lap co management english 10 mei 2013

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁

Collaborative Management

of Marine Protected Areas

WORKSHOP REPORTS

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 2

Collaborative Management of Marine Protected Areas

Person in Charge Toni Ruchimat

Director of Conservation of Areas and Fish Species, Directorate General of KP3K at the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Tridoyo Kusumastanto

Head of the Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies, IPB

Pahala Nainggolan

MPAG-USAID Chief of Party

Drafting Team

Luky Adrianto (Principal Facilitator)

Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies, IPB/Department of Water/Marine Resources Management, FPIK-IPB

M. Arsyad Nawawi (Center for Coastal and Ocean Resources Studies, IPB); A. Solihin (Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies, IPB)

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency of International Development (USAID). The content is the responsibility of MPAG and does not necessarily refect the views of USAID or the United States government.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₃

FOREWORD

T

his report is a synthesis of the Workshop on the Partnership Management of Marine Protected Areas held in collaboration with the Directorate General of Coastal and Small Islands, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, MPAG-USAID, and all marine conservation practitioners. The workshop was facilitated by the Centre for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies, Bogor Agricultural University.

Gratitude and the highest appreciation goes to all participants and marine conservation areas management stakeholders who contributed to the workshop and its preparation through the establishment of conceptual frameworks and through participation in discussions on issues related to the dynamics of the management of marine and coastal conservation areas. Deepest appreciation also goes to all members of the drafting team who made a contribution in the form of ideas and by providing opportunities for discussion up to the completion of this report.

As the saying goes, ‘there is no ivory that is not cracked’; meaning that nothing is perfect, and neither is this report. We hope that we will be able to continue reining it in accordance with the development and dynamics of marine and coastal conservation areas in the ield.

We hope that this report will be as beneicial as we intend it to be.

Bogor, March 15, 2013

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 4

CONTENTS

Foreword ... 3

Contents ... 5

Glossary of Terms ... 5

1. Introduction ... 5

1.1. Background ... 6

1.2. Workshop Goals and Objectives ... 7

1.3. Workshop Approach ... 7

1.4. Workshop Pointers ... 8

1.5. Workshop Sequencing ... 8

2. Workshop Synthesis Results: Legal Aspects of Marine Protected Area Collaborative Management ... 10

2.1. Rationale ... 10

2.1.1. Philosophical Basis ... 10

2.1.2. Juridical Basis ... 10

2.1.3. Sociological Basis ... 11

2.2 Scope of the Ministerial Regulation Draft on the Collaborative Management of Marine Protected Areas ... 16

Selected References ... 17

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

MPA - Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan - Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

MPA - Kawasan Konservasi Perairan - Marine Protected Areas MPAD - Kawasan Konservasi Perairan Daerah - District-based

Marine Protected Areas

FAD - Fish Aggregation Device

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization

FCM - Fisheries Co-Management

FGD - Focus Group Discussion

MPA - Marine Protected Area

Permen - Peraturan Menteri – Ministerial Regulation PP - Peraturan Pemerintah - Government Regulation UUD - Undang-Undang Dasar - National Constitution

WPP - Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan - Fisheries Management Areas

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₅

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 6

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

One of the mandates of Government Regulation No. 60 of 2007 on the Conservation of Fisheries Resources is the need for a partnership approach in the management of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). As stated in Article 18, paragraph 1, the national government or local governments, in accordance with their authority as referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1, are able to involve the community in the management of Marine Protected Areas through partnerships between organizational unit managers and community groups and/or indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, corporations, research institutions and universities. In Article 18, paragraph 2, it is furthermore stated that any additional provisions with regard to partnerships as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be regulated via Ministerial Regulation (PerMen). Thus, partnership is one of the key values underpinning the management of MPAs and should be enshrined as one of the basic management principles. It is also one of the characteristics of collaborative management or co-management. The next question is how to enshrine an MPA management mechanism that relects the collaborative management approach that will become the basis for the management of MPAs in the form of a Ministerial Regulation (PerMen) in accordance with

Fishermen in Anambas

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₇

Foto: © Jürgen Freund (WWF)

Regulation No. 60/2007 Article 18, paragraph 2. In the meanwhile, goverment-based MPA management practices have been running well for a long time since operating within the Ministry of Forestry governance framework and after the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries regime, as well as the management of MPAs through local governments.

To address the question above, a workshop is required on the patterns, mechanisms, and institutional initiatives that characterize the co-management approach for the MPA. This workshop is conducted with the use of a focus group discussion (FGD) approach.

1.2. Workshop Goals and Objectives

The purpose of the workshop is to explore and delve into the ideas and suggestions of experts with experience in the management of MPAs, especially in regard to the mandated partnership approach found in Regulation No. 60/2007, Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 2.

The goal of this workshop is to formulate a partnership framework for the management of MPAs and to come up with strategic advice for the development of the Ministeral Regulation (PerMen) that will govern this.

1.3. Workshop Approach

In order to achieve the goals and objectives of the above workshop, a cyclical-participatory approach is used, as can be seen in Figure 1 below.

Selecting Expert Panel

The importance of workshop objective and targets

Pointers/Questions to be explored

Summary of Workshop

Presentation of Summary

Figure 1. Workshop Approach for the Collaborative Management of Marine Protected Areas

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 8

1.4. Workshop Pointers

Pointers on issues / questions to be explored in the workshop are divided into two sessions as follows:

Session 1. The Principles and Content of Co-Management Approach Applied in the Management of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) .

This session will discuss some question pointers as follows:

1. What are the Principles and Objectives of the co-management approach applied in MPA?

2. What is the content of the co-management approach applied in MPA?

3. What are the key factors determining the success of co-management approach?

Session 2. The Implementation of a Co-Management Approach in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Management.

In this session, some question pointers will be discussed as follows:

1. What is the process and mechanism of government involvement in co-management approach applied in MPA?

2. What is the process and mechanism of community involvement in co-management applied in MPA?

3. What is the best form of co-management institutions with regard to MPA management?

1.5. Workshop Sequencing

The workshop sequencing through FGDs on MPA co-management approach is as follows:

1. Opening

2. FGD Introduction: Goals, Objectives and Approaches 3. Introduction to Co-Management

4. Session 1 5. Session 2 6. Synthesis

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₉

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 10

2. WORKSHOP SYNTHESIS RESULTS:

LEGAL ASPECTS OF MARINE PROTECTED

AREA COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT

2.1. Rationale

2.1.1. Philosophical Basis

Pancasila is the philosophical basis of the Indonesian nation and state. It is detailed in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945) in four paragraphs, with the fourth paragraph expressing the basic objectives of the nation and state. Pancasila is the foundation of the state, while the four main concepts in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution embody the legal ideals that govern the laws of the state, both written and unwritten.

There is a law within the national legal order that describes Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, so that the presence of philosophical value in the law is absolute. Article 33, paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution, states that ‘The earth and the water and the natural riches contained therein shall be controlled by the state and used for the welfare of the people’. Furthermore, in Article 33 paragraph (4), it is added that the national economy is organized based upon the principles of solidarity, equitable eficiency, sustainability, environment awareness, independence, and balance between economic progress and national unity.

Thus, the wealth of isheries resources in Indonesia should be used to improve the welfare of those operating in the ield of isheries, especially the ishing community. Of course, the exploitation of these resources must prioritize environmental aspects as mandated by the 1945 Constitution, in order to create sustainable isheries and maintain the balance between economic progress and national unity.

2.1.2. Juridical Basis

The juridical basis of co-management is as follows:

1. Law No. 5 of 1990 on the Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystems 2. Law No. 31 of 2004 on Fisheries

3. Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Governance 4. Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning

5. Law No. 27 of 2007 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands 6. Government Regulation No. 38 of 2007 on the Division between Government,

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁₁

Local Governments and Regency/City Provincial Governments

7. Government Regulation No. 60 of 2007 on Conservation of Fisheries Resources

8. Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministerial Regulation No. Per.16/ Men/2008 on Planning Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands 9. Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministerial Regulation No. Per.30/

Men/2010 on Management Plans and the Zoning of Marine Protected Areas

2.1.3. Sociological Basis

• Legal Adoption

Endorsement of Local Marine Protected Areas (Local MPA) is through local regulations, while Marine Sanctuaries is legalized through village regulations. • The Principles of Marine Protected Area Management

Using the framework of the Design Principles of Resources Management proposed by Ruddle (1999), critical reviews of the adoption of local/customary institutions in the context of resources management1 _{are conducted on the following}

elements: (1) the system deinition of the isheries resources, (2) the system of rights for resource users, (3) rules system that apply to the sustainability of the isheries, (4) the law enforcement system of rules that have been agreed upon, (5) the monitoring and the evaluation of the implementation of resources management itself, (6) resources management authority as the institution responsible for the process and the mechanism for the implementation of isheries management.

A. Boundary Resource System

Within the framework of formal isheries management, resource boundaries are discussed in the context of WPP (Regional Fisheries Management)as mandated by Article 5 of Law No. 31/2004 on Fisheries. In this Article, it is explained that the isheries management area consists of the territorial waters of Indonesia, Indonesian ZEE (Zona Ekonomis Ekslusif - Exclusive Economic Zone) waters, and other bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, marshes, and other standing water that can be managed along with land with the potential for ish farming in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. In accordance with the spatial context, the determination of resource boundaries is particularly important for the stages of the process where resource users are involved. This involves local knowledge of resources boundaries, speciically the territorial water boundaries that are the object of isheries activities. Within this framework, the adoption of local knowledge in institutionalized customary/local isheries management needs to take place when isheries management plans are prepared. This is important to avoid overlap of spatial jurisdictions between formal isheries

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 12

management and local/customary isheries management institutions. The best scenario is to transform local/customary isheries management institutions into formal isheries management.

B. The Rights System of Resource Users

One of the key factors in the dynamics of isheries is information and knowledge about rights, because the principles of isheries management must still consider the concept of rights-based isheries to ensure the fairness and sustainability of the isheries themselves. According to Ostrom and Schlager (1996) in Adrianto (2006), there are at least two types of rights that are important in the context of the management and exploitation of natural resources, including isheries, namely: (1) use (operational-level) rights, and (2) collective-choice rights. The irst type of rights refers to those inherent in the operation or context of isheries and are associated with the process and the dynamics of ishing. With this type, several important rights are access rights, namely entry rights to ishing businesses either in the context of ishing grounds or in a ishing business structure such as the provision of raw materials, isheries processing, and so forth. Still, with the irst

F

ot

o:

©

A

le

xa

nde

r

T

anody (T

N

C)

Photo 1: Savu community discusses on what it takes to sustainably beneit from their marine resources.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁₃

type of rights (use rights), the right to ish certain amounts (harvest rights) also constitutes an important right. Although contextually different, the ownership of both rights (access and harvest rights) together is an important element in the sustainability of ishing communities.

The second type of rights (collective-choice rights) is more focused on the right to manage isheries (isheries governance), which is usually granted to a particular authority outside of ishing communities (supra-community). This authority, usually a local government in accordance with regional autonomy and Law no. 32/2004 Article 18, plays an important role in isheries management. In the context of the relocation of ishers, the second type of rights is very important because they are associated with the matter of “who regulates” as a complement to the concept of rights relating to “who is regulated”, as is described with the irst type of rights (use rights). In addition to management rights, several other important rights belonging to the category of collective-choice rights include exclusion rights, namely the right of authority to determine the qualiications of those wishing to gain access rights and harvest rights, as well as alienation rights, namely the right to transfer and sell management rights.

In the context of a critical review of customary/local institutions, regulatory authority rights (rights allocation) lie with customary agreement institutions, which have regulated this matter for generations, or through local agreements with the aim of ensuring justice for resource users. The Sea Commander (Panglima Laot) in Aceh for example decides the allocation of spatial rights to resource users in a particular Lhok area. While traditional Parompong in South Sulawesi adopt indigenous rules in determining the allocation of customary Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs), with Manee in North Sulawesi granting allocation rights to Customary (Adat) Leaders to determine who can ish in the Manee area. In this context, isheries management has to be adaptive with regard to customary agreements or understandings built on local values. Thus, another important matter that needs to be addressed is the formulation of local values as a shared vision for all resource users in the management of isheries areas.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 14

C. Code of Conduct System

The fundamental essence of isheries management lies in the isheries management code of conduct system itself. In the context of this system, there also exists the context of management measures as tools for the implementation of isheries management. The code of conduct is based on strategic and high priority issues for the achievement of agreed common goals. According to Law No. 31/2004 on Fisheries, ishery management plans are determined by the Minister, which also covers isheries management tools such as the allocation of the number of ships, the allocation of isheries resources and so forth. In this context, the adoption of customary/local institutions in determining isheries management tools is important, especially in relation to the principle of participatory and adaptive isheries management. A code of conduct that has been agreed upon as a isheries management case is via the institution of the Panglima Laot (Sea Commander) of the Aceh Besar Regency, which prohibits the use of trawling and in favour of a switch to the use of passive selective ishing gear. It is one example of the adoption of local agreements in isheries management areas.

D. Penalty and Law Enforcement System

One important aspect of good isheries governance1 _{is law enforcement.}

Formally, Law No. 31/2004 on Fisheries establishes a system of sanctions that

Photo 2: Fishermen in Bali are ready to set sail

1 _{Kooiman et al. (2005) deines governance as an entire interaction between the public and private sectors to solve}

societal problems and create social opportunities. In the context of isheries, governance can be deined as a number of legal, social, economic, and political rules used to regulate isheries.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁₅

are quite strict with regard to isheries offenses. For example, the isheries court is one of the formal enforcement mechanisms as mandated by Article 71 of Law No. 31/2004. In the context of the adoption of local/customary institutions, law enforcement systems should be designed within the framework of isheries co-management so that in the long run the law enforcement process is effective and eficient, as the allocation of costs can be minimized by reducing the structural framework of the legal process. Thus, the resolution of the problem of isheries violations through the mechanisms of customary/local institutions serve as an alternative for effective and eficient isheries management.

E. Monitoring and Evaluation System

Fisheries management is a process that is ongoing, iterative, adaptive and participatory, and that consists of a set of tasks that are related to each another and that must be completed in order to achieve set goals (Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006 in Adrianto, 2007). In this context, planning processes must be monitored so that the system can run according to plan, and should be evaluated in the context of learning processes with regard to the successes and failures of the system that has already run. To that end, the process of monitoring and evaluation in the management of isheries, including sea farming needs to be carried out.

Jacoby et al. (1997) in Adrianto (2007) mentions that the Monitoring and Evaluation framework (MDE) is continuous feedback loop with regard to the isheries management process, in order to then produce “feedback” and “feed-out” for isheries stakeholders. Jacoby’s framework focuses on management processes that are interrelated and sequential, with each sequence providing feedback and ultimately resulting in feed-out to stakeholders (Figure 4-1).

Control Organisaion Planning Implementaion Monitoring Feedback Feedout Stakeholders

Figure 4-1. Framework of monitoring and evaluation in isheries management

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 16

Referring to the above framework of Jacoby et al. (1997), the process of control, organization, planning, implementation and monitoring is carried out through a local agreement based on both customary local values and local agreements themselves. In the context of the adoption of local/customary institutions, it is very important to identify local values in the supervision and monitoring of isheries management. The monitoring and control system of the Awig-Awig LMNU in East Lombok Regency serves as an inspiring example of the effectiveness of isheries management at the local level.

From the description above, the adoption of local/customory institutions initiated by resource users and formal isheries management requires a bridging mechanism. In this context, isheries co-management regimes serve as an alternative for the management of isheries in Indonesia as the co-management of isheries basically emphasizes the distribution of responsibilities between government and resource users.

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁₇

2.2. Scope of the Ministerial Regulation Draft on the

Collaborative Management of Marine Protected Areas

The scope of co-management arrangements in MPAs includes the following:

Deinition

1. Government

2. Provincial Government

3. Local Government (provincial, district/city) 4. Collaborative Management/Co-Management 5. Management Organization Unit

6. Partners Principles 1. Partnership

2. Stakeholder participation 3. Equality

4. Continuous process

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 18

5. Openness 6. Mutual beneit 7. Mutual respect Scope

1. Stakeholders a. Government b. Community

2. Partnership mechanism a. The distribution of roles

• Government, Provinces, Regencies/Cities b. Responsibility

c. Authority

3. The Partnership process a. Worthiness

b. Companion c. Commitment

d. Government involvement

• Legislative (Parliament)  legislation, budgeting, supervision • Executive (Regent/Mayor)

• Judiciary (well-informed, awareness) • Internal and External Beginning e. Community involvement

• Community groups (customary communities, non-governmental organizations, corporations, research institutions, universities)

• Criteria (coordinator, delegated) 4. Funding/Financing

a. Sources of Funding b. Budget transparency

c. Collaborative funding program 5. Partnership Exceptions

a. Outermost Small Islands b. Archipelagic sea lanes c. Area status changes

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S ₁₉

References

C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N AG E M E N T O F M A R I N E P ROT E C T E D A R E A S 20

SELECTED REFERENCES

Adrianto, L. A. Solihin., K.A. Aziz, and A. Nawawi. 2012. Strengthening Institu-tional Mechanisms for Managing Fisheries in the Sulu-Sulawesi Ma-rine Eco-region. Center for Coastal and MaMa-rine Resources Studies, Bogor Agricultural University. Report Submitted to SSLME Project, Manila, The Philippines.

Adrianto, L. , 2007. Introduction to Fisheries Co-Management. Training Materi-als for Fisheries Co-Management. FAO and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.

Hartoto, Irving, Luky Adrianto, Daniela Kolasky, Trian nuetral., 2010. Mainstream-ing Fisheries Co-Management in Indonesia. FAO Publications.

are quite strict with regard to isheries offenses. For example, the isheries court

is one of the formal enforcement mechanisms as mandated by Article 71 of Law No. 31/2004. In the context of the adoption of local/customary institutions, law

enforcement systems should be designed within the framework of isheries

co-management so that in the long run the law enforcement process is effective and

eficient, as the allocation of costs can be minimized by reducing the structural framework of the legal process. Thus, the resolution of the problem of isheries

violations through the mechanisms of customary/local institutions serve as an

alternative for effective and eficient isheries management.

E. Monitoring and Evaluation System

Fisheries management is a process that is ongoing, iterative, adaptive and participatory, and that consists of a set of tasks that are related to each another and that must be completed in order to achieve set goals (Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb, 2006 in Adrianto, 2007). In this context, planning processes must be monitored so that the system can run according to plan, and should be evaluated in the context of learning processes with regard to the successes and failures of the system that has already run. To that

end, the process of monitoring and evaluation in the management of isheries, including

sea farming needs to be carried out.

Jacoby et al. (1997) in Adrianto (2007) mentions that the Monitoring and Evaluation

framework (MDE) is continuous feedback loop with regard to the isheries management process, in order to then produce “feedback” and “feed-out” for isheries stakeholders.

Jacoby’s framework focuses on management processes that are interrelated and sequential, with each sequence providing feedback and ultimately resulting in feed-out to stakeholders (Figure 4-1).

Control Organisaion Planning Implementaion Monitoring Feedback Feedout Stakeholders

Figure 4-1. Framework of monitoring and evaluation in isheries management

Referring to the above framework of Jacoby et al. (1997), the process of control, organization, planning, implementation and monitoring is carried out through a local agreement based on both customary local values and local agreements themselves. In the context of the adoption of local/customary institutions, it is very important to identify local values in the supervision and monitoring

of isheries management. The monitoring and control system of the

Awig-Awig LMNU in East Lombok Regency serves as an inspiring example of the

effectiveness of isheries management at the local level.

From the description above, the adoption of local/customory institutions

initiated by resource users and formal isheries management requires a bridging mechanism. In this context, isheries co-management regimes serve as an alternative for the management of isheries in Indonesia as the co-management of isheries basically emphasizes the distribution of responsibilities between

government and resource users.

2.2. Scope of the Ministerial Regulation Draft on the

Collaborative Management of Marine Protected Areas

The scope of co-management arrangements in MPAs includes the following: Deinition

1. Government

2. Provincial Government

3. Local Government (provincial, district/city) 4. Collaborative Management/Co-Management 5. Management Organization Unit

6. Partners

Principles

1. Partnership

2. Stakeholder participation 3. Equality

4. Continuous process

5. Openness

6. Mutual beneit

7. Mutual respect

Scope

1. Stakeholders

a. Government b. Community

2. Partnership mechanism

a. The distribution of roles

• Government, Provinces, Regencies/Cities b. Responsibility

c. Authority

3. The Partnership process

a. Worthiness b. Companion c. Commitment

d. Government involvement

• Legislative (Parliament)  legislation, budgeting, supervision • Executive (Regent/Mayor)

• Judiciary (well-informed, awareness) • Internal and External Beginning e. Community involvement

• Community groups (customary communities, non-governmental organizations, corporations, research institutions, universities)

• Criteria (coordinator, delegated)

4. Funding/Financing

a. Sources of Funding b. Budget transparency

c. Collaborative funding program

5. Partnership Exceptions

a. Outermost Small Islands b. Archipelagic sea lanes c. Area status changes

SELECTED REFERENCES

Adrianto, L. A. Solihin., K.A. Aziz, and A. Nawawi. 2012. Strengthening Institu-tional Mechanisms for Managing Fisheries in the Sulu-Sulawesi Ma-rine Eco-region. Center for Coastal and MaMa-rine Resources Studies, Bogor Agricultural University. Report Submitted to SSLME Project, Manila, The Philippines.

Adrianto, L. , 2007. Introduction to Fisheries Co-Management. Training Materi-als for Fisheries Co-Management. FAO and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.

Hartoto, Irving, Luky Adrianto, Daniela Kolasky, Trian nuetral., 2010. Mainstream-ing Fisheries Co-Management in Indonesia. FAO Publications.