National park management policy is still neglecting sociocultural

238 Yeinan and Marind- Kuper Ethnics’ customary territory became national park areas. Negligence of sociocultural aspect is clearly observed in the consideration of national park establishment written in the establishment letter. Customary communities whose areas were designated as national park were not informed previously, although they are said to be involved in the establishment of the national park. Study on the content of national parks’ establishment lettersdesignation decree letters showed that only one national park that clearly stated that customary community existence as one of consideration for its establishment, namely Bukit Dua Belas NP. For KMNP, existence of customary community as consideration was because of impact from customary commun ity’s resistance on the establishment of Kayan Mentarang Nature Reserve on their customary territory, so that the government change the statusfunction to national park. Colchester [4] stated that in Indonesia, though the State law recognizes customary rights and acknowledge common property hak ulayat, the government interpreted it as forest product collection rights on government lands that is weak before law, so that customary community rights was not guaranteed and considered as neglected subject. The establishment of national park in customary territory had aroused conflict, since it had not incorporate traditional management system in its management system. Therefore, policy change on national park management in customary territory need to be done. Various international agreements in conservation area management related to customary communities and customary communities’ capabilities that factually could implement conservation actions become appropriate reasons to develop national park governance with customary community perspectives. Through this policy, systems which available in the customary communities become main guide in national park management policies and actions. Of course, this become important basic capital for the achievement of biodiversity mandate in national park management and for customary communities’ livelihood. The significance of customary community in the protected area management was clearly stated as the results of the fifth World Park Congress. One of its declarations stated that all protected area, both currently exist and will be established, must be developed and managed by honoring rights of customary communities, adopt customary systems and pay for the restitution from the utilization of natural resources used. Each 239 country must start identification of customary community and regulation related with protected area management and its customary communities. In this declaration, honor to customary communities’ rights through free, prior and informed consentFPIC on all actions which affect land, territory, and their natural resources was considered as important tools in achieving social and environmental sustainability. Honoring the rights by conservation institution must end conflicts that suffer customary communities. By honoring customary community’s right, and especially right on FPIC, the future protected area can be formed in the customary territory so far there is agreement on the management techniques on these areas, based on recognizing customary community rights to own and control the land and territory. Beyond that, in Durban declaration it is stated that customary forests, lands, or customary lands that was taken over by the government for establishment of protected areas without consent in the past, must be returned to the customary communities. Observation on the customary communities’ rights for FPIC must also ensure that development schemes can only be implemented in their territories if impact on customary communities has been answered until the customary communities themselves sure that such projects will benefit them in the long period. Honor to right to say “NO” must be stopping development schemes that are pushy and destroy cultures. Therefore, contributed to utilization and conservation of natural resources sustainably.

3.3. The regulations and criteria for park zonation hinder the

traditional access and control of customary community Criteria of zones is regulated in the the Indonesia Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P.56Kpts-II2006 concerning the Guidelines of National Park’s Zone Establishment. The regulation requires a minimum of three zones in national park management system, namely the core zone, wilderness zone, and the use zone, as well as other zone based on management needed. Because of policy that neglected sociocultural aspect, criteria to establish zones in national park has not yet designed with mindset of equality and mutual benefit with customary community. Such condition has caused criteria unconformity between spatial use pattern implemented by the government zones and traditional spatial use pattern in customary community. Facts in the field showed that criteria to establish zones which regulated in the regulation could not be fulfilled. In example, in the establishment of core zone, the criteria is intact forest ecosystem and no human intervention. In fact, in a customary territory, most of the area has 240 been managed, so that it is difficult to find intact forest ecosystem as requirement to establish core zone. Even if there is such area, it will be a very small part of the designed national park Figure 4. If the government consequent with the regulation, in fact national park establishment is null and void by law. Figure 4. Overlapping traditional spatial use pattern with national park area Mindset and policies have been used by the government so far showed facts of management complexities and zoning conflict in the management of national park that are within customary territory. Formal conservation policies have caused implementation gap, because of inappropriate policy target. In such national park, modern science principles cannot be fully implemented as management basis, because there are customary communities that position themselves as integral part Mindset and policies have been used by the government so far showed facts of management complexities and zoning conflict in the management of national park that are within customary territory. Formal conservation policies have caused implementation gap, because of inappropriate policy target. In such national park, modern science principles cannot be fully implemented as management of existing ecosystem and natural resources at multidimensional value of their livelihood, as economic, social, ecological, 241 and religious values.

4. Conclusion

1. Adaptation was needed toward the prevailing science-based ecologically-oriented regulation on zoning plan, so it would incorporate the customary community in order to achieve effective management of national park. 2. Zones in national parks which were established on customary territory should be directed to accommodate the traditional knowledge of land use. Adaptation, to reach compatible and applicable zone, was carried out through: 1 Change of logical framework from managing customary community in perspective of national park to managing national park in perspective of customary community livelihood; 2 Zoning policy of national park areas established in customary territory should aim at reaching national park function instead of fulfillment of zoning requirements; 3 Adaptation of the form and criteria of national park zones with traditional land use, since the function of traditional land use could contain the form and functions needed in national park zones, and 4 Adoption of traditional knowledge in the mandate of national park management since it would provide management effectiveness.

5. References

[1] F.G. Borrini, K. Ashish, O. Gonzalo. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. [2] [IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2003. The Durban Action Plan. [serial online] 2003 [cited 2009]. Available at: http:www.iucn.orgaboutworkprogrammespapa_ eventwcpa_wpc. [4] M. Colchester. 2008. Beyond Tenure: Rights-Based Approaches to Peoples and Forests Some lessons from the Forest Peoples Programme. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC.