• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Case

Wakatobi National Park

SummaryThe Wakatobi NP was gazetted in 1996 in the province of SE Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia. It includes 4 major islands, which are home to 100,000 people. The park was significantly re-zoned in 2008, with the no-take area reduced from 80% to 3%. The revised 25 year management plan produced in 2008 defines a vision for the park which involves the establishment of a sustainable environment with benefits to local resident communities and for regional development. Key habitats/areas identified in the management plan: coral reefs, seagrass meadows, fish spawning aggregation sites, mangroves, cetaceans, water bird nesting areas and turtle nesting sites. The WNP is in the Coral Triangle and part of the Coral Triangle Initative. It was nominated as "Flagship Site" or "Priority Development Site" in the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System (CTMPAS) in May 2014.
Statuspublic
TeamIndonesia MPA team
Start Date2014-11-17
Coding Complete?No
SectorMarine protected areas, Scientific Research and Conservation
ProjectSESMAD
Data Source(s)Secondary data
CountryIndonesia
External BiophysicalPrior to this snap-shot there were dramtic declines in coral cover and fish biomass (~2002-2004) - due to a proliferation fo coral disease (probably green spot), followed by a major storm, and a high incidence of blast fishing over a shirt period of time. No phase shift detected (although one would've been expected with such declines). From 2008, coral cover and fish biomass had almost "bottomed out" in the WNP (interview pers com) Bleaching in 2010 - 65% of corals were affected by the bleaching but mortality was estimated at less than 5% (See more at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/Files/Pages/study-2010-coral-bleachin.aspx#sthash.ObnQdQ4j.dpuf)
External SocialThe Fishing Community of Tomia (KOMUNTO) won the Equator Prize in 2010: http://www.equatorinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_winners&view=winner_detail&id=98&Itemid=683&lang=en Increase in fish fences (both in number and size), and also proliferation of seaweed farming - takes up a lot of space on intertidal flats and is constraining the Bajau fishing activities.
Snapshots2008- current (2014) from when the park was re-zoned and new management plan implemented.
Timeline1996 – established in an attempt to reduce destructive fishing practices and the threat of overfishing. 1998 - Wakatobi Dive resort (high-end tourism) - actively protects reefs around resort. 1999- Legislation decentralized, with responsibilities for the management of coastal and marine resources devolved to local governments. 2001 - dive resort sought partnerships with established conservation agencies (TNC/WWF/USAID NRM) to implement park-wide program – sponsored representatives to go to resort and meet stakeholders etc. At the same time there was a new head of the WNP. 2003 - NGOs (TNC/WWF) became involved and undertook REA. 2007 - public infomration campaigns about the park. 2008 - Park re-zoned in light of more detailed ecological data (e.g. fish spawning and aggregation sites). Revised 25-yr management plan produced. No-take area decreased from 80% to 3%. 2012 - designated World Biosphere Reserve. 2014 - nominated as "Flagship Site" or "Priority Development Site" in the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System.
Modeling IssuesOther components that could be coded: timeline prior to re-zoning (1998-2008 - declines in ecological indictors woudl be seen during this period) - we focussed on the most recent snapshot; and another actor group - the Butonese/land-based people - we focussed on the actor most dependent on the WNP for their livelihood. Tourism operator (Wakatobi divers) are very influencial within the park - no-take areas on their house reefs on Tomia, where they pay local villagers not to fish, essentially a private MPA within the WNP (Julian Clifton pers comm), but we have not coded them here as we decided their impacts were not at the scale of the park. The Coral Triangle Initiative is also an important component to this case as it affects the expectations of the WNP and influences to some degree the role of the government, NGOs and funding.
Surveys
Theories

Visualization

Show Render

Hide Render

Attached Components

Actors

Name:
Wakatobi Bajau fishers
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
Strong cultural history. Strong social capital within the group - e.g. catch sharing
Costs of exit:
Yes
No membership fees to be part of this group, but because of high dependence on the resource costs invested in gears/boats are high relative to income. Few alternative livelihoods - high cost to leave.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
No
Receive more benefits than costs - fishing is central to their culture and society. There are limited no take areas in WNP and the Bajau are high mobile. Bajau also prefer not to be involved as much in meetings/monitoring and official government activities.
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
Similar patterns of resource use and livelihoods.
Leadership:
Formal leader
All Bajau villages have chiefs, who are elected. There are also hamlet chiefs who are also elected. Chiefs are well respected (Interview with Chui-Ling Tam, June 2015).
Leadership authority:
Medium (2)
Chiefs are well respected and have authority within the governance structure. Not coded as high, as if the chief is non-Bajau then although still respected they will leave each others communities to their own.
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Strong cultural history. Strong social capital within the group - e.g. catch sharing
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
The Bajau have high communication and cohesion as a group.
Remote communication:
Never (1)
Bajau live on settlements on the sea, limited infrastructure. Remote communication difficult (and less important than personal communication in this case)
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
Village heads are elected every 3-5 years, standardised procedure.
Actor group coordination:
Informal
Informal - Bajau have strong cultural identity and traditions
Name:
Wakatobi managers
details
Past collaboration:
Medium (2)
NGOs have been in the region for about 10 yrs, started informal collaborations prior to formal agreement. Decentralization occurred in 1999 - central and local gov collaborations - Indonesia one of the first examples. Not coded as high because the partnership is fairly new, both between NGOS, and NGOs + government.
Costs of exit:
Not Applicable
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Not Applicable
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
Central government mandated to protect biodiversity, local government implements this aim, NGOs also working towards this aim, with a focus on relieving pressure on marine resources. No records of major conflict.
Leadership:
["Formal leader"]
Ultimately the central government
Leadership authority:
Medium (2)
Central government sets budget, but are based in Jakarta, day-to-day running is managed by district government with support from NGOs
Actor group trust:
Medium (2)
No evidence specifically on trust, but NGOs are given a lot of freedom by government (e.g. patrolling) - mainly due to lack of capacity on part of the government and investment in the area by TNC/WWF and their need to achieve objectives. No data on trust specifically. Julian Clifton described it as 'more respect, than trust' (interview June 2015): "local mayor is very influential, and I would imagine the NGOs don’t trust him because they can’t control him, and they have their own agendas in needing to meet their conservation objectives. Respect each other, but not really trust. The mayor is powerful at a local level, but NGOs are connected to the government further up the ladder through the Coral Triangle Initiative – so the mayor can’t antagonise the NGOs - benefits to both if they rub along with each other."
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Hold meetings more than once a year
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Assumed
Leadership accountability:
Not Applicable
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
Formal - TNC-WWF joint programme and MOU with park rangers. Share monitoring and patrolling. Informal - collaborations between local governement/park authority and NGOs is mutually beneficial.

Governance Systems

Name:
Wakatobi National Park 2008-current
details
Type of formal governance:
Management plan
Management plan: The Act is established through the 25-year management plan
End Date:
Current 2014
A 25-year management plan was established in 2008
Begin date:
2008
The year re-zoning and new management plan issued
Governance trigger:
slow continuous change
Slow continuous change: Concerns about over-fishing and declines in iconic species (e.g. turtles)
Governance system description:
Collaborative management
A strategic partnership between involving various alliances between TNC/WWF, the PHKA (Ministry of Forestry), the district government of Wakatobi, and tour operators (Clifton 2013)
Governance scale:
State-based policy
State based policy applied to a single MPA, within the Sulawesi Tenggara Province
Centralization:
Somewhat decentralized (2)
Policy in Indonesia shifted to be more decentralized (in 1999), central government set budgets, but local governments able to decide how to spend, lots of NGO involvement
Metric diversity:
High: Many metrics for success (3)
MPA manages for a range of outcomes - both ecological and social objectives (including: coral cover, fish spawning, fish abundance, turtles, seagrass, seabird habitat, resource use of users within the park) - although it has been difficult to find this information
MPA primary goal (in practice):
["Biodiversity conservation", "Other"]
Reflects influence and agenda of conservation-focused NGOs (TNC/WWF). Also a large focus is economic development (through tourism) - focus of Wakatobi District Government, which reflects the need for local administrations to achieve greater financial self-sufficiency in the current era of decentralised government within Indonesia (Clifton 2013)
MPA motivation:
["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]
established in an attempt to reduce destructive fishing practices and the threat of overfishing (WWF/TNC 2003 report: rapid ecological assessment Wakatobi NP).
MPA protection:
["Reducing threats"]
The main aim was to reduce destructive fishing
MPA internal natural boundaries:
Medium (2)
The MPA as a whole covers an ecologically coherent area. Some of the no-take zones cover full reefs/atolls (fulfilling this variable), but some no-take zones are only portions of continuous reef, therefore coded as medium.
Distance to markets:
Between 100km-1000km (3)
Nearest city is Bau-Bau on Buton Island - this is approximately 120km
MPA budget:
Missing
Coud not find this
PA IUCN strict zones:
3.16 %
total of Core, Marine, and Tourism Zones within the MPA, which are the only areas of no-take. The whole MPA is considered IUCN II, but "extractive use (of living or dead material) is not considered consistent with the objectives of category II" - IUCN
MPA connectivity:
Yes (3)
Connectivity was considered during the zoning of the WNP. Information on larval dispersal and climate change was not yet available but the following rules of thumb were used in Wakatobi zoning design revision:  Size of no-take zones: minimum = 13 km2 / maximum = 365 km2  Distance between no-take zones: minimum = 10 km / maximum = 20 km  30% of coral reefs (fringing, barrier, atoll and patch)  40% of mangrove forests  20% of seagrass beds  100% of Fish Spawning Aggregation sites  100% of turtle nesting sites  100% of seabird nesting sites
PA CAR principles:
Partially (2)
The WNP is considered to adhere to two of the required criteria (based on documentation to the Coral Triangle Atlas) Representation and Replication are cited, with the WNP including at least 396 coral species and 572 fish species (Rapid Ecological Assessment, 2003). And No take zones were designated in each main group of islands. Coded as 'partially' as awareness of the principles in the zoning is evident, but the extent to which they were applied is unclear. Ref: CTMPAs Wakatobi National Park information requirements
MPA migratory benefit:
No
Very little data on migratory species within the Wakatobi, but anecdotal reports that turtles have been declining.
MPA migratory life history:
Yes - turtle nesting beaches
100% of turtle nesting sites protected
MPA threats to migratory sp:
["Resource competition"]
Biggest threat to turtles is probably egg consumption and bycatch - although this is apparently at low levels now. "Exceptionally high abundance of oceanic dolphin and whale species (5 species recorded: Beaked Whale, Pilot Whale, Sperm Whale, Bryde's Whale and Melonhead Whale) occurs in Wakatobi” - but couldn't find any detail on threats or evidence of any management activities for them - http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/sites/default/files/resources/8_Geographic%20Priorities%20for%20Marine%20Biodiversity%20Conservation%20in%20Indonesia.pdf
MPA migratory threats and redux:
Protection of key-life stages for green turtles - all nesting beaches protected and some sea-grass habitat protected
Sea-turtles - nesting beaches protected (n=3) “Olive Ridley and Green turtles, especially those from Eastern Indonesia, find important nesting, foraging, and migratory grounds in Wakatobi” Quote from the following doc: http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/sites/default/files/resources/8_Geographic%20Priorities%20for%20Marine%20Biodiversity%20Conservation%20in%20Indonesia.pdf
Social-ecological fit:
Low (1)
The MPA encompasses the entire area (islands, coral reefs etc) and the boundaries of the MPA align with the boundaries of the district government. No-take areas are minimal (3% of MPA).
Governance knowledge use:
["Scientific knowledge"]
Focus on scientific knowledge reflects the involvement of conservation NGOs - TNC/WWF - who were heavily involved in the original RAP assessments, zoning and rules of the MPA - although it is unclear if any current monitoring data is feeding into management.
MPA IUCN somewhat strict zones:
58 %
Traditional use zone = 8040 km2 – fishing by wakatobi residents only
MPA IUCN sustainable zones :
36 %
General use zone =4957km2 – all fishers permitted
MPA threats:
Over-fishing; illegal fishing
The main threats are over-fishing, and the use of destructive fishing methods - by local users. Illegal fishing, e.g. for the live reef fish trade, is an issue, but difficult to discern the level - international users.

Environmental Commons

Name:
Wakatobi coral cover
details
Productivity:
Very productive (3)
Shallow water corals reefs are among the most productive ecosystems of the world
Commons aggregation:
Guild
Multiple species
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Large (4)
The reefs as a whole are large (not the coral polyps themselves)
Commons mobility:
Sessile (1)
Commons spatial extent:
37.5
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Oceanic
Commons heterogeneity:
High (3)
Corals cluster together in reefs, in a patchwork of reef and non-reef areas.
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
Inter annual predictability:
High (3)
Technical substitute:
No
Can get artificial reef structures, but can't substitute coral
Commons boundaries:
Clear boundaries (3)
Reefs are clearly delineated
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
But takes decades to renew because coral reefs are slow-growing
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Some areas of the reef are very accessible and located near villages, other reefs are further away and require a boat to access - access is only prevented for some areas during rough weather.
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity"]
We use coral cover as a proxy for coral reef biodiversity, which in turn is a proxy for the overall health of biodiversity of the Wakatobi National Park - higher coral cover is associated with higher ecosystem health.
Name:
Wakatobi Green Turtle
details
Productivity:
Poorly productive (1)
Slow maturing, high infant mortality
Commons aggregation:
Population
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Medium (3)
Average weight of adult individual 68-190Kg
Commons mobility:
High (3)
Migratory species
Commons spatial extent:
13900
13,900km2 - coded here are size of WNP. But found across the entire info-pacific ocean
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Spend most of their lives in the sea, but return to beaches to nest
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Distributed in tropical and sub-tropical waters. Movements within the marine environment less well understood, but known to use a wide range of broadly separated localities and habitats during their lifetimes. But considered moderate as females return to same nesting beaches.
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Availability varies according to season, but these patterns can be predicted. Also population sizes don't fluctuate too much in relation environmental factors.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Migratory but likely to return to particular nesting beaches every couple of years. Long-living. But vulnerable to rapid declines year on year if threatened by human activity.
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
Generally have known foraging and nesting grounds (in Wakatobi these nesting islands are Runduma and Anano - at the NE boundaries of the MPA, foraging grounds are thought to be on the atolls at the south of the park), but migratory species generally found in tropical and subtropical waters
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
But slow to reproduce - low regeneration rates
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Turtles are easy to catch - intentionally or as bycatch. They are predicable with their nesting season when they and their eggs are easy to harvest
Commons indicator:
["Status of highly migratory species"]
Name:
Wakatobi fish spawning
details
Productivity:
Moderately Productive (2)
Lutjanus bohar and Epinephelus fuscoguttatus both have minimum population doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years, Plectropomus areolatus is much less productive with a minimum population doubling time 4.5 - 14 years
Commons aggregation:
Guild
Fish spawning aggregation of Lutjanus bohar (red snapper), Epinephelus fuscoguttatus (brown-marbled grouper) and Plectropomus areolatus (square/tailed coral grouper).
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Small (2)
Lutjanus bohar - common length = 76cm Epinephelus fuscoguttatus - common length = 50cm Plectropomus areolatus - max length 80cm (data from FishBase)
Commons mobility:
Medium (2)
Not sessile, but not highly migratory, therefore considered to have medium mobility
Commons spatial extent:
4
Relatively small size of spawning aggregations but more than one aggregation at different locations along the reef (3 main sites). Estimates for size of Pletropomus SPAG was 3-4 (Wilson et al 2010 SPC Bulletin).
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Commons heterogeneity:
Low (1)
Fish come together to spawn so have low spatial heterogeneity when breeding.
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Clear boundaries (3)
Spawning fish that have clear boundaries while aggregating, the times and locations of spawning are relatively predictable, no-take zones match up with spawning aggregation sites, and where they spill-over fishers are expected not to fish the aggregation (No-take zones not marked out by buoys but identified by spawning aggregation)
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Lutjanus bohar and Epinephelus fuscoguttatus both have minimum population doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years, Plectropomus areolatus is much less productive with a minimum population doubling time 4.5 - 14 years
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
These species aggregate at regular sites and times facilitating their exploitation
Commons indicator:
["Status of species targeted by fisheries"]
These fish are an indicator of fish stocks. These fish species are targeted by fishermen who used to fish at the spawning sites. These spawning sites are now no-take zones.

Component Interactions

Governance Interaction

Wakatobi interaction for fish spawning aggregations 2008-2014

Governs:
Wakatobi National Park 2008-current (Governance System)
Governing Organization:
Wakatobi managers (Actor)
Commons User:
Wakatobi Bajau fishers (Actor)
Primary:
Wakatobi fish spawning (Environmental Common)

Governance Interaction

Wakatobi interaction for green turtles 2008-2014

Commons User:
Wakatobi Bajau fishers (Actor)
Governs:
Wakatobi National Park 2008-current (Governance System)
Governing Organization:
Wakatobi managers (Actor)
Primary:
Wakatobi Green Turtle (Environmental Common)

Governance Interaction

Wakatobi interaction for coral cover 2008-2014

Governing Organization:
Wakatobi managers (Actor)
Primary:
Wakatobi coral cover (Environmental Common)
Commons User:
Wakatobi Bajau fishers (Actor)
Governs:
Wakatobi National Park 2008-current (Governance System)

Studies

Clifton, J. 2013. Refocusing conservation through a cultural lens: Improving governance in the Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy 41; 80-86


von Heland, F., Clifton, J. and Olsson, P. 2014. "Improving Stewardship of Marine Resources: Linking Strategy to Opportunity." Sustainability 6 (7):4470-4496.

 


Rice, J. 2009. Preliminary Report on the Management Implications and Effectiveness of Potential Bylaws in the Kaledupa Fisheries, Wakatobi Marine National Park Indonesia. UK: Operation Wallacea.

 


Clifton, J. and C. Majors (2012). Culture, conservation, and conflict: Perspectives on marine protection among the Bajau of Southeast Asia. Society & Natural Resources 25(7): 716-725.


Cullen, L. C., J. Pretty, D. Smith and S. E. Pilgrim (2007). Links between local ecological knowledge and wealth in indigenous communities of Indonesia: Implications for conservation of marine resources. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 2(1): 289-299.


Cullen, L. (2010). Marine resource dependence and natural resource use patterns in the Wakatobi. In: Marine Research and Conservation in the Coral Triangle: the Wakatobi National Park. J. Clifton, R. K. Unsworth and D. J. Smith (eds). New York, USA, Nova Science Publishers: 274.

 


Wilson, J.R., Ardiwijaya, R.L. and Prasetia, R. (2012). A Study of the Impact of the 2010 Coral Bleaching Event on Coral Communities in Wakatobi National Park. The Nature Conservancy, Indo-Pacific Division, Indonesia. Report No. 7/12. 25 pp


Tam, C.-L. (2015). Timing exclusion and communicating time: A spatial analysis of participation failure in an Indonesian MPA. Marine Policy, 54(0), 122-129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.001


Majors C. (2008). Seas of discontent: conflicting knowledge paradigms within Indonesia’s marine environmental arena. In: Sodhi NS, Acciaioli G, Erb M, AK-J Tan (eds). Biodiversity and human livelihoods in protected areas: case studies from the Malay Archipelago. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 241–65.