Coping with complexity: MPA management in Indonesia Leontine Visser Wageningen University, Netherlands WorldFish Center 17 November 2009

Research Proposal WU/RDS initiated workshop in Wageningen in June 2009 with WF (Dedi), IPB Bogor, ZMT Bremen; (TNC); collaboration with Murdoch (Perth) Funded by Royal Neth. Academy of Sciences(KNAW) and Intern. Institute of Asian Studies, Leiden (IIAS) Interdisciplinary: anthropology (NRM, fisheries, governance), policy studies, marine biology Case studies: Aceh, South Sulawesi, Moluccas, Papua The idea of MPA, indigenous tenure; decentralisation

Marine Protected Area Ecosystem conservation; since 1990s also including poverty reduction objective According to IUCN definitions (Dudley, 2008:22) MPA = Category VI protected area: to protect natural ecosystems and use natural resources sustainably, when conservation and sustainable use can be mutually beneficial. Issues for consideration: complexity of stakeholders, scales, governance, and resource management.

Starting points Complexity is a point of departure, not end-product of study No social-ecological systems approach Actors (individuals; institutions) as unit of analysis All human beings reduce experienced complexities, - what they experience as complex differs - how they simplify differs too How do different actors cope with complexity? How does simplification differently inform action?

Example: Legal simplification D Law of local govt. P 4 miles Land C Fishing Zone 8 miles Zone III Zone II Land 12 miles >60+ Zone I 5-60GT Fishing license authority: D = up to 10 GT (5-10GT Zone II, P) P = 10+ up to 30 C = 30+ (30 – 60 GT Zone II, P) 6 Miles <5 GT

Complexities Human interaction with sea involves more than artisanal fisheries: turtle eggs trade, coral mining, tourism, pollution; at multiple social, economic (value chain), and political scales Spatial exclusion no-go MPA; competing claims to resources; conflict and negotiation between users and institutions Legal pluralism of overlapping and contradicting laws, rules & regulations; illegal or legitimate action? Governance: decentralisation (1999/2004) empowerment of some, exclusion of others.

Product or process? Reïfication, seeing MPA as ‘thing’ reduced to a visible, tangible object, rather than a social-econ-political process: - spatial zoning (excl. cultural identity, tenure rights) - social: MPA empowers women (power as property), reduces poverty (Leisher, 2009); conflict: ambiguous - legal: MPA defines what is illegal versus legitimate - - governance: allows access of free riders, tax paying tourists; income for poor and district power holders. -

MPA as process Indigenous tenurial practices, everyday negotiation of resource access and use Real-life political-economic network of district raja kecil and traders/middlemen where decisions are made regarding value chain of marine resources Poverty reduction of artisanal poor fisherfolk is ethically correct, but political-economically naïve. Experiment with MPA ‘bottom up’ access monitoring owned by appropriators. It’ll give another selection and participatory mapping of ‘the idea of MPA’.