Weak coordination

The importance of coordination between multiple stakeholders at various levels has been on the policy agenda for the lagoon since at least the mid-1980s. At that time there was recognition of the need to, “strengthen the cross-sectional coordination at the decision and policy makers level, cooperation at the program level and team work at the implementation level” (PRC Engineering Consultants Inc., 1987, pp. 1-7). This challenge was and continues to be a ubiquitous one facing coastal resource management in Indonesia.

In the Segara Anakan Lagoon at the time, the situation was described as follows, “the Ministry of Forestry manages the mangroves and the Directorate General of Fisheries […], the lagoon and offshore fisheries[…]. The Provincial Planning Board of Cilacap (BAPPEDA, Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah) is instrumental in formulating, approving and finding support for any [coastal resource management] plan affecting the area, but real implementation will have to be accomplished by line agencies” (White et al., 1989, p. 65).

The integrated management plan for the lagoon prepared in 1992 summed up the problem succinctly, stating that, “clearly, one of the greatest challenges facing the government is to designate one agency to take responsibility for the development of the Segara Anakan area” (ASEAN/US, 1992, p. 47).

Over time and with the decentralization of natural resource management, the situation has become more complicated. In addition to the jurisdiction of district natural resource agencies, national sectoral agencies, and in particular the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, remain heavily involved, in part due to the fact that the lagoon straddles the jurisdictions of two provinces. National involvement is also required due to the lagoon’s designation in the national spatial plan as part of a national strategic area (kawasan strategis national) including Pangandaran, Kali Pucang, Segara Anakan and Nusa Kambangan.

The SACDP took on the challenge of coordination by first establishing a Project Management Office that was to be the forerunner of a Segara Anakan Planning and Management Agency (BPKSA, Badan Pengelola Kawasan Segara Anakan). According to the project’s plan the,

“[BPKSA] will be mandated to oversee, approve, and coordinate all lagoon activities including reporting violations of environmental laws and regulations that have been established for the special area (such as illegal logging, illegal fishing, illegal construction of aquaculture ponds, and infringement across agreed upon land ownership boundaries or zones).

Enforcement of laws and regulations will be the joint responsibility of the proper local authorities and [BPKSA]” (ADB.1996, p.19).

The BPKSA was operational by the end of the project, but the project’s final evaluation noted the agency’s, “weak financial and legal status” (ADB, 2006, p. 21). In line with this, Setyoko and Rosyadi (2009) explain that as a non-structural entity within government, BPKSA was considered hierarchically below the other technical government departments, and as such BPKSA’s power to coordinate these departments was weak (p. 98).

Indeed, the agency was subsequently disbanded as an autonomous entity, and responsibility for management of the lagoon was rolled into the district fisheries agency.

When asked why the BPKSA was closed, responses from government representatives ranged from the administrative – it was more efficient financially to integrate the Segara Anakan management agency into the existing fisheries agency – to the political – resource management funds are for the whole district, and it was strange to have one area

handled differently from others and having its own management body (interviews, September 2013, November 2013, January 2015).

Whatever the reasons for the change, there is a clear consensus that coordination remains sub-optimal. As one academic familiar with the area put it, “there is no good consortium to manage the area and no integrated program between agencies”

(interview, September 2013). A representative from the fisheries agency explained that coordination with other institutions takes place when there are specific activities. This involves, for example, informing each other about the activities and inviting others to participate. However, there are no structural means of coordination (interview, September 2013). A blunter assessment from a different staff person at the fisheries agency was that, “there is no coordination, and organizations are doing their own thing”

(interview, September 2013).

One of the key activities of the SACDP was development of a suite of five regulations aimed at conserving the lagoon. These focused on: i) setting the boundary of the Segara Anakan management area, ii) fisheries management, iii) mangrove management, iv) spatial planning, v) establishment and operation of the BPKSA.¹⁸Implementation of these regulations over time did not proceed as planned, and by the time of the field work, there were fundamental questions raised about the basic conservation orientation reflected in them. For example, water and mangrove coverage had continued to decrease; there was the perception that the value of lagoon fisheries was declining; ownership certificates – on the recommendation of the district head – had been granted for houses and yards on land designated as conservation in the draft spatial plan prepared under the project; and as mentioned above, the BPKSA was not functioning as originally envisioned.

18i) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Cilacap Nomor 23 tahun 2000 tentang Penetapan Batas Kawasan Segara Anakan; ii) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Cilacap Nomor 16 tahun 2001 tentang Pengelolaan Perikanan di Kawasan Segara anakan; iii) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Cilacap Nomor 17 tahun 2001 tentang Pengelolaan Hutan Mangrove di Kawasan Segara Anakan; iv) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Cilacap Nomor 6 tahun 2001 tentang rencana Tata Ruang Kawasan Segara Anakan; v) Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Cilacap Nomor 28 tahun 2000 tentang Pembentukan, Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Badan Pengelola Kawasan Segara Anakan.

Much of the discussion of lagoon management has been related to coordination between state agencies. There is little evidence of any meaningful attempts to incorporate community representation in such processes, including in the BPKSA. Since even the attempts at state coordination have not proven successful, perhaps it is not surprising that there has been little focus on involvement of non-state actors. In the end there is no obvious forum for state coordination, let alone inclusion of other actors and interests.

In 2013, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries at the national level conducted a series of planning meetings aimed at developing an action plan for the lagoon. The invitation list for a meeting in September 2013 included a broad range of actors from the national level and also the provinces of Central and West Java and various districts (interview, September 2013). This likely reflects the fact that planning for the lagoon is embedded within the national strategic area of Pangandaran, Kali Pucang, Segara Anakan and Nusa Kambangan. Reactivation of the BPKSA was one of the items recommended as part of the action plan.

At the time of field work in January 2015 there was no update on the status of the action plan. It seems possible, however, that with a new government in place as of the second half of 2014, and especially the presence of a Minister for Marine Affairs and Fisheries who knows the Segara Anakan Lagoon well, the direction of the action plan could change.

At minimum the fact that actors from the lagoon with close links to the Minister have presented their ideas for future action to her could open up new processes and discussions (interview, January 2015).

Despite weak coordination over time, numerous activities focusing on the conservation of the lagoon’s water area and mangroves have been implemented over time. As discussed in the next section, these initiatives have also faced challenges.