financial resources that was maintained by the external assistance to carry out the project.
This issue of distribution of costs is not resolved. It promotes ignorance by the monitoring group to not carrying out monitoring activities. The existence of
monitoring group was only when the project is still active. The sanctuary is perceived only as a project of a certain period.
Benefit
Promoting rules and monitoring on sanctuaries implies supplying public goods that involve costs. This is a dilemma faced by the community. Only when
the benefits are higher than costs of maintaining and monitoring the sanctuaries, then this effort will sustain.
The benefits of such measures are seriously questioned by the community. It involves ecological benefits in terms of fish stock, which in turn affect economic
benefit with regard to income from fishing. Many do not fully understand the function and benefits of sanctuaries, which are valued by CCRS. However, no
concrete ecological monitoring was done to show the community the changes due to the protection of sanctuaries.
8.5 Rajuni and Tarupa
Community marine sanctuaries were established by island communities and facilitated by external assistance from Coremap. However, the protection of
the sanctuary was only enforced during the period of external assistance see Figure 36. In Rajuni Kecil and Tarupa, the protection was already ceased even
before the external assistance ended. Resident fishers sometimes fish in the sanctuary. Quite the contrary, the community sanctuary in Rajuni Besar was well
protected during the period of external assistance, but no longer enforced afterwards.
1999 2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
2005 Tarupa
Rajuni Kecil
Rajuni Besar
1998 - 2003 Community protection
1999 2000
2001 2002
2003 2004
2005 1999
2000 2001
2002 2003
2004 2005
1999 - 2003 Community protection
2001 - 2004 Community protection
1998 - 2004 External assistance
2001 Establishment
1999 Establishment
1999 Establishment
Figure 36 Establishment and protection of community marine sanctuaries in
Taka Bonerate.
Rules
The field facilitators of Coremap facilitated the community meetings in three islands to set up and maintain sanctuaries. Rules on the sanctuaries were
established jointly by field facilitators and community during these meetings. Sanctuaries in Rajuni Kecil and Tarupa had been established in 1999 and in
Rajuni Besar in 2001. The status of and rules upon these sanctuaries were formalized by village
decrees LP3M 2002. The rules are as follows: Fishing andor collecting of any marine life by any means is prohibited.
Fishing gear that may not be ready for use must be stowed while passing through sanctuary.
Anchoring or any other activity that may damage benthic marine life is prohibited.
Entry for non-consumptive uses snorkeling, SCUBA diving, research, photography, filming is subject to entry fees as determined by the Village
Forum. Research without written permit from the Village Forum is prohibited.
Sanctuary will remain closed to fishing and collecting for a minimum period of 5 years. After 5 years the Forum may decide to reopen the
Sanctuary for all or certain types of fishing and collecting provided that the results of monitoring indicate that set standards for indicators are met
Coremap-ACIL 2000. In order to increase the effectiveness of sanctuaries, the information
dissemination about sanctuaries was done through public notice such billboard
and brochures. The area itself was bordered with mooring buoys LP3M 2002b. The Village Forum was the conservation group that established in each island
and is clarified in the following.
Monitoring and Local External Enforcement
The community conservation groups that were facilitated by the field facilitators were responsible in managing and monitoring sanctuaries. They
consisted of some people including local leaders who are concerned and were in charge with the coral reefs issue brought in by the external assistance. In addition
to this group or forum, a couple of reef watcher were selected in each island and hold the responsibility to monitor and prevent destructive fishing, as well as to
protect marine sanctuaries. They were equipped with supporting facilities namely boat, camera, communication device and fuel, and received monthly reward from
the project. These rewards encouraged monitors to deliver their duty, to monitor at
least 15 days per month, but they did not continue when the project finalized. Thus no monitoring was occurred afterward. Without any reward, the individual
preferred strategy, including the monitors, would be no monitoring and no sanctioning Ostrom et al. 1994.
When monitoring was in place, the line of accountability of the monitors was challenged by local leaders and community. Reef watchers were equipped
with facilities, but many seen them as not carrying out duty. Reef watchers reported their monitoring duty to field facilitators and the local conservation
groups, but this did not ensue regularly. They regularly reported to the district city where the MCS office is located and from where they received their rewards and
boat fuel for monitoring. Thus in general, reef watchers were most likely to accountable their work to this institution. There was no system of monitoring the
monitors. Distrust to reef watchers was amplified, from the district city and also from the local people.
Their motivation to commit in monitoring was diminishing, because of the challenges they found in the field. Common fishers and some local leaders and
punggawa were challenged the authority of reef watchers to warn fishers and prevent them for not violating sanctuary rules. In some extent, fishers and
community disagreed about the idea of sanctuary, which included their rules and monitoring, thus did not respect them. Nevertheless, sanctions were never been
imposed to violators. Monitors had duty to prevent violations in the spot, but rarely imposed sanction, only warnings.
Overall, the monitoring efforts were not effective to uphold rules and receive compliance by the fishers and community. At the beginning when
sanctuaries were established, high compliance were occurred and high expectation was developed, but later they diminished, which was due to the
inadequate sanction which is important to endorse credible commitment. Another is because of the lack of coincidence between benefits and costs. These were
clarified below.
Credible Commitment and Sanction
The rules were established with gradual sanctions that violate them. The first level of sanction is giving a warning. The second sanction is imposing fine.
The third sanction is confiscating the biota caught, imposing fine and enforcing social sanction which will be determined by the community member. The last
sanction is to bring the violator to the law enforcement officers LP3M 2002. Nonetheless, most sanctions that had been imposed were giving a warning to
resident or outside fishers to violate the rules. Imposing fine or other types of sanction had never been done.
During the first two years after the enactment 1999, the sanctuary in Rajuni Kecil was complied. However, gradually the compliance was diminished,
as with in Tarupa. Fishers started now fishing in the area. Resident fishers understand that they were not supposed to catch fish in the sanctuary, but they
continued doing it. When no sanction, except warning, was given to offender, then the likelihood to violate the rules increased. At the end, the rules and
monitoring were no longer acknowledged. One difficulty in upholding rules was that mooring buoys were frequently lost, thus borders of sanctuary were
indistinguishable and fishers did not recognize them.
Costs and Benefits
The costs for managing community sanctuaries were mainly derived from the external assistance that facilitated the establishment of mooring buoys,
information dissemination and operational facilities for reef watchers to monitoring. Nevertheless, sanctuary rules generated obstacles for fishers not to
fish in the area. This implied costs for them. Fishers in Rajuni Kecil fished in the sanctuaries, especially during West monsoon. Further, monitoring during fishing
could only be done infrequently, because fishers, including reef watchers, focus more on fish for a living.
Some local leaders acknowledged that protection of sanctuary was something that is difficult to carry out. The benefits of sanctuaries were commonly
questioned. Ecological monitoring of the condition of sanctuaries was not performed. The improvement of coral reef ecosystem due to the protection of
marine sanctuary is not easily tangible and only occurs after a long time Fox et al. 2003a, 2003b. It entails biological aspects in which local people have limited
knowledge, and the support from the external assistance for these communities to distinguish the biological benefits is minimal.
Formal Recognition
The authority of the Taka Bonerate Marine National did not fully recognize the community’s regulation in protecting a community marine sanctuary. A certain
community does not have right to protect a particular area, impose levy to outsiders to enter, or capture offenders. Rules made by the community to govern
a community marine sanctuary cannot be accepted by formal law. The BTN-TBR has the duty to develop zonation in the area and protects the selected zones, and
thus community would only need to assist BTN-TBR in performing this duty. Nevertheless, a community marine sanctuary is too small to be ecologically
effective. Even though, the authority did not against this effort as it is actually useful as a learning process for the community Harianto 2004, pers. comm..
8.6 Problems in Rules Enforcement