a stranded vessel in the Seribu Islands region in 2011, it was calculated that approximately 3000 m2 of coral had been damaged. At the time, the local government decided that the matter needs not be taken to court because court proceedings were a time-consuming process. Instead, it made a claim for damages 103 compensation of 100,000 USD. This level of compensation was in stark contrast to the financial sanctions enshrined in Act No. 32 of 2009, which specify that every person who intentionally commits an act that results in environmental damage shall be punished with imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a maximum of 10 (ten) years, and will receive a fine of at least 300,000 USD and a maximum of 1 million USD.

6.5.2 Public/Local Community For coastal management to be effective, the role of the coastal community in island development must be given high priority. This is confirmed in the Rio Declaration of 1992, which states that public participation is a matter of the highest priority in successful ocean and coastal management. Although Indonesian Cooperation Law, as stated above, acknowledges public participation, its implementation has been limited, and as a result, the level of public participation in the management of the Seribu Islands region has been low. This was confirmed by interview data.

Another factor is geographical remoteness, the adherence to traditional knowledge and the cultural history of the inhabitants of the Seribu Islands region may be factors influencing the low levels of public participation, along with suppression resulting from the central government’s political agenda and the interests behind the privately-owned islands. This is indicated by the fact that most of the local government employees in the Seribu Islands region are appointed by the central government.

A community-based approach providing appropriate training and educational support for local communities is a crucial requirement for enhancing local knowledge and skills. Local communities must be empowered with a better understanding of the factors influencing their natural environment and be provided with participation opportunities as decision- makers, as is provided for in Act 24 of 1992, Act 23 of 1997 and Act 32 of 2009.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in this context is the ‘cut and fill’ method for extending settlement zones, along with the growing population. The islanders have excavated the coral reefs and used the coral to extend the habitable zones of the islands. Surprisingly, the local government currently uses the same method to extend the islands’ 104 settlement zones, with the justification that only dead coral is being used. This was also the method used to connect Harapan Island to Kelapa Island, and Tidung Kecil Island to Tidung Besar Island. If this practice is not stopped, the coral reefs on the populated islands will eventually vanish completely. Relocation of islanders from densely populated islands to other islands may be the only option for restoring balance in the region’s ecological system. However, this option must be examined carefully, since each island is inhabited by a single community, and these communities are resistant to the idea of being combined with other communities.

6.5.3 Development and Spatial Planning The Government of Jakarta is still primarily focused on land-based development, and as it does not see great potential for the tourist industry in the Seribu Islands, it prefers to raise revenue from the islands by renting them to private companies, rather than making them accessible to public tourism. This is contrary to the Indonesian Constitution of 1945, which states in Article 33 paragraph 3 that the land, water and natural resources within them shall be under the power of the state and shall be used for the greatest benefit of the Indonesian people.

Spatial planning in the Seribu Islands region has been highly problematic, and as a whole, the region can be seen as neglected. At the present time, the islands are in need of a thorough inventory, especially with regard to natural resources within the region. An indication of this need is the absence of Sebira Island, the northern-most island in the Seribu Islands region from any Indonesian national topography map. In addition, differences in the location of coral reefs in nautical charts produced by the Ministry of Transportation and the National Coordinating Agency for Surveys and Mapping (BAKOSURTANAL) has caused confusion among vessels operating in the region.

There is a major weakness in monitoring and evaluation of the Seribu Islands region, in terms of implementation. Despite Act 24 of 1992, Article 19, which states that local government (in this case the Seribu Islands district administration), must possess detailed maps on a minimum scale of 1:50,000, financial issues and problems with accurate mapping remain, making most private islands in the region inaccessible. Article 18 of Act 24 of 1992 states that spatial planning supervision must be reported, monitored and 105 evaluated, but the inaccessibility of the private islands means that this requirement remains largely unfulfilled. The Act also specifies that if developments take place in areas where they are not approved, fines will be levied according to applicable laws and regulations, but this aspect of the legislation has also remained unenforced. Although the National Marine Park in the Seribu Islands region was seen as a symbol of Indonesian attempts to improve its environmental management in the period after it was enacted in 1982, pollution from river discharge in Jakarta Bay has been largely disregarded, with a lack of action to address the problem. This is despite the fact that article 3 of Act No 32 2009 clearly states that Indonesia will be protected from pollutants or environmental damage. The Environmental Act that included protection and conservation of coral reefs is not performing optimally. This Act, which was supposed to reduce and prevent pollutants flowing from the three major rivers of Jakarta, was not observed to any significant degree, with most environmental undertakings being one-off projects. This conflicts with article 45, paragraph 1, of the Act, which states that Indonesian governments (central and local) have an obligation to allocate sufficient funds for environmental conservation and protection.

The provision of electricity, fresh water and sanitation is crucial to sustaining livelihoods in the region. However, since revenue from resorts and oil exploration on Pabelokan Island (in the northern part of region), is directly designated as income accruing to the central government (DKI Jakarta), spatial planning and development of the Seribu Islands need to be included and integrated into Jakarta regional planning, if the allocation of sufficient finances is to be secured.

Based on the three indicators above, the plurality of government administrations responsible for policy implementation in the Seribu Islands region has produced ambiguity in the definition of jurisdictions rather than greater efficiencies. The policies discussed above need to be supplemented by local regulations that are in accordance with those policies’ guidelines and compatible with the islands’ characteristics. Local decision-makers and island communities must be involved in determining those regulations in the interests of protecting the islands against susceptibility to environmental damage. A coordinated management framework between each agency and stakeholder is also crucial, in the interests of better law enforcement in the region. 106

The local government of the Seribu Islands must be given wider jurisdiction in the region and provided with support by other agencies. This includes financial support for effective monitoring and evaluation. The flexibility of island ownership that has developed in the region must be reviewed and addressed carefully in the interests of the environment and the development of tourism, not only for private gain.

The top-down policies enacted in the region have meant that coastal communities have not been consulted, and as a consequence, the level of their engagement with policies has been low. Decision-makers need to make public announcements about the guidelines of each new policy and provide improved access to information, so that coastal communities are aware of, and can implement, procedures to protect their environment. In addition, these communities should be involved in every development plan affecting the Seribu Islands region. To achieve this goal, public services such as inter-island transportation must be addressed appropriately, so as to support the participation of the coastal communities and enhance their access to economic activities within the region. Further qualitative studies of the islanders and their livelihoods are needed, in the interest of a better understanding of their perspectives on problems affecting the region.

6.6 Summary The use of qualitative assessment of the region’s history using NVIVO software, in conjunction with GIS, is very useful in determining policy susceptibility, in order to ensure better policy evaluation and implementation. In terms of qualitative assessment, the accuracy and evaluation of the analysis is dependent on the operator’s knowledge of the study area, since the more knowledgeable the operator, the greater depth is likely in the analysis.

Indonesian policies associated with the ocean and coastal environments are still focused on infrastructure development and the national economy, rather than on the needs of coastal inhabitants and environmental pressures. This is indicated by the environmental degradation of the Seribu Islands region, where there is still uncontrolled, robust development lacking in regulatory enforcement and coupled with insufficient finances to monitor the whole region.

107

Lack of coordination between agencies and stakeholders, together with inadequate spatial planning and public participation guidelines are the main factors influencing the ineffectiveness of policies relating to the development of the Seribu Islands and the disputes that arise between the central government, local governments, the private sector and the coastal communities. The administrative boundaries and jurisdictions must be clearly defined and enshrined in a set of regulations, in order to minimise these disputes and promote effective policies. The engagement of local community participants must be enhanced, in the interests of better community-based coastal management in the region. The central government, regional and local governments, and coastal communities, as well as the private sector, must work together to produce development policies that are more responsive to environmental changes and challenges.

Spatial management must be given high consideration, because of the devastating changes resulting from the past history of the region. The National Marine Park must be broadened to cover the entire Seribu Islands region, so as to facilitate ecological protection and management. Additionally, the National Marine Park boundaries and jurisdiction must be re-evaluated and re-designed in the interests of better management of local environmental issues.

108

Chapter 7 Integrated Vulnerability Assessment Towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management

7.1 Introduction This chapter aims to integrate the results from Chapters 4, 5 and 6 in order to produce a comprehensive vulnerability assessment of the study area.

7.2 The History of Indonesian Coastal Exploration and Data Collection During the 32 years of Soeharto’s ‘New Order’ regime (1966-1998), Indonesia underwent a period of large-scale economic and industrial development. Oil and gas mining, agricultural development and land utilisation for development projects during this period caused extensive deforestation, sand beach exploitation, river bank mining and coral mining, all of which had serious environmental consequences (Hardjono, 1991). These developments took place under the auspices of a series of 5-year national programs known by their Indonesian acronym ‘REPELITA’, 25 which involved large-scale exploitation of natural resources to meet the demands of land development. The absolute authority of the central government over land allocation and land conversion at this time meant that environmental destruction was unavoidable.

The history of Indonesian maritime exploration dates from the early twentieth century. An Institute for Marine Research, the forerunner of the present-day Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)’s Research Centre for Oceanography, was established in 1919 on the basis of earlier initiatives in ocean research by the Dutch colonial administration (Soegiarto, 1987). However it was not until the 1960s and 70s that independent Indonesia conducted its first attempts at marine exploration with a focus on oil and gas mapping (Doty and Soegiarto, 1970). At the same time, the Indonesian government also conducted ocean baseline studies to resolve Indonesian territorial boundaries.

25 These programs, which began in 1969 and lasted until 1994, had the status of national priority development programs. 109

Biodiversity exploration of the Indonesian oceans began in 1962, under the coordination of the National Committee on Oceanic Research (NCOR) and involving the participation of several Indonesian institutions, the Indonesian Navy, universities, and international institutions (Doty and Soegiarto, 1970). To support marine exploration, a Ministry of Fisheries was established in 1964 by Soekarno’s ‘Dwikora Kabinet’.26 A project in the Seribu Islands started in 1967, focusing on seaweed ecology in Pari Island. It was conducted over a 10-year period, but most of the data is now no longer available, because the analyses were mainly conducted outside Indonesia and were not retained, due to restrictions on archival storage (Soegiarto, 1987). Financial and human resources were limited, so data on the research and expedition records are not readily available. Ocean and coastal management also suffered a drawback in 1968 when the Ministry of Fisheries was reduced to a research division of the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, data and information on marine environments were distributed across a number of different agencies, a further impediment to the collection of data on small island regions in Indonesia. The only available maps of small island regions were made in 1999 and they do not cover all small islands in Indonesia.

As a result of this history, as well as the considerations mentioned in previous chapters, there is a need for qualitative assessment to improve spatial data limitations. This is necessary for the construction of a chronological history of each island’s stages of development and their association with vulnerability indicators.

7.3 Methodology The methodology applied in this chapter will integrate all the components of vulnerability as well resilience factors identified in previous chapters, as described in Figure 7.1. The method assimilates quantitative assessment (as in Chapters 4 and 5) and qualitative assessment (as in Chapter 6) to evaluate and improve vulnerability assessment in the study area. Firstly, GIS spatial analysis is used to describe physical and biophysical changes, then the changes are computed into a vulnerability index as described in Chapter 5. The narratives are analysed through qualitative assessment using NVIVO, in order to

26 The Dwikora Cabinet was instituted on 27 August 1964 to implement the policies announced in Soekarno’s ‘Year of Living Dangerously’ Independence Day speech of 17 August 1964. It was disbanded by the new Soeharto administration on 22 February 1966. 110 evaluate and explain the reasons behind this vulnerability and also to achieve a higher degree of accuracy and quantifiable data. In addition, each island will be studied and highlighted individually.

Figure 7.1 Methodology

7.4 Results and Discussion Based on computation of pressures in the region and qualitative analysis on the previous chapters, the Seribu Islands can be classified into the four zones seen in Figure 7.2. The first zone is located within 15 km of Jakarta Bay, the area which is dominated by pollution from Jakarta; the second zone is influenced by the region’s population; the third is dominated by the private sector (individuals or private companies), and the fourth zone is located in far north where most of the islands are unpopulated.

111

Figure 7.2 Zone classification based on its pressures

112

7.4.1 Zone 1 Zone 1, which has been analysed in Chapter 4, is the closest zone to Jakarta Bay and consists of 20 islands. As described in Chapter 5, this zone is severely affected by pollutants flowing from unmanaged rivers in DKI Jakarta, Banten Province and West Java Province. Most of the islands in this zone have been categorised as highly vulnerable to very highly vulnerable. The abundance of crown-of-thorns starfish identified in Tikus, Lancang Besar, Bokor and Untungjawa (De Vantier et al., 1995) adds to this level of vulnerability. Approximately 20% of the region is covered in dead coral, with living coral reefs covering only 10% of the region, in islands such as Ayer Besar, Kelor, Kayangan and Damar Kecil (De Vantier et al., 1995; Estradivari et al., 2009).

Pari Island became known as the ‘island of knowledge’ in the region after the establishment of the first Indonesian Marine Centre by the governor of DKI Jakarta in 1976. In the same year, this Centre warned DKI Jakarta about the damage to the Seribu Islands region caused by coral bombing and polluted water in Jakarta Bay. Land disputes arose between islanders and the DKI Jakarta government over the acquisition of 20 hectares for resort development in 1993, which put an end to any development initiatives on the island. Lack of electricity supplies has also created difficulties for the island’s inhabitants. A generator malfunction in 2001 left the island in total darkness for three weeks. According to a local government report, marine debris from Jakarta Bay had already reached the northern part of Pari Island by 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile, Lancang Besar Island and Lancang Kecil Islands were experiencing serious problems with marine debris. By 2011, their coastlines were almost completely surrounded by rubbish.

Laki Island, which was declared a tourism island in 1988, went bankrupt in 2002. Polluted water caused a dramatic decline in tourism and recently, this island has been used by the Indonesian Navy for naval war exercises. Bokor Island was assigned a botanical sanctuary island in 1972. In 1989 it was the site of a theft of antiquities. It was noted in 2002 that the amount of marine debris had doubled in the previous 10-year period. Untungjawa Island was initially declared a settlement zone island in order to protect Rambut Island that had been designated a fauna sanctuary. However two years later,

113 settlement had spread to Rambut Island, forcing the local government to re-classify the island as a tourism island.

Both Dapur Island and Nyamuk Kecil Island had completely vanished by the year 2012, based on the spatial analysis in this study. Since the 1880s, Damar Besar Island was known for its lighthouse that formed part of the region’s marine safety infrastructure. Damar Kecil Island is the site of one small Dutch fort. Kelor Island received protection as a sanctuary island in 1972. However, it experienced coral and sand exploitation in 1976 and became an archaeology park in 2002.

Bidadari Island (formerly known as Sakit Island) was converted from a sanctuary island (in 1972) to a tourism island in 1976. This also happened in Kayangan Island (formerly known as Cipir Island). It was converted into a private island in 1982, but it was returned to the government and became an archaeology park in the 1990s. Onrust Island is also the site of a Dutch fort. During the period of Dutch colonisation it had a long history of use as a shipyard, but it is now neglected and poorly maintained, which makes it unattractive to the tourism industry.

7.4.2 Zone 2 Zone 2 is the area influenced by population in the region. It consists of 31 islands with 8 populated islands. An abundance of crown-of-thorns starfish has been identified in Panjang Kecil, Kelapa, Kotok Besar, Ayer, and Tidung Besar Islands. Dead coral, up to 3m in depth, dominated most of the coral reefs in the populated islands (e.g. Harapan, Kelapa, Panggang and Pramuka) by 2007 (De Vantier et al., 1995; Estradivari et al., 2009).

GIS analysis as seen in Table 7.1 shows that Gosong Keroya Island has suffered the most, being more than 80% eroded, followed by Gosonglayar Island, Sempit Island and Semut Island, which had changed by between 30-40%. Elsewhere, the analysis shows that there was more than 40% of change in the coral reefs of Paniki Island, followed by Tidung Besar Island and Tidung Kecil Island, with approximately 26% of coral reef change.

114

Table 7.1 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 2 Dead coral Coastline Coral No Name Land Used 1985-2007 Changes (%) Changes (%) (%) 1 Ayer Resort 90.88 -5.12 45 2 Gosong Keroya Unpopulated -83.85 -3.62 35 3 Gosong Pandan Unpopulated -30.38 0.37 35 4 Gosonglayar Unpopulated -43.14 -18.24 30 5 Harapan and Kelapa Populated 6.95 -4.47 30 6 Kaliage Besar Resort -0.20 -9.33 30 7 Kaliage Kecil Unpopulated -8.49 -20.69 25 8 Karang Beras Resort 6.41 -1.64 15 9 Karang Bongkok Unpopulated -3.88 -3.88 35 10 Karangkeling Unpopulated -13.92 -19.83 30 11 Karya Populated 6.93 -14.23 50 12 Kelapa Dua Populated 24.92 -6.05 30 13 Kotok Besar Resort -4.14 -5.22 35 14 Kotok Kecil Unpopulated -1.65 -23.63 35 15 Opak Besar Resort -3.11 -7.43 25 16 Opak Kecil Unpopulated -6.62 9.75 20 17 Panggang Populated 10.58 -5.55 50 18 Paniki Unpopulated -3.11 -41.21 15 19 Panjang Besar Unpopulated -3.21 -4.71 25 20 Panjang Kecil Unpopulated -15.31 -8.46 25 21 Payung Besar Populated 15.65 -5.30 25 22 Payung Kecil Resort 167.18 20.30 25 23 Pemagaran Resort 0.24 -3.70 20 24 Pramuka Populated 3.68 2.55 50 25 Sekati Unpopulated 15.52 19.47 20 26 Semakdaun Unpopulated 39.12 -1.53 20 27 Sempit Unpopulated -38.34 -1.53 30 28 Semut Resort -32.56 -18.15 30 29 Tidung Besar Unpopulated -7.57 26.24 50 30 Tidung Kecil Unpopulated -11.26 26.24 50

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Tidung Besar Island (Figure 7.3A) has been categorised as highly vulnerable due to severe levels of erosion. This is a result of its geographical location on the far eastern flanks of the region which is subject to the impact of oceanographic elements. Both Tidung Besar and Tidung Kecil (Figure 7.3B) share the

115 same coral reefs, with 26% eroded and dead coral already at more than 50%, as noted by Estradivary et al (2009) by year 2007. In addition, as mentioned by Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007) and by De Vantier et al. (1995) an abundance of crown-of-thorns starfish was identified in 1995. After the installation of electricity (by diesel generator) in 1981 and the construction of a pier in 1996, the local government designated Tidung Besar Island an alternative settlement island in 2003, in an effort to reduce over-population on Panggang Island. The attempt was unsuccessful, however, because according to traditional beliefs, Panggang Island was a gift from the gods, and its inhabitants were reluctant to abandon it for another location.

Figure 7.3 Geological Changes in Tidung Besar (A) and Tidung Kecil Island (B).

Karangkeling Island in Figure 7.4A shows minor coastline change on the southern part of the island, but significant coral reef erosion on the northern part of the island, about 14% and 20% respectively by the year 2007. On the other hand, Payung Kecil Island (Figure 7.3B) shows both coastline and coral reef improvement on the eastern part of the island, while Payung Besar Island in Figure 7.3C (presently the least populated island in the region) shows coastline increment on the western and eastern part of the island and only minor coral reef erosion in the northern part. A tanker was spotted leaking oil in 2011 and this case remains before the courts.

116

Another contradiction is Ayer Island in Figure 7.4D (Ayer Island is the name given on the 1999 Map, but it is known to the local government as Air Island). Massive development has changed the island’s shape completely. The development started in 1998 and was at first unnoticeable. However, and surprisingly, the island was designated as a tourism island in 2009. Karang Beras Island (Figure 7.4E) shows about 6% of increment in its coastline in the western and eastern parts of the island. About 2% erosion of the island’s coral reefs is observable on both the northern and southern coastlines. Fishermen spotted an oil spill on the surrounding islands in 2009, which the local government suspected had come from one of the tanker vessels passing through the region.

Figure 7.4 Geological Changes in Karangkeling Island (A), Payung Kecil Island (B), Payung Besar Island (C), Ayer Island (D) and Karang Beras Island (E)

The first of two adjacent islands, Kotok Kecil Island in Figure 7.5A, shows coastline increment with small erosion on the eastern part of the island. However, wide coral reef erosion occurred on the southern part of the island, reaching 26% by 2007. Kotok Besar Island (Figure 7.5B) shows erosion along most of its coastline and minor erosion of its coral reefs, about 1% and 4% respectively. Both islands showed about 35% of dead coral by 2007, according to Estradivari et al. (2009). 117

Figure 7.5 Geological Changes in Kotok Kecil Island (A), Kotok Besar Island (B), Gosong Keroya Island (C), Karya Island (D), Sekati Island (E), Panggang Island (F) and Pramuka Island (D)

Gosong Keroya Island in Figure 7.5C shows massive coastline erosion on the western part of its coastline, reaching more than 83%. However coral reef erosion accounted for only a 4% change.

Four adjacent islands, Karya Island (Figure 7.5D), Sekati Island (Figure 7.5E), Panggang Island (Figure 7.5D) and Pramuka Islands (7.5E) were impacted by oil spills in 2009 and 2007. Karya Island, Panggang Island and Pramuka Island show increment in most of their coastlines due to infrastructure development. However, dead coral in these islands had already reached more than 50% by 2007. Coral reefs in Sekati Island have shown improvement on the northern side of the island, with dead coral at 30% (Estradivari et al. 2009). Both Pramuka Island and Panggang Island experienced a crisis in fresh water supply when the islands’ desalination installations failed in 2009, and in the same year, insufficient funding for electricity generation left all populated islands in total darkness. This occurred because the DKI Jakarta government abrogated an agreement with the

118 national government on the division of energy supplies. The issue was finally resolved after two months of debate between the DKI Jakarta government and the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.

Figure 7.6 Geological Changes in Karang Bongkok Island (A), Gosong Pandan Island (B), Gosong Layar Island, Semak Daun Island (D) and Sempit Island (E).

The images of the five unpopulated islands in Figure 7.6 show that Gosonglayar Island (Figure 7.6C) has the highest level of coastline erosion in the northern and western parts of the island, where erosion reached more than 40%, as compared to Sempit Island (38%) in Figure 7.6E, Gosong Pandan Island (30%) in Figure 7.6B and Karang Bongkok Island (3%) in Figure 7.6A. Semak Daun Island, however, shows a 30% improvement in Figure 7.6D. Gosonglayar Island also had more coral reef erosion (in the northern part) compared to the other four islands, However, they all shared the same percentage of dead coral reefs, reaching more than 30% by the year 1995 (De Vantier et al., 1995; Estradivari et al., 2009).

As already explained in Chapter 4, as populated islands, Harapan Island (Figure 7.7A) and Kelapa Island (Figure 7.7B) both show an increment in land area due to infrastructure 119 developments. Their shared coral reefs showed only a 4% change, with dead coral reefs reaching 30% (Estradivari et al., 2009).

Two adjacent Islands, Kaliage Besar Island in Figure 7.7D and Kaliage Kecil in Figure 7.7D, located less than 1km from Harapan Island, are significantly different from each other. As a private island, Kaliage Besar shows less erosion in both its coastline and coral reefs as compared to Kaliage Kecil as an unpopulated island. Kaliage Besar Island shows less than 10% erosion in the coral reefs in the southern part of its coastline, whereas Kaliage Kecil Island shows more than 20% erosion in most of its coral. This is because Kaliage Kecil Island experienced sand and coral exploitation in 1996. It is suspected that the sand and coral extracted from Kaliage Kecil was used for construction in Kaliage Besar.

In addition, as already mentioned in Chapter 6, Kaliage Besar is the first island in the region to be rented to a foreigner. Another dispute concerning the illegal development of

120 bungalows and villas was also reported in 1995. A similar dispute was also reported from Semut Island (Figure 7.7E), located less than 1km to the west of Kaliage Kecil Island.

Two adjacent islands, Opak Kecil Island (Figure 7.7F) and Opak Besar Island (Figure 7.7G), located less than 3 km from Kelapa Island, show less than 10% erosion in their coastlines. Opak Kecil shows a good level of improvement in its coral reefs on the western side of the island, although Opak Besar Island shows 7% coral reef erosion in the northern part of the island.

Local government designated these two islands as an alternative settlement islands in an effort to overcome population density in Harapan and Kelapa Islands in 2007. Paniki Island in Figure 7.7H is located 15 km from Kelapa Island and is the only island in the eastern flank of the region. It shows 3% change in its coastline, although coral reef erosion was at more than 40% in the western part of the island. The management of this island was assigned to the Department of Marine Transportation and a lighthouse was built here in 1982.

Panjang Kecil Island (Figure 7.8A) and Panjang Besar Island (Figure 7.8B) show less than 10% changes on coral reef coverage. Panjang Kecil has more erosion in their coastline compared to Panjang Besar Island, this happened because Panjang Besar Islands has been developed to become airport in the region since 1973 as been explained in Chapter 6. Kelapa dua Islands in Figure 7.8C as populated island in Chapter 4, show less than 10% of changes in their coral reef with more than 30% of dead coral.

121

Figure 7.8 Geological Changes in Panjang Kecil Island (A), Panjang Besar Island (A), Kelapa Dua Island (C) and Pemagaran Island (D)

7.4.3 Zone 3 This zone has 35 islands, mostly occupied by private sector individuals or companies. The islands in this zone managed by the government are mostly unpopulated. An abundance of crown-of-thorns starfish has been identified in Pantara Barat, Pantara Timur, Jukung, Sepa Barat, Putri Barat and Belanda (De Vantier et al., 1995).

The GIS results shown in Table 7.2 indicate that most islands in this zone have experienced minor erosion of their coastlines, normally in the order of less than 15%. The exceptions are Satu Island, Kuburan Cina Island and Tongkeng Island. The results also show that three islands have undergone significant change, in the order of more than 30%. These islands are Cina Island, Semut Besar Island, Kayuangin Bira Island and Kayuanginputri Island. Most of the islands show some level of coral reef erosion, except Belanda Island, which shows an increment in its coral reefs.

122

Table 7.2 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 3 No Name Land Use Coastline Coral Changes Dead coral 1 Belanda Unpopulated Changes-11.42 (%) 5.07(%) 198525-2007 (%) 2 Bira Besar Resort 0.70 -8.71 35 3 Bira Kecil Resort 0.17 -19.77 30 4 Bulat Resort -0.38 -16.63 20 5 Cina Resort 9.69 -38.59 10 6 Genteng Besar Resort 8.84 -11.25 25 7 Genteng Kecil Resort 9.87 -14.56 25 8 Jukung Unpopulated -0.97 -1.37 10 9 Kayuangin Genteng Unpopulated 1.95 -21.85 15 10 Kayuangin Bira Unpopulated 6.04 -31.13 25 11 Kayuangin Melintang Unpopulated -2.72 -28.57 10 12 Kayuanginputri Unpopulated 11.29 -30.36 15 13 Kelor Barat Unpopulated 12.07 -24.16 10 14 Kelor Timur Unpopulated 4.12 -22.28 10 15 Kuburan Cina Unpopulated 23.57 -22.98 25 16 Macan Besar (Matahari) Resort 8.41 -12.51 20 17 Macan Gundul Unpopulated 0.33 -16.45 20 18 Macan Kecil Unpopulated 7.68 -16.45 20 19 Melinjo Resort 9.35 -24.32 15 20 Melintang Besar Resort 10.91 -20.80 15 21 Melintang Kecil Resort 10.23 -24.62 15 22 Panjang Resort 10.71 -29.69 25 23 Papatheo Resort 5.43 -2.56 20 24 Pelangi Resort 7.98 -13.08 30 25 Perak Resort -9.53 -24.21 45 26 Putri Barat Resort 14.46 -18.73 20 27 Putri Timur Resort 8.03 -14.11 20 28 Satu Resort 158.05 undetermined 20 29 Semut Besar Resort 3.82 -36.60 30 30 Semut Kecil Unpopulated -11.50 -5.81 30 31 Sepa Barat Resort 6.80 -14.53 30 32 Sepa Timur Unpopulated -0.72 -10.83 20 33 Tongkeng Resort -13.89 -27.11 15 34 Yu Barat Unpopulated -0.26 -0.86 20 35 Yu Timur Unpopulated 5.51 -23.62 20

123

Figure 7.9A shows that the coastline of Kayuangin Bira Island has slightly improved in the western part of the island, although coral reef erosion has reached more than 30%. In 1 January 1982, the Ministry of Forestry designated this island a sanctuary zone inside the National Marine Park, as mentioned in Chapter 6.

Kuburan Cina Island in Figure 7.9B shows a 23% increment in the western and the northern parts of its coastline, with 22% coral reef erosion in the northern part of the island. This island, which is one of the well-known diving spots in the region, experienced seven cases of oil spill between 2004 and 2007.

Bira Kecil Island in Figure 7.9C shows minor development of its coastline, although coral reef erosion reached almost 20%, with 25% dead coral. Based on our qualitative analysis on Indonesian Daily news from 1965-2011, Bira Kecil Island experienced a number of incidents of oil spill between 2004 and 2007.

Figure 7.9 Geological Changes in Kayuangin Bira Island (A), Kuburan Cina Island (B), Bira Kecil Island (C), Bulat Island (D), Macan Besar Island (E), Kayuangin Genteng Island (F), Genteng Kecil Island (G), Genteng Besar Island (H), Macan Kecil Island and Macan Gungul Island (J).

124

Bulat Island in Figure 7.9D shows minor coastline erosion in the northern part of the island, but coastline increment in the southern part. Coral reef erosion has reached more than 15% in the northern part of island. In 1990’s, it was noted that islanders possessing land rights over the island sold the island to individuals. This led to a dispute between the islanders and the government of DKI Jakarta, which was concerned that the new owner would build resorts that would endanger the island’s biodiversity. Nevertheless, Bulat Island remains a private island on which bungalows have been constructed.

Matahari Island (formerly known as Macan Besar Island) in Figure 7.9E shows an increment in the area of most of its coastline because of infrastructure development. Based on the qualitative analysis on Indonesian Daily news from 1965-2011, the island has had a long history of illegal development, involving the construction of over 20 residences without a building licence from the government of DKI Jakarta since 1990. In 1992, the Governor of Jakarta issued an order for all buildings on the island to be demolished, but it is unclear whether this order was enforced . At present, Matahari Island is a resort island that is home to even more bungalows.

Kayuangin Genteng Island in Figure 7.9F shows healthy improvements in most parts of its coastline, although coral reef erosion has reached more than 20%, with 15% dead coral. Genteng Kecil Island, seen in Figure 7.9G, shows an almost 10% improvement in its coastline, with small areas of erosion in the western part of the island. Despite coral reef improvement in the south, coral reef erosion has reached 15% overall, with 25% dead coral. The same also applies to both coastline and coral reefs in Genteng Besar Island, as seen in Figure 7.8H. Both Genteng Kecil Island and Genteng Besar Island experienced disputes over illegal development in 1982.

Two adjacent unpopulated islands, Macan Kecil Island (Figure 7.9I) and Macan Gundul Island (Figure 7.8J) share coral reefs that have undergone change of 16%. They had also both experienced an increment in land area by 2007.

Two adjacent islands, Putri Barat Island (Figure 7.10A) and Putri Timur Island (Figure 7.10B) were privatised and designated as tourism islands by the Governor of Jakarta in 1982. By 2007, both these islands had experienced an increment in their land area as a 125 result of infrastructure development and mangrove rehabilitation. Putri Barat Island shows a 15% increment while Putri Timur Island shows a less than 10% change. However, Putri Barat Island has coral reef erosion of 18%, while Putri Timur Island shows change of less than 15%. They both have 20% dead coral reefs.

Figure 7.10 Geological Changes in Putri Barat Island (A), Putri Timur Island (B), Sepa Barat Island (C), Sepa Timur Island (D), Papatheo Island (E), Pelangi Island (F), Belanda Island (G) and Bira Besar (H).

Similar circumstances apply in Sepa Barat Island (Figure 7.9C). Large-scale development of this island has had harmful environmental consequences, especially in the northern part of the island where coral reefs have been excavated to build two piers and breakwaters, changing the island’s shape. By contrast, Sepa Timur (Figure 7.9D), which is an unpopulated island, shows less than 2% coastline erosion, with almost 10% coral reef erosion and 20% dead coral reefs. One new island has emerged on the eastern side of Sepa Timur Island.

Papatheo Island in Figure 7.10D, which is one of the region’s diving locations, and Pelangi Island in Figure 7.10F, show increments in the northern parts of their coastlines

126 as a result of infrastructure development. As a reflection of the preferential treatment given to private interests in the management of the Seribu Islands, the company behind this development freely changed the island’s name from Tondan Barat Island to Pelangi Island, while Tondan Timur Island became Papatheo Island in 1990. Both islands went bankrupt in the early 2000s and by 2007, they were also frequently subject to the impact of marine debris.

Bira Besar Island in Figure 7.10H is the site of what is probably the most serious case of illegal development in the history of the Seribu Islands. Although it is located within the sanctuary zone, it was privatised in 1994, and without any building permit or EIA licence, 30 hectares of mangrove forest were cleared for the construction of a large-scale golf course This was followed by coral reef and sand exploitation for resort development, which only came to light after the development was completed. The government of DKI Jakarta, the Ministry of the Environment and even the President intervened in the case, but after a year-long debate, all that was required of the company responsible for the development was to apply for a retrospective EIA and building licence in order to obtain environmental approval for the project. This was done in 1995, and before long, the President himself was seen playing golf on the island (Based on the qualitative analysis on Indonesian Daily news from 1965-2011).

Semut Kecil Island (Figure 7.11A) shows a 12% change in its coastline and minor erosion of its coral reefs, with 30% dead coral. In 2007 the island was experiencing the impact of marine debris.

Melintang Besar (Figure 7.11B) and Melintang Kecil (Figure 7.11C), both private islands, show 10% change in their coastlines with 15% dead coral. In 2002, both islands were designated as alternative settlement islands to reduce population density on Kelapa Island. However, the acquisition of land from the private owner proved difficult, and until now, the islands have remained in private hands.

Tongkeng Island in Figure 7.11D shows a 23% increment in its coastline as a result of resort development, but coral reef change has reached almost 30%, with 15% dead coral reefs. Tongkeng Island is one of the few islands in the region that survived as a tourism 127 island after the 1998 economic crisis that devastated the Indonesian economy.

Figure 7.11 Geological Changes in Semut Kecil Island (A), Melintang Besar Island (B), Melintang Kecil Island (C), Tongkeng Island (D), Kayuangin Melintang (E), Panjang Island (F), Kayuanginputri (G) and Perak Island (H)

Kayuangin Melintang Island shows a healthy degree of improvement, with only 2% erosion in its coastline, although coral reef erosion has reached almost 30%, with 10% dead coral, as seen in Figure 7.11E.

The coastlines of Panjang Island (Figure 7.11F) and Kayuanginputri Island (Figure 7.11G) are in good condition, although coral reef erosion has reached almost 30% on Panjang Island, with 25% dead coral reefs. In Kayuanginputri Island coral reef erosion has reached more than 30%, with 15% dead coral.

Perak Island (Figure 7.11H) shows coastline increment of more than 10%, although coral reef erosion stands at almost 25% and dead coral is at 45%. The island was also subjected to the impact of oil spills in 2004 and 2007.

128

Both Yu Barat Island (Figure 7.12A) and Yu Timur Island (Figure 7.12B), show coastline increment, in the northern part of the island in the case of Yu Barat, and the southern part in the case of Yu Timur. Most of coral reefs of both islands have been seriously damaged as a result of coral exploitation and diving and snorkelling activities. According to a local government official, the coral was exploited for developments in Pantara Barat and Pantara Timur Islands (Yates 1994).

Both Kelor Barat Island (Figure 7.12C) and Kelor Barat Timur (Figure7.12D) show an increment in their coastline areas, amounting to 12% and 4% respectively. However both islands also had coral reef abrasion of more than 20%, with less than 15% dead coral reefs.

Figure 7.12 Geological Changes in Yu Barat Island (A), Yu Timur Island (B), Kelor Barat Island (C), Kelor Timur Island (D), Jukung Island (E), Satu Island (F), Melinjo Island (G), Cina Island (H), Besar Island (I)

Jukung Island (Figure 7.12E) shows only minor erosion of approximately 2% in both of its coastline and coral reefs. In 2011, the island was privatised for marine aquaculture by the local government in order to improve the region’s economy.

129

Satu Island in Figure 7.12F has coastline increment of more than 150%. However, there was no spatial information on its coral reefs (based on the 1999 map compiled by the National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping), so coral reef changes were not included in the vulnerability computation.

Melinjo Island (Figure 7.12G) shows an increment in the land area of the island as a result of resort development after the island was designated as a tourism island by the local government in 1982. The island later became a private island in 1990’s, but it was designated an alternative settlement island to relocate islanders from Kelapa Island in 2002.

Two adjacent islands, Cina Island (Figure 7.12H) and Semut Besar Island (Figure 7.12I) show increments in their coastlines of 9% and 3% respectively. They shared the same level of coral reef erosion, with more than 35%. However, Cina Island has only 10% dead coral whereas Semut Besar Island has 30%. Both islands experienced oil spills in 2007.

7.4.4 Zone 4 Zone 4 consists of 19 islands, most of which are unpopulated. The exception is Sebira Island, a populated island located approximately 23 Km north of Dua Barat Island. The GIS-based analysis of physical and biophysical changes, shown in Table 7.3, found that of these 19 islands, 9 islands show a minor increment (less than 10%) in their coastlines.

The highest increment is found in Pabelokan Besar Island as a result of infrastructure development. In terms of coral reef change, Pabelokan Kecil Island has erosion of almost 30%, while other islands show below 20%. Rengat Island has the highest level of erosion, with more than 50% dead coral, while the lowest level is found in Bunder and Kapas Islands, with only 10% dead coral.

130

Table 7.3 Land Use, Coastline Change, Coral Reef Change and Dead Coral in Zone 4

Coastline Coral Dead coral No Name Land Used Changes (%) Changes (%) 1985-2007 (%) 1 Bunder Resort -14.34 undetermined 10 2 Dua Barat Unpopulated -0.60 6.04 15 3 Dua Timur Unpopulated 1.69 4.21 15 4 Gosong Rengat Unpopulated -5.76 -17.17 60 5 Jagung Unpopulated 3.50 -1.98 10 6 Kapas Unpopulated -49.58 -19.29 10 7 Lipan Resort -17.12 -5.81 15 8 Nyamplung Unpopulated -6.49 -15.74 20 9 Pabelokan Besar Oil company 4.01 undetermined undetermined 10 Pabelokan Kecil Unpopulated -32.47 -29.37 30 11 Pantara Barat Resort -9.17 -12.62 20 12 Pantara Timur Resort 0.47 -19.03 20 13 Pateloran Barat Unpopulated 0.75 12.93 25 14 Pateloran Timur Unpopulated -23.61 -2.24 20 15 Penjaliran Barat Unpopulated -2.91 -18.37 45 16 Penjaliran Timur Unpopulated -5.45 -12.05 45 17 Rengat Unpopulated -3.62 -12.22 55 18 Sebaru Besar Unpopulated 0.01 -10.80 30 19 Sebaru Kecil Resort -1.20 -12.45 20 20 Sebira Populated undetermined undetermined undetermined

Gosong Rengat Island, in figure 7.13A, which is located on the western flank of the region, shows only less than 4% coastline erosion and 12% coral reef erosion. However its amount of dead coral stands at 50%.

Sebaru Besar Island, in Figure 7.13B, is a private island showing coastline increment in the northern part of the island and more than 10% coral reef erosion, with dead coral of 30%. In 2002, Sebaru Besar Island was the subject of a land dispute when the owner tried to sell it to private company wanting to build a casino on the island. The proposal was approved by the DKI Jakarta government, but it was rejected by NGO and the Ministry of Religion, on moral and religious grounds. As a result of these objections, the sale of the island did not proceed.

131

Figure 7.13 Geological Changes in Rengat Island (A), Sebaru Besar Island (B), Sebaru Kecil Island (C), Nyamplung Island (D), Lipan Island (E), Bunder Island (F), Kapas Island (G), Pantara Barat Island (H) and Pantara Timur Island (I)

Sebaru Kecil Island in Figure 7.13C was designated a tourism island by the government of DKI Jakarta in 1987. It shows coastline increment in the southern part of the island and less than 15% coral reef change. Nyamplung Island (Figure 7.13D), located to the north of Sebaru Kecil, has minor coastline erosion of about 1% and 12% coral reef erosion, with 20% dead coral reefs. Lipan Island, in Figure 7.13E, shows 17% coastline erosion and only 5% coral reef erosion, with 20% dead coral reefs.

Bunder Island, in Figure 7.13F, shows almost 15% change in its coastline, but the 1999 map shows no coral reefs in existence. This has invalidated the vulnerability computation in relation to the coral reef indicator.

Pulau Kapas, in Figure 7.13G, shows massive change of almost 50% in its coastline as a result of sand mining, which was reported by the local government in 1996. Coral reef erosion reached almost 20%, with 10% dead coral reefs.

132

Two adjacent islands, Pantara Barat Island (Figure 7.13H) and Pantara Timur Island (Figure 7.13I), present a contrasting picture. In Pantara Barat, coastline erosion stands at almost 10%, whereas in Pantara Timur, there is a slight coastline increment (less than 1%). However, coral reef erosion in Pantara Barat stands at only 12%, whereas in Pantara Timur, the level of coral reef erosion has reached almost 20%. Both islands have 20% dead coral reefs. These islands were designated tourism islands in 1987, as part of a huge project known as the Seribu Marine Resort. They acquired their present names in 1990, when their original names, Hantu Barat and Hantu Timur (“West Ghost” and “East Ghost”) were deemed unsuitable for their new designation. Since 1995, both islands have suffered the impact of crown-of-thorns starfish, and in 2009 they were affected by massive amounts of marine debris.

Figure 7.14 Geological Changes in Pabelokan Kecil Island (A), Pabelokan Besar Island (B), Gosong Rengat Island (C), Dua Barat Island (D), Dua Timur Island (E), Jagung Island (F), Pateloran Barat Island (G), Penjaliran Barat Island (H), Pateloran Timur Island (I) and Penjaliran Timur Island (J)

Pabelokan Kecil Island, in Figure 7.14A, shows massive change in both its coastline and its coral reefs, more than 30% in the former and almost 30% in the latter. The local

133 government reported several oil spill incidents affecting Pabelokan Kecil between 2004 and 2007.

As mentioned earlier, Pabelokan Besar Island (Figure 7.14B), as the centre of oil exploitation operations in the region, has undergone large-scale development which has made its coastline more rigid than is the case in the other islands. The oil company operates more than 400 offshore rigs in the surrounding seas of zone 4, and it is responsible for several oil spill incidents that have affected almost the entire Seribu Islands region.

As a sanctuary island, Gosong Rengat in Figure 7.14C shows 5% coastline erosion and more than 50% coral reef change with the level of dead coral reaching 60% (Estradivary et al., 2009; Yates, 1994). If this situation continues, there will be a severe impact on the island’s biodiversity and its hawksbill and green turtle protection areas.

Surprisingly, Dua Barat Island (Figure 7.14D) and Dua Timur Island (Figure 7.13E) appear to be in good ecological health, with only slight erosion of their coastlines. The analysis shows less than 1% coastline erosion in Dua Barat Island, and nearly 2% coastline increment in Dua Timur Island. There is coral reef increment of 6% in Dua Barat and 4% in Dua Timur. Both islands have 15% dead coral reefs. Local government reports indicate that both islands were affected by marine debris in 2007.

Jagung Island, in Figure 7.14F, is also in good condition. There is a 3% coastline increment in the northern part of the island and less than 2% coral reef erosion in the western part of the island, with 10% dead coral reefs.

Four adjacent Islands, Pateloran Barat Island (Figure 7.14G), Penjaliran Barat Island (Figure 7.14H), Pateloran Timur Island (Figure 7.14I) and Penjaliran Barat Island (Figure 7.14J), present contrasting results. The coastline of Pateloran Barat Island has the most severe erosion (26%), followed by Penjaliran Timur Island (5%) and Penjaliran Barat Island (3%), whereas the coastline of Pateloran Barat shows a slight increment. Pateloran Barat also has a 12% coral reef increment, while Penjaliran Barat Island has the highest level of coral reef erosion, with 18%. Penjaliran Timur Island has 12% erosion and 134

Pateloran Timur Island has only 2%. These islands, also designated as hawksbill turtle protection areas, experienced marine debris in 2006 as well as oil spills in 2007.

Table 7.4 Vulnerability Indicators for Each Zone of the Seribu Islands

Seribu INDICATORS Islands Zone Main Secondary Supplementary Land use Climate change Oil spill Coastline change Marine debris Island Location Zone 1 Island remoteness Coral reef change Pollutant areas Land use Climate change Oil spill

Coastline change Tourism activities Marine debris Zone 2 Island remoteness Island monitoring Coral reef change

Land use Climate changes Oil spill Coastline change Tourism activities Marine debris Zone 3 Island remoteness Island monitoring Coral reef change

Land use Climate changes Oil spill Coastline change Tourism activities Island remoteness Zone 4 Islands

monitoring Coral reef change

7.5 Vulnerability Computation Based on the GIS analysis above and qualitative assessment using NVIVO, the vulnerability indicators in the Seribu Islands can be categorised as main indicators, secondary indicators and supplementary indicators, as seen in Table 7.4. Island monitoring is classified as one of main indicator, which indicates whether or not the island is accessible or not. Climate change is classified as supplementary indicator as explained in Chapter 5. Tourism activities also classified as supplementary indicator because the activities is seasonal. Oil spills and marine debris are classified as supplementary indicator because of accidental/occasional events in the region. These indicators were 135 then classified, as illustrated in Table 7.5, and each indicator was weighted, as seen in Table 7.6.

Table 7.5 Vulnerability Indicators and Classification (modified from Farhan and Lim, 2012)

Vulnerability Vulnerability classification Indicator Very low Low Moderate High Very high Land use None Private Government Native Unpopulated Coastline change ≤10% 11%-20% 21%-30% 31%-50% >50% Island location >16 km 12-16 km 8-12 km 4-8 km ≤4 km Highly Island protected Semi- Protected Unprotected none remoteness (concrete protected base) Island Accessible Inaccessible monitoring Coral change ≤8% 9%-16% 17%-24% 25-32% >32% Dead coral reefs ≤5% 5-10% 11-15% 16-20% >20%

Table 7.6 Weight for Vulnerability Indicators

Dry Season Wet Season Indicator Weight Weight Coral reef coverage 5 5 Dead coral reefs 4 4 Coastline change 3 3 Land use 2 2 Pollution 1 3

The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) of the Seribu Islands, listed in Table 7.7 for Zone 1, Table 7.8 for Zone 2, Table 7.9 for Zone 3 and Table 7.10 for Zone 4, was developed on the basis of an average mean calculation of vulnerability due to land use (Vlu), vulnerability due to coastline change (Vcl), vulnerability due to island location (Vil), vulnerability due to island remoteness (Vir), vulnerability due to island monitoring (Vim), vulnerability due to pollution (Vp), vulnerability due to coral change (Vc) and

136 vulnerability due to dead coral reefs (Vdc). The detailed of CVI computation is summarised in Appendix D.

Table 7.7 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 1, Modified from Chapter 5 (based on Farhan and Lim, 2012)

Vulnerability No Island Name East Monsoon West Monsoon (dry Season) (wet season) 1 Ayer Besar high very high 2 Bidadari moderate moderate 3 Bokor very high very high 4 Burung moderate high 5 Damar Besar very high very high 6 Damar Kecil high high 7 Kayangan very high very high 8 Kelor very high very high 9 Kongsi Barat moderate very high 10 Kongsi Tengah moderate high 11 Kongsi Timur high high 12 Laki very high high 13 Lancang Besar very high very high 14 Lancang Kecil high very high 15 Onrust high very high 16 Pari moderate very high 17 Rambut high high 18 Tengah moderate high 19 Tikus moderate high 20 Untungjawa very high moderate Note: As mentioned in Chapter 5, 4 islands had vanished by 1999, while Dapur Island and Nyamuk Kecil Island had vanished by 2007.

137

Table 7.8 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 2

No Island Name Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Index 1 Ayer 6.50 high 2 Gosong Keroya 9.17 very high 3 Gosong Pandan 8.00 high 4 Gosonglayar 10.33 very high 5 Harapan and Kelapa 6.67 moderate 6 Kaliage Besar 6.67 high 7 Kaliage Kecil 8.67 very high 8 Karang Beras 4.83 moderate 9 Karang Bongkok 7.00 high 10 Karangkeling 9.17 very high 11 Karya 7.50 high 12 Kelapa Dua 6.50 high 13 Kotok Besar 6.17 high 14 Kotok Kecil 9.50 very high 15 Opak Besar 5.83 moderate 16 Opak Kecil 7.83 high 17 Panggang 6.50 high 18 Paniki 9.17 very high 19 Panjang Besar 6.83 high 20 Panjang Kecil 7.50 high 21 Payung Besar 4.83 moderate 22 Payung Kecil 4.83 moderate 23 Pemagaran 5.83 moderate 24 Pramuka 7.17 high 25 Sekati 7.83 high 26 Semakdaun 7.00 high 27 Sempit 8.50 very high 28 Semut 9.33 very high 29 Tidung Besar 9.00 very high 30 Tidung Kecil 10.17 very high Vulnerability classification: 0-2 very low, 2-4 low, 4-6 moderate, 6-8 high, >8 very high

138

Table 7.9 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 3 No Island Name Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Index 1 Belanda 6.50 high 2 Bira Besar 6.67 high 3 Bira Kecil 8.33 very high 4 Bulat 6.67 high 5 Cina 7.83 high 6 Genteng Besar 7.00 high 7 Genteng Kecil 7.00 high 8 Jukung 4.83 moderate 9 Kayuangin (Genteng) 7.33 high 10 Kayuangin Bira 8.83 very high 11 Kayuangin Melintang 7.67 high 12 Kayuanginputri 8.17 very high 13 Kelor Barat 6.50 high 14 Kelor Timur 6.50 high 15 Kuburan Cina 7.83 high 16 Macan Besar (Matahari) 6.00 moderate 17 Macan Gundul 7.17 high 18 Macan Kecil 7.17 high 19 Melinjo 6.83 high 20 Melintang Besar 6.83 high 21 Melintang Kecil 6.83 high 22 Panjang 8.33 very high 23 Papatheo 5.50 moderate 24 Pelangi 6.67 high 25 Perak 8.17 very high 26 Putri Barat 6.83 high 27 Putri Timur 6.00 moderate 28 Satu 6.20 high 29 Semut Besar 10.17 very high 30 Semut Kecil 7.17 very high 31 Sepa Barat 6.67 high 32 Sepa Timur 7.33 high 33 Tongkeng 7.67 high 34 Yu Barat 6.50 high 35 Yu Timur 8.17 very high Vulnerability classification: 0-2 very low, 2-4 low, 4-6 moderate, 6-8 high, >8 very high

139

Table 7.10 Coastal Vulnerability Index in Zone 4

No Island Name Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Index

1 Bunder 5.40 moderate 2 Dua Barat 5.83 moderate 3 Dua Timur 5.83 moderate 4 Gosong Rengat 8.83 very high 5 Jagung 5.00 moderate 6 Kapas 8.67 very high 7 Lipan 5.83 moderate 8 Nyamplung 8.00 very high 9 Pabelokan Besar 4.00 moderate 10 Pabelokan Kecil 11.17 very high 11 Pantara Barat 6.17 high 12 Pantara Timur 7.00 high 13 Pateloran Barat 7.17 high 14 Pateloran Timur 7.50 high 15 Penjaliran Barat 8.83 very high 16 Penjaliran Timur 8.00 high 17 Rengat 8.00 high 18 Sebaru Besar 6.83 high 19 Sebaru Kecil 6.17 high Note: Sebira Island, located 23 km from Dua Barat Island, could not be included due to an absence of data Vulnerability classification: 0-2 very low, 2-4 low, 4-6 moderate, 6-8 high, >8 very high

In the final stage, the results were validated by coordinating them with data obtained through interviews with decision makers in the Seribu Islands. The results show that the following issues were acknowledged.

As the closest zone to Jakarta Bay, Zone 1 is influenced by anthropogenic factors. As described in Chapter 6, by 2012 it had already lost six islands. Local government officials admit that environmental conditions in Jakarta Bay are appalling, and are aware that pollution from the bay has already reached the region. Nevertheless, they are powerless to do anything to remedy the situation until action is taken by the government of DKI 140

Jakarta. According to local government officials, the reason for this is that DKI Jakarta will not allow the local government any autonomy in decision-making, unlike the situation elsewhere in Indonesia. This means that the implementation of policy is strongly top-down, and every decision at the local level must be coordinated with the decisions of the DKI Jakarta government. Insufficient financial resources are the other reason the local government cannot take any effective action to reduce pollution. Indeed, its management of the entire Seribu Islands region is hamstrung by a lack of funding.

Of the 31 islands in Zone 2, only 7 islands are considered moderately vulnerable. Of the remaining islands, 4 are highly vulnerable and 10 are very highly vulnerable. Gosonglayar Island has the highest vulnerability score, while Karang Beras Island, Payung Besar Island and Payung Kecil Island have the lowest.

Zone 2 has been the site of a large number of disputes over land use, as described in Chapter 6. These disputes began in 1982, when more than 15 islands were secretly leased to individuals and private companies by the government of DKI Jakarta. Questions were raised in the national parliament over whether the Jakarta government had the authority to grant ownership of the islands to individuals, but this did not result in any revoking of leases already issued or any halt to infrastructure development that had already begun on the islands.

Without any consultation with the DKI Jakarta government, the Ministry of Forestry unilaterally declared a National Marine Park in the region in 1982, as explained in Chapter 6. The local government argues that the present National Marine Park is ambiguous in terms of boundary zones and management, and claims that it has been treated merely as an operator of the park, without any involvement in decision-making. This has made it reluctant to undertake monitoring and evaluation of the region.

Zone 3 has only 4 islands that are considered moderately vulnerable, while 7 islands are highly vulnerable and 24 islands are considered very highly vulnerable. Most of these islands are managed by private companies, which makes it difficult for the local government to monitor and evaluate their condition, because most private islands are patrolled by guards and are inaccessible. It has also been noted that most of the private 141 islands belong to high-level government officials. For instance, Bulat Island, where a golf course and helipad have been constructed, is owned by the President of the Republic of Indonesia (Subhan, 1997).

Presently, the local government is aware of several cases of development in the region that contravene existing regulations, especially on private islands. However, since they have already been approved by DKI Jakarta, the local government is powerless to act. In fact, most decisions relating to island use are made by the government of DKI Jakarta without any consultation with local authorities.

Of the 20 islands in zone 4, Pabelokan Kecil Island has the highest vulnerability index, which is 11.17. In this zone, 6 islands are considered moderately vulnerable, 7 islands are highly vulnerable and 6 islands are very highly vulnerable. Coral reef change in Bunder Island and Pabelokan Besar Island could not be computed because of a lack of data accuracy on the 1999 map. Also, Sebira Island does not appear on any national map. Most of the islands in Zone 4 are part of the protected zone, but this has not prevented Pantara Barat and Pantara Timur Islands being declared tourism islands, which raises questions about the islands’ protected status. The local government believes that as the protected zone is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry, it does not have any obligation to manage the islands in this zone.

Overall, it is clear that in terms of resilience, the populated islands are more resilient than private islands and unpopulated islands. However, when it comes to environmental issues, both populated islands and private islands have contributed to the massive damage to the biodiversity of the region. Pollutants (oil spills and marine debris), the loss of biodiversity and exploitation of coral reefs and sand deposits are the dominant activities in the region, as seen in Figure 7.15. If this continues, there will be a severe impact on the region’s economy, since most of its inhabitants are fishermen or marine aquaculture farmers. It also threatens the tourist industry, which is the region’s only other source of income generation.

142

Figure 7.15 Environmental Issues Based on Matrix Coding Classification of 213 Articles (published between 1965 and 2012) using NVIVO Software (X-axis represents the issues concerning the study area and Y-axis represents the number of references)

7.6 A Strategic Approach to ICZM The results of the data analysis presented above show clearly that it is impossible for the local government of the Seribu Islands to administer the region effectively by itself. Taking into account that ICZM must involve the cooperation of intersectoral, intergovernmental, spatial, science-management and international elements (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998, p. 45), the issues identified in the vulnerability assessment presented in this study need to be addressed in a broad cooperative framework, if ICZM is to be implemented in the region.

7.6.1 Intersectoral integration Horizontally, there is no integration among Seribu Islands users. Tourism islands, private islands, populated islands (the coastal community) and the oil industry in the region each function according to quite distinct economic parameters. According to local government officials, the revenue from the oil industry goes directly to the central government, while revenue from the tourism islands goes straight to DKI Jakarta. None of this revenue is used to support the development of the coastal communities, such as in the education sector. Presently, the Seribu Islands have only one high school, located on Pramuka Island, and school infrastructure and facilities elsewhere are mostly sub-standard. An investigation conducted in 2008 found that most junior school buildings on Panggang

143

Island were severely damaged and inadequate (Kompas, 2008). Public school transportation is also inadequate, making it difficult for students to attend school. Similar conditions apply also in the health sector. The only facilities available to the population are small clinics (Puskesmas) located on Harapan/Kelapa Island, Pramuka Island, Pari Island and Untungjawa Island. In all these locations, medical supplies and equipment are very limited.

Both the education sector and the health sector also suffer from inadequate human resources. There is a shortage of teachers and medical officers, and it is difficult to attract additional personnel to the region because of poor infrastructure and lack of public transport (Figure 7.16).

Figure 7.16 Infrastructure Development Issues Based on Matrix Coding Classification of 78 Articles (published between 1965 and 2012), using NVIVO Software (X-axis represents issues concerning the study area and Y-axis represents the number of references)

Improvements to the education sector would allow the islanders to participate more in the management of their region. At present, there are no local employees in the local government or private companies operating in the region, because the educational qualifications of the local population are so low.

At the present time, there are still conflicts among the islanders, and between them and outside authorities, as is confirmed by local government officials. The islanders feel that their needs have been ignored, both by the local government and the government of DKI 144

Jakarta, and the level of public participation in the development of the region is low. In addition, traditional beliefs and political party allegiances coming in the wake of the democratic reforms of the post-1998 period, have created disputes between the islanders themselves, mostly between one island community and another. Lines of communication need to be built between communities in the region, so that they form one integrated society, rather than a collection of separate islander communities.

Figure 7.17 Representation of Population Migration to the Mainland, (if coping capacity fails to address fundamental social and economic needs in the region). (Modified from Renaud (2006)

Tax rebates could be an incentive for private companies to contribute to the development of coastal communities or protection of the marine environment. A clear framework specifying the financial obligations of all users of the region needs to be established, in order to generate funds for the improvement of the Seribu Islands Marine National Park.

145

Adequate public transport and reliable supplies of electricity and fresh water are major concerns of the region’s population (Figure 7.16). These issues must be given priority by the central government, since fundamental needs such as these must be met if living conditions on the islands are to become sustainable. If not, the islanders will continue to migrate to the mainland, adding to the pressures of population density and environmental degradation in DKI Jakarta (Figure 7.17).

7.6.2 Intergovernmental integration As mentioned in Chapter 6, there are four government entities directly involved in the region, i.e. the Ministry of Forestry, which claims responsibility for management of the National Marine Park, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, which is responsible for ocean and coastal management, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, which is responsible for oil and gas exploration and exploitation and the local government of the Seribu Islands, which is responsible for community welfare. In addition, there are three administrative units that are indirectly involved in the region, i.e. DKI Jakarta, Banten Province and West Java Province. These seven entities need to work together under a single framework that satisfies all parties in relation to governance and the management of social and economic affairs.

With only one existing local government office (on Pramuka Island), an evaluation and monitoring of the region according to the vulnerability assessment presented in this study would be difficult to perform. The local government must establish at least another two offices to cover the whole region adequately (Figure 7.18). Sebaru Besar Island and Untungjawa Island could be used as sites for additional offices, each of them responsible for the islands and marine environments within a 15 km radius. A 15 km radius would ensure that monitoring and evaluation was effective in view of time and financial constraints.

146

Figure 7.18 Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation in the Seribu Islands Region (Based on a 15 km Radius)

147

The question of who is going to lead this integration framework is a crucial concern. As Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, p. 62) stated, there are four elements that need to be addressed in defining the appropriate authority to manage this integration. The authority concerned must have the support of authorised legislation, and be at the highest level of decision making in relation to ocean/coastal management. It must also have the legitimacy to undertake the role, and accessibility to scientific and technical services. On the basis of the policy assessment in Chapter 6, it can be concluded that none of Indonesia’s government institutions possesses those four requirements.

On the basis of the narrative assessment, the Seribu Islands region needs to be able to respond quickly to environmental change or any incidents that endanger the region’s biodiversity. Some of the incidents discussed in Chapter 6, especially those related to private companies, are issues which the local government is reluctant to pursue and, as a result, tend to be settled outside court. If incidents such as these are reported to the DKI Jakarta government, local officials find themselves in prolonged bureaucratic negotiations involving the exercise of diplomacy and patience. Even if they do take this route, in most cases, no action is taken by the DKI Jakarta government to repair the damage.

Ideally, the local government, along with the coastal community, should stand at the forefront of the ICZM co-operation framework, with support from DKI Jakarta and others users of the Seribu Islands region.

7.6.3 Spatial and Development Integration The Seribu Islands must be treated fairly as part of the development of DKI Jakarta as a whole, rather than being seen as a burden on the progress of development in the region. As the islands were designated as a tourism industry site as early as 1965, it is time development in mainland DKI Jakarta took account of the environmental fragility of the region and acted to protect it against dramatic change.

In the many years since Indonesia’s status as an archipelagic state was recognised in 1982, the zoning of the National Marine Park in the Seribu Islands has been the only action 148 undertaken in the interests of protecting the region’s marine environment. However, in Article 145 of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Protection of the Marine Environment), it is stated that:

“..…the authority shall adopt appropriates rules, regulations and procedures for inter alia: (a) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution and other hazards to the marine environment, …; (b) the protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention of damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment.” (UNCLOS)27

This is followed by Article 146 (Protection of Human Life), which states that: “With respect to activities in the Area, necessary measures shall be taken to ensure effective protection of human life. To this end the Authority shall adopt appropriate rules, regulations and procedures to supplement existing international law as embodied in relevant treaties.” (UNCLOS)28

Both articles emphasise the concept of adopting “appropriates rules, regulations and procedures”, something which has been ignored by the Indonesian government. For many years, zoning in the Seribu Islands region has lacked a set of regulations specifying each zone’s capacity and the entities responsible for its management, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of environmental change.

In order to set up an effective zoning system, the first requirement is the preparation of an inventory of scientific data on each of the islands in the region, which can serve as a fundamental set of baseline information. The vulnerability assessment presented in this study shows that spatial data and baseline information are so far inadequate for spatial planning in the region. For example, Sebira Island in the study area does not appear on any national map, even though it is located only 23km from Indonesia’s capital city. The Seribu Islands region must be re-measured and an up to date inventory of its islands and coral reefs, especially the private islands, must be compiled. Only in this way can the

27 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf 28 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

149 existing spatial data on the Seribu Islands region, on a scale of 1:50,000, be improved and detailed, on a minimum scale of 1:10,000.

Evaluation and monitoring of the region must be addressed carefully and a time frame for the monitoring of each zone must be agreed upon. A monthly or three monthly basis of evaluation and monitoring in the region is essential and must be conducted by both the local government and DKI Jakarta.

An acknowledgement of the need for public participation in every aspect of development in the region is important and logical. For example, local government could work together with fishermen who travel frequently across the region, enlisting them as a resource for monitoring environmental conditions. To reduce population density on the overcrowded islands, efforts to convince the islanders of the benefits of relocation need to be intensified, and the local government needs to ensure that when communities do relocate, infrastructure such as housing, electricity, fresh water supply and public transport facilities on the new island are adequate.

The ownership of private islands must also be evaluated, in order to ensure that the development of these islands is in accordance with sound environmental practice. The type of development that took place on Ayer Island must not be allowed to occur again. Since there are 44 private islands and only 5 islands dedicated as tourism islands, the best possible solution would be for the return of those private islands to the local government for development as tourism islands for the benefit of the local economy.

7.7 Summary By using the vulnerability index presented in this study, decision makers can easily identify which part of the region needs to be protected or developed. Each region in the Seribu Islands is experiencing different pressures, so the vulnerability indicators must be carefully selected for better understanding of the changes taking place in the region. The spatial analysis using GIS is very useful, since it covers a wide area and can be used to make an accurate estimate of vulnerability measures, especially in relation to physical changes in the region. For better understanding and improved information based on the

150

GIS analysis, a qualitative method is needed for further analysis of the results and for determining the socio-economic impacts of policies concerning the region.

Lack of coordination between agencies and lack of spatial planning guidelines and public participation guidelines are the main cause of underperforming ICZM in Indonesia and the many disputes that occur between the central and local governments and the coastal community. The administrative boundaries and jurisdictions between decision makers must be defined and enshrined in a set of regulations in order to minimise disputes and enable the effective implementation of ICZM. This must be followed by an acknowledgement that public and local community participation needs to be enhanced in the interests of effective coastal community-based management of the region.

Community-based management of each island should be encouraged, and islanders need effective training to be able to adapt to environmental change. The National Marine Park must be broadened to cover the entire region in order to facilitate ecological protection and management. New regulations and guidelines must be devised within a collaborative framework between agencies for the sake of sustainable development in the region. The Indonesian Cooperation Law needs to be revised and must enshrine effective guidelines that specify administrative jurisdictions.

151

Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

8.1 Introduction The development of a resilience and vulnerability framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in the Seribu Islands region is the main focus of this research. This chapter draws together the results of previous chapters into an overall conclusion to the research. It describes the contribution of the vulnerability methodology adopted in this study to improving ICZM assessment and discusses the limitations of the data. Finally, it proposes future directions for improved vulnerability assessment.

8.2 An Overview of the Vulnerability Approach in this Thesis The research is predicated on an acknowledgement that the Indonesian government is still calculating the number of small islands within its jurisdiction, and is concerned about their condition. Based on the three working hypotheses adopted in this research, resilience/vulnerability assessment can be developed to integrate small islands with surrounding islands and to enable better spatial planning management.

The overview of ICZM implementation in Chapter 2, in particular its implementation in Indonesia, is a starting point for a thorough investigation of the source of the problems. It was found that the Indonesian government lacks information and a systematic means of support for decision-making in the area of coastal zone management. For example, the international effort that produced the Indonesia Global Ocean Observing System (Ina- GOOS) is unlikely to be a frontier in Indonesian research capacity. It was also found that most vulnerability assessments conducted so far were dependent on the characteristics of a single area and focused on a single entity, rather than being part of a broad, dynamic framework for action.

The description of the condition of small islands in Indonesia in Chapter 3 resulted in a classification of small islands according to two categories, each of which is experiencing different pressures and problems. In this thesis, a small islands region close to Indonesia’s

152 capital city was chosen as the focus of the research, which aims to demonstrate a more coordinated and holistic approach than previous research in this field.

It was found that the study area was influenced by four rivers which are the source of anthropogenic hazards in the region. Methodology was developed from the nine steps described in Chapter 3 and delineated in relation to the defined area and two pilot projects, in order to investigate and to provide a framework for the development of resilience/vulnerability indicators. The first project, described in Chapter 4, was located in populated islands, where the results produced a characterisation of the resilience factors in the region, and a set of indicators was identified and tested.

The analysis found that the coastal communities are highly adaptable in coping with biophysical changes even though making a livelihood is very hard. The second project, described in Chapter 5, was in islands located 15 km from the capital city, where the results demonstrated the anthropogenic hazards that are influenced by seasonal (wet and dry) conditions. The impact of the capital city and its surroundings on the study area was successfully visualised. It was found that by 2012, the region had lost six islands. Indicators from both pilot projects were identified and adaptation of the vulnerability scale approach of 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (moderate), 4 (high) and 5 (very high) demonstrated the susceptibility of the islands to ecological change.

The investigation of previous and current legislation with implications for ocean and coastal management was very useful, since it enabled a classification of the four regulations and specification of the regulations susceptibility of the study area. Assessing prolonged qualitative data, in conjunction with interview data and visualisation in the form of maps took a substantial amount of time, but this enabled the compilation of an extended history of the study area from 1965 to 2011. This was important to assure the validity of the vulnerability indicators. Validation according to the four elements of environmental, governance, economy and socio-cultural factors explained the reasons for those indicators. Also, the results indicate that in practice, Indonesian Integrated Coastal Zone Management legal systems do exist and that in some cases, part of the responsibility for the problems rests with legislation that imposes complex systems of administration, unrealistic sanctions and impractical solutions. 153

The research has successfully identified vulnerability indicators and computed vulnerability in each zone, highlighting the physical and biophysical changes on each island. It was able to conclude that the study area is moderately to highly vulnerable. This research also shows that inter-sectoral, inter-governance and spatial developments are the three components that need to be improved for the successful implementation of ICZM in the region.

Based on the Seribu Islands experience, the situation of small island regions in Indonesia can be described as follows:

 The more populated the island is, the more resilient the island or region will be. This is based on results of the analysis in Chapter 4, which found that coastal communities with their traditional beliefs are strongly attached to their islands. This means that these communities will do whatever it takes to ensure their island’s survival.

 The farther the islands are from the central government, the more marginal are the living conditions of the coastal communities. This conclusion was drawn from Chapter 6, which found that even in close proximity to the capital city, there was an island that was not included on any national map. This situation marginalises the coastal community in law and socio-economic life.

8.3 Improving Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for ICZM In 1992, a ‘common methodology’ was developed by IPCC with focused on sea level rise. However, when implemented to small islands states, found that the methodology was not applicable and especially because of the difficulty to obtain quantitative data in the region (IPCC, 2001). Therefore, the contribution of this research lies within the context of vulnerability perspective for small islands region and based on the Seribu Island experience, improvement of vulnerability methodology for ICZM involves seven stages, as can be seen in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 A Comparison of Assessment Methodologies for ICZM (adapted from Harvey, et al., 1999) 154

Kay and Harvey IPCC This Methodology Details Waterman et al. (1990) Thesis (1993) (1999) Delineation of case study area Stage 1 Stage 1 Spatial scale Stage 1 Temporal scale Stage 2 Definition of Focus on physical and biological Stage 1 Stage 2 study areas conditions Incorporation of current human- induced hazards and climatic Stage 2 Stage 3 change hazards Inventory of study area Stage 2 Biophysical characteristics Stage 3 Socio-economic and cultural Stage 4 conditions and heritage Analysis of vulnerable and resilient components, including socio- Stage 2 economic and cultural systems Data Analysis of links between and collection Stage 3 within systems and connected areas Inventory of study sites selected from study area: biophysical, socio- Stage 5 economic, cultural and heritage Stage 4 Identification of relevant Stage 3 development factors Identification of relevant legislation Stage 6 Stage 5 Assess physical changes and natural Stage 4 system responses Assessment of vulnerability profile Assessment Stage 6 and interpretation of results Assessment of vulnerability in Stage 7 Stage 6 qualitative and quantitative terms Formulate response strategies- Stage 5 cost/benefit analysis Formulation of management strategies with regard to Stage 4 Stage 7 Responses government policies Identify future needs and develop a Stage 7 plan of action Setting of priorities for Stage 8 management-current and long term

Stage 1: Definition of the spatial scale of the entire study This step must be undertaken carefully, because the four zones in the Seribu Islands are characterised by differences in physical, biological and socio-economic challenges. Even though the study area is a small region, the resilience and the vulnerability signs vary according to local circumstances.

155

Stage 2: Definition of a temporal scale that focuses on physical and biological conditions There are two long-term observation phases in this study. The first is an 86-year period (1913-1999) and an 8-year period (1999-2007), used for the evaluation of coastline change and coral reef coverage. The second is a 22-year period of coral reef observation (1985-2007), used for addressing the health of coral reefs. The results of these observations show that a long-term framework for the study of change is needed for better management of the region.

Stage 3: Temporal scale that incorporates current human-induced hazards and climate change Changes in island ownership and island conversion are an important part of the region’s history. Also important is an overview of physical-biophysical change influenced by anthropogenic factors. There are three important facts to be drawn from this study. Firstly, some islands are influenced by anthropogenic hazards from the mainland. Secondly, some islands are influenced directly by islanders and individuals, and finally, not all small islands are populated.

Stage 4: Inventory of data on the socio-economic conditions and the cultural values and heritage of the study sites and identification of relevant development sectors A long history of colonialisation and more than 1300 ethnic groups (Indonesia-BPS, 2010) are important factors influencing the formation of coastal communities in Indonesia. The study area itself is home to four ethnic groups and some islands have historical relics in the form of old forts and antiquities.

Stage 5: Identification of relevant legislation Indonesia has three Acts that concern ocean and coastal management. They are the Spatial Planning Act, the Coastal Area and Small Islands Management Act, and the Environmental Act, which are the source of overlapping jurisdictions in the area of governance. Moreover, islanders’ traditional beliefs, inexperienced local government and private companies all operate as separate sources of authority in the region. 156

Stage 6: Assessment of vulnerability in qualitative and quantitative terms Qualitative and quantitative assessments need to be conducted in conjunction, in order to produce better evaluation of the region. Since quantitative data availability and accessibility is limited, qualitative assessment is needed to maintain accuracy.

Stage 7: Formulation of management strategies with regard to government policies Based on the Seribu Islands experience to date, it is impossible to finance ICZM in the region as a whole. To ensure financial capacity, ICZM programs must be inserted into local government jurisdictions. Coastal users, in particular coastal communities, must work together to formulate strategic management plans under the auspices of government frameworks.

8.4 Research Limitations The research limitations of this study fall into three categories, as follows:

 Incompleteness of spatial data and spatial accuracy This study used two different maps of the Seribu Islands region as explained in the methodology section of Chapter 3 (see Figure 3.5). One map covers most of the region but excludes Sebira Island. As a result, Zone 1 is not comparable with other zones in the study area. However, the map used in Zone 1 is collected in a better time frame and therefore enables an improved evaluation of physical and biophysical changes. On the other hand, the maps of the study area are given at a rather small scale of 1:50,000 which provides less spatial accuracy.

 Field work study Field work was very limited for this study due to financial constraints and the size of the area that needed to be covered. The assimilation of spatial data, document analysis as qualitative assessment, and interviews with high level decision makers, made it possible to cover the whole region, but direct observation and measurement would have made for greater accuracy and certainty in this study, for instance, in the area of

157

oceanography and weather measurements. The only comprehensive field work including oceanography and wind measurements were done by Umbgrove (1949).

 Interview sampling method and minutes of meetings Political constraints meant that of the 12 interview participants planned, only 6 participants agreed to contribute to this study. Only one document containing official minutes of a meeting on the Marine National Park (MNP) was available, leaving a gap in data concerning the establishment of the MNP in the study area. Furthermore, the absence of any interviews with representatives of the coastal communities in the interview data is another limitation of this study.

8.5 Further research Expected further research activities are anticipated as follows: a) Research on isotope analysis of the coral reefs in the study area is necessary in order to answer the question of how the coral reefs in the area withstood change for decades. b) Interviews with representatives of the coastal communities could fill the gap in relation to traditional beliefs and their impact on vulnerability in the study area. c) Further research involving economic analysis is needed to understand the resilience of coastal communities in the region.

158

Figure 8.1 Steps towards New National Marine Park Boundaries d) Further research on the design of the National Marine Park is required. In order to redesign the National Marine Park, there are four phases of evaluation that need to be completed, as seen in Figure 8.1.

159

1) Nine sanctuary islands (blue text in Figure 8.1) i.e. Gosong Rengat Island, Pateloran Barat Island, Pateloran Timur Island, Penjaliran Barat and Penjaliran Timur Islands, Bira Besar Island, Kayuangin Bira Island, Belanda Island and Rambut Island must be re-catalogued to produce up-to-date information on endangered species such as the hawksbill turtle and various types of birds. It is necessary to monitor their movement within the Seribu Islands region by using tagging technology, in order to make the selection of sanctuary zones in the region more effective. 2) Seven populated islands (red text in Figure 8.1), Harapan and Kelapa Islands, Pramuka Island, Tidung Besar Island, Pari Island, Lancang Besar and Untungjawa Island, must be equipped with fixed ocean and weather monitoring equipment, for instance tidal, wind, and thermometer gauges, in order to monitor weather conditions and collect information on the surrounding ocean. 3) To cover the MNP region, the four tourism islands (purple text in Figure 8.1), Pantara Barat Island, Sepa Barat Island, Matahari Barat Island and Bidadari Island, must also be equipped with the same equipment as the populated islands. 4) Fishing boats and public transportation boats can be used for ocean observation by the installation of portable/mobile ocean/weather observation systems, for instance, weather radar, temperature, salinity and other areas of measurement.

The time frame of measurements must be continuous, especially in Zone 1, and must allow for the collection of complete sets of data between two successive monsoons. With complete sets of data on endangered species movements, weather conditions and ocean information, the local government would be able to endorse the re-design of the MNP on the basis of accurate information.

160

REFERENCES

ADRIANTO, L. & MATSUDA, Y. 2004. Study on assessing economic vulnerability of small island regions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, 317-336. AGARDY, T. 2010. Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective, Earthscan. ALDER, J., SLOAN, N. & UKTOLSEYA, H. 1994a. Advances in marine protected area management in Indonesia: 1988-1993. Ocean & Coastal Management, 25, 63-75. ALDER, J., SLOAN, N. A. & UKTOLSEYA, H. 1994b. A comparison of management planning and implementation in three Indonesian marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 24, 179-198. ALLMENDINGER, P., BARKER, A. & STEAD, S. 2002. Delivering integrated coastal- zone management through land-use planning. Planning Practice and Research, 17, 175-196. AMBARITA, G. 1976. Pulau-pulau suaka gugusan Pulau Seribu sebagai obyek penelitian arkeologi maritim. in Kompas, p.6. ARDIRAKHMAN, S. 1990. Turun, kualitas lingkungan zona laut Kepulauan Seribu. in Kompas, p.8. ARGENT, R. M., PERRAUD, J. M., RAHMAN, J. M., GRAYSON, R. B. & PODGER, G. M. 2009. A new approach to water quality modelling and environmental decision support systems. Environmental Modelling and Software, 24, 809-818. WORLD BANK. 1994. Indonesia: Environment and Development, Unites States of America, The World Bank. BARRIENTOS, A. 2010. Vulnerability and social protection in small island states: The case of Grenada. Social and Economic Studies, 59, 3-30. BIRD, E. C. F. & ONGKOSONGO, O. S. R. 1980. Environmental changes on the coasts of Indonesia, The United Nation University. BORUFF, B. J. & CUTTER, S. L. 2007. The environmental vulnerability of Caribbean Island nations. Geographical Review, 97, 24-45. BOWER, B. T. & TURNER, R. K. 1998. Characterizing and analysing benefits from integrated coastal management (ICM). Ocean and Coastal Management, 38, [d]41- 66-[d]41-66. BOYLE, J. 1998. Cultural influences on implementing environmental impact assessment: Insights from Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 95-116. BRIGUGLIO, L. 1995. Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development, 23, 1615-1632. BROWN, B. E. & SUHARSONO 1990. Damage and recovery of coral reefs affected by El Niño related seawater warming in the Thousand Islands, Indonesia. Coral Reefs, 8, 163-170. BURBRIDGE, P. & HUMPHREY, S. 1999. On the integration of science and management in coastal management research. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 5, 103-104. BURBRIDGE, P. R. 1999. The challenge of demonstrating the socio-economic benefits of integrated coastal management. In: (WILLEM), W. S. (ed.) Perspective on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Berlin: Springer CABINET SECRETARIAT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA. Indonesian Law and regulations database. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://sipuu.setkab.go.id/ 161

CHRISTIE, P. 2005. Is Integrated Coastal Management Sustainable? Ocean and Coastal Management, 48, 208-232. CHUA, T. E. & YU, H. 1998. Introduction: Ocean and Coastal Management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 38. CHUA, T. E., BONGA, D. & BERMAS-ATRIGENIO, N. 2006. Dynamics of integrated coastal management: PEMSEA's experience. Coastal Management, 34, 303-322. CICIN-SAIN, B. 1993. Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21, 11-43. CICIN-SAIN, B. 1996. Earth Summit implementation: Progress since Rio. Marine Policy, 20, 123-143. CICIN-SAIN, B. & KNECHT, R. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts And Practices, Washington DC, Island Press. CICIN-SAIN, B., KNECHT, R. W., VALLEGA, A. & HARAKUNARAK, A. 2000. Education and training in integrated coastal management: Lessons from the international arena. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 291-330. CLEARY, D. F. R., SUHARSONO & HOEKSEMA, B. W. 2006. Coral diversity across a disturbance gradient in the Pulau Seribu reef complex off Jakarta, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 3653-3674. COCKLIN, C. & KEEN, M. 2000. Urbanization in the Pacific: Environmental change, vulnerability and human security. Environmental Conservation, 27, 392-403. CRAWFORD, B., KASMIDI, M., KOROMPIS, F. & POLLNAC, R. B. 2006. Factors influencing progress in establishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management, 34, 39-64. CRAWFORD, B. R., COBB, J. S. & FRIEDMAN, A. 1993. Building capacity for integrated coastal management in developing countries. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21, 311-337. DE VANTIER, L., SUHARSONO, BUDIYANTO, A., TUTI, J., IMANTO, P. & LEDESMA, R. Status of coral communities of Pulau Seribu, 1985-1995. In: SOEMODIHARDJO, S., ed. Proceedings: Coral Reef Evaluation Pulau Seribu, 1995 Pulau Seribu, Jakarta, Indonesia. IOC-UNESCO and Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), 1-24. DIRHAMSYAH, D. 2006. Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean and Coastal Management, 49, 68-92. DOTY, S. M. & SOEGIARTO, A. 1970. The Development of Marine Resources Indonesia. In: BEERS, W. H. (ed.) Indonesia: Resources and Their Technology Development. United States: The University Press of Kentucky. EDINGER, E. & BROWNE, D. R. 2000. Continental seas of western Indonesia. Seas at the millennium - an environmental evaluation - Volume 2, 381-404. EDINGER, E. N., JOMPA, J., LIMMON, G. V., WIDJATMOKO, W. & RISK, M. J. 1998. Reef degradation and coral biodiversity in Indonesia: Effects of land-based pollution, destructive fishing practices and changes over time. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36, 617-630. ENCONTRE, P. 1999. The vulnerability and resilience of small island developing states in the context of globalization. Natural Resources Forum, 23, 261-270. ESTRADIVARI, SETYAWAN, E. & YUSRI, S. 2009. Terumbu Karang Jakarta:pengamatan jangka panjang terumbu karang Kepulauan Seribu (2003- 2007). Jakarta: The Indonesian coral reef foundation, Marine and Agriculture office

162

of Thousand Island Government Administration and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 1996. Overview of ICZM. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/overview.htm FABBRI, K. P. 1998. A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 39, 51-62. FAO. 2009. Fisheries & Aquaculture - UNCED, Agenda 21 & responsible fisheries [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14841/en. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2010. Integrated coastal zone management towards Indonesia global ocean observing system (INA-GOOS): Review and recommendation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53, 421-427. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2011. Resilience assessment on coastline changes and urban settlements: A case study in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, 391-400. FARHAN, A. R. & LIM, S. 2012. Vulnerability assessment of ecological conditions in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 65, 1-14. FAUZI, A. & ANGGRAINI BUCHARY, E. 2002. A socioeconomic perspective of environmental degradation at Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia. Coastal Management, 30, 167-181. GARMENDIA, E., GAMBOA, G., FRANCO, J., GARMENDIA, J. M., LIRIA, P. & OLAZABAL, M. 2010. Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53, 385-403. GOKLANY, I. M. 2007. Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 755-786. GORNITZ, V. 1991. Global coastal hazards from future sea level rise. Global and Planetary Change, 3, 379-398. GORNITZ, V., COUCH, S. & HARTIG, E. K. 2001. Impacts of sea level rise in the New York City metropolitan area. Global and Planetary Change, 32, 61-88. GUILLAUMONT, P. 2010. Assessing the economic vulnerability of Small Island developing states and the least developed countries. Journal of Development Studies, 46, 828-854. HARDJONO, J. 1991. The Dimensions of Indonesia's Environmental Problems. In: HARDJONO, J. (ed.) Indonesia: Resources, Ecology, and Environment. New York: Oxford University Press Pte, Ltd. HARVEY, N., CLOUSTON, B. & CARVALHO, P. 1999. Improving coastal vulnerability assessment methodologies for Integrated Coastal Zone management: An approach from South Australia. Australian Geographical Studies, 37, 50-69. HARVEY, N. & HILTON, M. 2006. Importance of global change for coastal management in the Asia-Pacific Region. Global Change and Integrated Coastal Management, Springer, Netherlands, 10, 39-66. HARVEY, N. & MIMURA, N. 2006. Importance of global change for coastal management in the Asia-Pacific Region. Global Change and Integrated Coastal Management, Springer, Netherlands, 10, 1-15. HARVEY, N. & WOODROFFE, C. D. 2008. Australian approaches to coastal vulnerability assessment. Sustainability Science, 3, 67-87. HERMAWAN, A. 1989. Gubernur perintahkan bongkar 21 bangunan di pulau Macan. in Kompas, p.3. 163

HILHORST, D. & BANKOFF, G. 2004. Introduction: Mapping vulnerability. In: BANKOFF, G., FRERKS, G. & HILHORST, D. (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. UK: Earthscan. INDONESIA STATISTIC AGENCY (B. P. S). 2009. Kepulauan Seribu Dalam Angka, Indonesian Government. INDONESIA STATISTIC AGENCY (B. P. S). 2010. Kepulauan Seribu Dalam Angka, Indonesian Government. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC), 2011: Climate Change 2001:Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. KASIJANTO, M. J. 1975a. Pantai Pulau-pulau sekitar DKI bersampah. in Kompas, p.1. KASIJANTO, M. J. 1975b. Pulau Rambut: Cagar Alam atau Pulau Wisata. in Kompas, p.5. KNECHT, R. W. 1997. Integrated Coastal Zone Management for developing maritime countries. In: HAQ, B. U. (ed.) Coastal Zone Management Imperative for Maritime Developing Nation. Dordrecht ; Boston : Kluwer Academic KODHYAT. 1982. Soal pulau pulau yang menghebohkan. in Kompas, p.5. KOMPAS. 2012a. Ribuan Ton Limbah Beresiko Pemerintah Berkomitmen Melindungi Warga. Kompas, 1 May 2012. KOMPAS. 2012b. Sampah Kali Sentiong mencapai 1 km. Kompas, 14 july 2011, p.26. KOMPAS. 2008. Dua SD di Pulau Panggang rusak parah. in Kompas, p. 4. KUENEN, P. H. 1950. Marine Geology, United States, John Wiley & Sons. MACLAREN, V. W. 1996. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 184-202. MEUR-FÉREC, C., DEBOUDT, P. & MOREL, V. 2008. Coastal risks in France: An integrated method for evaluating vulnerability. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 178-189. MGI. 1990. Geology and Geophysics Survey on the northern part of West Java coast. 1990 ed. Bandung: Marine Geology Indonesia. MIHARDJA, D. K., PRANOWO, W.S., 2001. Kondisi perairan Kepulauan Seribu. In: Laporan pelengkap penyusunan RT/RW pemekaran Kecamatan Kepulauan Seribu menjadi Kabupaten.: Pusat Penelitian Kepariwisataan dan Pusat PenelitianKelautan, Institut Teknologi Bandung. Suppl. Technical Report (in Indonesian language). MILNE, N., WRIGHT, R. & CHRISTIE, P. 2004. A review of integrated coastal management educational materials in the Philippines and Indonesia: Matching materials with needs. Coastal Management, 32, 61-75. MINISTRY OF MARINE AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA. Profile of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://kkp.go.id/en/index.php/archives/c/2072/MMAF-History/?category_id=53 MINISTRY OF MARINE AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA. Vision, Mission and Objectives. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://kkp.go.id/index.php/arsip/c/8278/VISI-MISI-TUJUAN-DAN-SASARAN- STRATEGIS/?category_id=65 MORRIS, P. & THERIVEL, R. 2001 Methods of environmental impact assessment London: Spon.

164

MUNN, R. E. 1990. Towards Sustainable Development: An environmental perspective. In: ARCHIBUGI, F. & NIJKAMP, P. (eds.) Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ONGKOSONGO, O. S. R. 1982. The nature of coastline changes in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Geography, 12, 1-22. ONGKOSONGO, O. S. R., 1994. Kepulauan Seribu kini alami proses kemiskinan lingkungan. in Kompas, p.8. PATLIS, J. M. 2005. The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48, 450-467. PELLING, M. & UITTO, J. I. 2001. Small island developing states: Natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Environmental Hazards, 3, 49-62. PETHICK, J. S. & CROOKS, S. 2000. Development of a coastal vulnerability index: A geomorphological perspective. Environmental Conservation, 27, 359-367. POLLNAC, R. B. & POMEROY, R. S. 2005. Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48, 233-251. PRATT, C. R., KALY, U. & MITCHELL, J. 2004. Manual: How to use the Environmental Index (EVI). , United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP). South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC). 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, 816-826. RADJAMANDALU, H. 1987. Kepulauan Seribu akan dibagi empat sektor pengembangan. in Kompas, p.3. RENAUD, F., G. 2006. Environmental components of vulnerability. In: BIRKMAN, J. (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. New York: United Nation University. RIBOTTI, A., SORGENTE, R., HANGGONO, A., MANZELLA, G. M. R., HENDIARTI, N., FUSCO, L., ADI, T. R., DJAJADIHARDJA, Y. S., FARHAN, A. R., FREDERIK, M. C. G., MAR'UF, W. F., REALINO, B., RUPOLO, V., RUTI, P., SADLY, M., SYAMSUDIN, F. & SUBKI, B. A. 2008. Operational oceanography in Indonesia. Asia Europe Journal, 6, 277-292. ROMIMOCHTARTO, K. 1976. Potensi perairan di Kepulauan Seribu terancam punah. in Kompas, p.3. ROSE, R. 1991. What is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11, 3-30. SHIPMAN, B. & STOJANOVIC, T. 2007. Facts, fictions, and failures of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe. Coastal Management, 35, 375-398. SADIKIN, A. 1970. Masuk Kepulauan Seribu harus ada ijin. in Kompas, p.2. SUBHAN. 1997. Kepulauan Seribu: permata wisata yang tersembunyi. in Kompas, p.4. SOEGIARTO, A. K. 1987. Menelusuri tonggak-tonggak sejarah PUSLITBANG Oseanologi-LIPI. Oseana, 3. SOEKARNO, R., 1989. Comparative studies on the status of Indonesian coral reefs. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 23(2): 215-222. SORENSEN, J. 1993. The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21, 45-80. SPRAGUE JR, R. H. 1987. DSS in context. Decision Support Systems, 3, 197-202. STATE MINISTRY OF POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT. Available: http://www.menlh.go.id 165

SUKARDJO, S. 2002. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Indonesia: A view from a mangrove ecologist. Southeast Asian Studies, 40, 200-218. TOMASCIK, T., MAH, A. J., NONTJI, A. & MOOSA, M. K. 1997. The Ecology of Indonesian Seas, Part One, Periplus Editions. TOMASCIK, T., SUHARSONO & MAH, A. J. 1994. Case histories: a historical perspective of the natural and anthropogenic impacts in the Indonesian Archipelago with a focus on the Kepulauan Seribu, Java Sea. Proceedings of the colloquium on global aspects of coral reefs, Miami, 1993, 304-310. TRIDOYO, K. 2008. Current status of integrated coastal zone management in Indonesia. Asia-Pacific coasts and their management : states of environment Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer TURNER, R. K. & BOWER, B. T. 1999. Principles and benefits of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). In: (WILLEM), W. S. (ed.) Perspectives on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Berlin : Springer TURVEY, R. 2007. Vulnerability assessment of developing countries: The case of small- island developing States. Development Policy Review, 25, 243-264. UMBGROVE, J. H. F. 1949. Structural History of The East Indies, London, The Syndics of The Cambridge Press. UNEPUTTY, P. A. & EVANS, S. M. 1997. Accumulation of beach litter on islands of the Pulau Seribu Archipelago, Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34, 652-655. UNESCO 2000. Reducing megacity impacts on the coastal environment – Alternative livelihoods and waste management in Jakarta and the Seribu Islands., Paris, UNESCO. UNCED: Earth Summit-United Nation Conference on Environmental and Development. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html UNCLEF: Global Issues at the United Nations. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.unclef.com/en/globalissues/environment/ UNCLOS: United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf VALLEGA, A. 1993. A conceptual approach to integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21, 149-162. VALLEGA, A. 2001. Ocean governance in post-modern society - A geographical perspective. Marine Policy, 25, 399-414. VAN BEMMELEN, R. W. 1949. The geology of Indonesia, The Hague:Govt. Printing Office. VAN DER MEIJ, S. E. T., SUHARSONO & HOEKSEMA, B. W. 2010. Long-term changes in coral assemblages under natural and anthropogenic stress in Jakarta Bay (1920-2005). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 1442-1454. VERSTAPPEN, H. T. 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, 573-587. VILLA, F. & MCLEOD, H. 2002. Environmental vulnerability indicators for environmental planning and decision-making: Guidelines and applications. Environmental Management, 29, 335-348. WEIDE, J. V. & VREES, L. D. 1999. Methods and tools to support CZM. In: (WILLEM), W. S. (ed.) Perspectives on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. 69-88. Berlin : Springer.

166

WESTMACOTT, S. 2001. Developing decision support systems for integrated coastal management in the tropics: Is the ICM decision-making environment too complex for the development of a useable and useful DSS? Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 55-74. WESTMACOTT, S. 2002. Where should the focus be in tropical integrated coastal management? Coastal Management, 30, 67-84. WHITE, A. T. 1989. Comparison of coastal resources planning and management in the ASEAN countries. Coastal Zone: Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, 3, 2123-2133. 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 and Coastal Management, 48, 271-296. WILLIAMS, T. M., REES, J. G. & SETIAPERMANA, D. 2000. Metals and Trace Organic Compounds in Sediments and Waters of Jakarta Bay and the Pulau Seribu Complex, Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 277-285. WILLOUGHBY, N. G., SANGKOYO, H. & LAKASERU, B. O. Long term changes in strand line litter around the Thousand Islands, Jakarta Bay, Indonesia. In: SOEMODIHARDJO, S., ed. Proceedings: Coral Reef Evaluation Pulau Seribu, 1995 Pulau Seribu, Jakarta, Indonesia. IOC-UNESCO and Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), 90-101. WINDORO, A. 2010. Sampah membuat burung dan ikan pergi. Kompas, Friday, 23 April 2010, p.25. YATES, B. F. 1994. Implementing coastal zone management policy: Kepulauan Seribu Marine Park, Indonesia. coastal management, 22, 235-249. ZAGONARI, F. 2008. Integrated coastal management: Top-down vs. community-based approaches. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 796-804.

167

Appendix A: UNSW Ethic approval

168

Appendix B: Interview guidelines General questions

 Participants identity (name and age)  Participants position in Local government of Seribu Islands Region  Participants originality (born and grow up in Seribu Islands region, or others area in Indonesia)

The Seribu Islands condition

 Islands condition

 How many islands

 How many populated islands

 National Marine Park condition

 Physical and biochemical problems

The Seribu Islands management

 Before autonomy

 After autonomy and current based on Act no 22 of 1999

Laws and regulations

 How many regulations that implicated the Seribu Islands region

 Local government regulations in Seribu Islands Regions

 Integrated management based on Act 27 of 2007

 Environmental Act no 32 of 2009

Future plan and development (questions and discussions)

NOTE: Three individual interviews and one group discussion were conducted in 2010, however, due to political issues, the names and their positions are kept confidential accordance to UNSW ethic number HREC 11144

169

Appendix C: Population distribution from 1983-2009

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa 1983 1985 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Pari Pari Pari Pari Pari Pari Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Kelapa Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Tidung Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Panggang Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Untungjawa Pulau harapan Pulau harapan Pulau harapan Pulau harapan Pulau harapan Pulau harapan 1999 2000 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

170

Appendix D Coastal Vulnerability Index Computation

171