Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park - Long-Term Trends 1985 - 2009

Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park: Long-term Trends 1985 - 2009
Surveillance and
Enforcement in
Komodo National Park:
Long-Term Trends
1985 - 2009
PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

KomodoNationalPark
2
Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park:
Long-term Trends 1985 2009
H a r v e y A , Pa s ya A & Y u s a m a n d r a H
March 2010
Komodo National Park Surveillance and Enforcement Series: 1985 - 2009

KomodoNationalPark
The Nature Conservancy
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that
represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy
launched the Global Marine Initiative in 2002 to protect and restore the most resilient examples of ocean
and coastal ecosystems in ways that benefit marine life, local communities and economies. The Conservancy
operates over 100 marine conservation projects in more than 21 countries and 22 US states; they work with
partners across seascapes and landscapes through transformative strategies and integrated planning and
action. The focus is on: (1) Setting priorities for marine conservation using ecoregional assessments and
tools for ecosystem based management; (2) Ensuring coral reef survival by creating resilient networks of
marine protected areas; (3) Restoring and conserving coastal habitats by utilizing innovative new methods;
(4) Building support for marine conservation through strategic partnerships and working to shape global
and national policies. Marine conservation in The Nature Conservancy builds upon the organizations core
strengths: achieving demonstrable results; working with a wide range of partners, including non-traditional
partners; science-based, robust conservation planning methodologies; our experience with transactions; and,
perhaps most importantly, our ability and commitment to back up our strategies with human, financial and
political capital. For more information e-mail marine@tnc.org or go to www.nature.org/marine.
PT Putri Naga Komodo
PT Putri Naga Komodo is a non-for-profit tourism destination management company and holds the sole
tourism concession license to operate within Komodo National Park. Putri Naga Komodos mission is to
achieve financial sustainability for park management through the development of tourism, and to support
biodiversity conservation and compatible community development initiatives lead by the Komodo National
Park Authority. The company is a joint partnership majority owned by The Nature Conservancy, who provide
technical expertise and support to science-based management initiatives.
4
Published by: The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Komodo
Copyright: 2010 The Nature Conservancy/ PT Putri Naga Komodo
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source
is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited

without prior written permission of the copyright holders.
Citation: Harvey A Pasya A & Yusamandra H (2010), Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National
Park: Long-term Trends 1985 2009. The Nature Conservancy & PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali,
Indonesia.
Illustrations: Donald Bason
Available from:
The Nature Conservancy, Jl. Pengembak No. 2, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia.
PT Putri Naga Komodo, Gang Mesjid, Labuan Bajo, Manggarai Barat, NTT, Indonesia. www.
gokomodo.org
Komodo National Park
6
Summary for Decision Makers
Surveillance and enforcement in KNP is the sovereign

authority of BTNK. Since 1996, TNC has supported
surveillance and enforcement in KNP, including via
operational management of FRS and speedboats. Since
2005, this support has been administered by PNK.
Specific investments into surveillance and enforcement

operations (e.g. acquisition of speedboats and FRS)
coincide with rapid increases in the number of
enforcement cases, from one in 1985 to 17 in 2009. Most
cases relate to marine resource violations, particularly
destructive fishing gears listed under PERDA 28.
Enforcement records and park-wide RUM data indicate a

decline in the use of destructive fishing gears restricted
under district laws (PERDA 28), including bomb and
cyanide fishing. However reef gleaning/ meting remains
common.
The number of restricted fishing gears detected by FRS

patrols declined between 2005 and 2009. However park-
wide Resource Use Monitoring data suggests restricted
gears remain common within some areas of KNP. FRS
patrols may locally reduce use of restricted gears along
regular patrol routes. Awareness of restricted gear
types was low, with scope to improve definition and
communication of gear restrictions.
FRS patrols successfully detected a high proportion

of all zoning violations (23.49% in 2009). However no
documented cases of enforcement or prosecution of
zoning violations exist. The legal status of KNPs zonation
scheme is unclear. Gap analysis would provide a first step
to strengthening zoning implementation by identifying
legislative gaps, and providing clear guidance to
enforcement officers.
KomodoNationalPark
Interaction between enforcement teams and tourists

was low, with only two interactions per day recorded in
2009. Extending the ambassadorial role of patrol teams
could enhance the visitor experience in KNP, by providing
information and guidance on park regulations, mooring
buoys, codes of conduct, facilities etc.
The cost of monitoring and enforcing violations by

tourists is disproportionately high (US$ 8,442 per
case) compared to the cost of violations (US$ 15 ticket
fee). Costs could be reduced via permanent or semi-
permanent ranger stations at seven tourism hot spots
in KNP.
Current patrol intensities could be maintained with one

operational FRS. Active FRS patrol days varied from 59 to
249 per year. The current arrangement of two FRS in KNP
provides capability for 730 active patrol days per year.
Current budgets are heavily weighted towards

monitoring for non-compliance. At around US$ 150,000
per year costs are high, guard density is low, and detection
rates are low. Investment into other critical components
of compliance building, including legal frameworks
and constituency building, is low. Possible scenarios for
reducing costs and effectively targeting limited funds
are presented in this report.
Surveillance and enforcement investments have
successfully increased park management capacity to
detect resource violations, and reduce destructive fishing.
Park managers could further strengthen compliance
with KNP regulations through:
Review of management plans and supporting
legislation;
Identification of gaps and needs, and
Implementation of strategies that maximize guard
density, maximize detection rates and minimize
costs.
8
Abbreviations
BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Authority)

FRS Floating Ranger Station
GIS Geographic Information System
IFC International Finance Corporation
KNP Komodo National Park
PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam, Departemen Kehutana (Forest Protection and Nature
Conservation, Ministry of Forestry)
PNK PT Putri Naga Komodo
RUM Resource Use Monitoring
KomodoNationalPark
Acknowledgements
This report is based on patrol records and enforcement data collected by BTNK and Police officers with TNC
and PNK boat crews between 1996 and 2009, as well as historical enforcement cases dating back to 1985.
The authors are grateful to BTNK, as the enforcement agency in KNP, for providing access to thee records.
The efforts of all field and support staff who have been involved in the collection and management of this
data are appreciated.
We are grateful to all past and present directors of Komodo National Park for their vision and commitment
to conservation outcomes in KNP. We also acknowledge the contributions of West Manggarai District
Government, local communities and other stakeholders to Komodo National Park.
The inputs and technical advice of staff from TNCs Indonesia Coastal and Marine Program and Coral Triangle
Centre were crucial in developing this report.
10
Executive Summary
This report reviews TNC/ PNK support to BTNK surveillance and enforcement operations in KNP between
1996 and 2009. Historical enforcement cases from 1985 to 2009 are examined. KNPs 25-year management
plan provides the framework of this review.
Investments into surveillance and enforcement correspond with an increase in enforcement cases in KNP,
from one case in 1985 to 17 in 2009. Fishing gear violations comprised the majority of cases.
The use of destructive fishing gears prohibited under district laws (PERDA 28) declined between 2006 and
2009.
Detection of restricted fishing gears by FRS patrols declined between 1996 and 2009. However park-wide
Resource Use Monitoring suggests that restricted fishing gears continue to constitute a high proportion
of total KNP fishing effort. FRS patrols may have a local impact on restricted fishing gears near to patrol
routes.
FRS patrols detected 23.49% of zoning violations in the park. However no documented cases of enforcement
or prosecution related to zoning violations have been identified. The legal status of KNPs zoning system is
unclear. Analysis of gaps and needs should be performed to review management objectives and identify
priorities for strengthening legislative frameworks and SOPs.
Patrol intensity in KNP is variable, with a maximum of 250 active patrol days per year recorded between
2003 and 2009. Current patrol intensities could be maintained with one operational FRS.
Budgets for building compliance with resource regulations in KNP are heavily weighted towards FRS patrols,
with an annual budget of around US$ 150,000. In 2009 surveillance costs were US$ 130 per interaction
with park users, and US$ 8,442 per enforcement or prosecution case (excluding subsequent legal and
prosecution costs). Surveillance and enforcement efficiency could be increased by increasing the density
of guards, increasing detection rates, strengthening legislative frameworks, and reducing costs. Possible
scenarios and options are presented in this report.
KomodoNationalPark
12
Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Komodo National Park.......................................................................................... 18
1.1.1 Physical Features and Biodiversity.............................................................. 18
1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and Benefits................................................................. 18
1.1.3 Governance................................................................................................... 19
1.1.4 Marine Threats and Impacts......................................................................... 19
1.2 Surveillance and Enforcement in KNP.................................................................. 20
1.2.1 Objectives..................................................................................................... 20
1.2.2 Zoning scheme and management plan.......................................................... 22
1.2.3 Enforcement operations................................................................................ 22
2 Methodology...................................................................................................... 23
2.1 Patrol Logistics and Support.................................................................................. 24
2.2 Patrol Strategies..................................................................................................... 25
2.3 Data analysis.......................................................................................................... 25
3 Results and Discussion......................................................................................... 27
3.1 Data Management.................................................................................................. 28
3.2 Surveillance and Enforcement Operations............................................................. 28
3.3 Enforcement of Tourism Regulations.................................................................... 31
3.4 Enforcement of Fishery Regulations...................................................................... 32
3.4.1 Gear Restrictions.......................................................................................... 32
3.4.2 Exclusive Use Rights.................................................................................... 32
3.4.4 Zone Restrictions.......................................................................................... 33
3.4.5 Cases............................................................................................................. 34
4 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 35
5 Recommendations............................................................................................... 39
6 Literature Cited.................................................................................................. 41
Appendix A: Proforma.............................................................................................. 45
Appendix B: FRS patrol patterns................................................................................ 53
Appendix C: Management Effectiveness...................................................................... 55
Appendix D: Patrol Scenarios.................................................................................... 57
Appendix E: Raw Data.............................................................................................. 63
KomodoNationalPark
14
1
Introduction
KomodoNationalPark
16
In systems of natural resource management, rules actions and next steps.

are critical to maintain the integrity of common-pool
resources in situations were individual self-interestThe report uses KNPs 25-year Master Plan for
all to often prevail (Ostrom et al 1994). Monitoring Management (PHKA & TNC 2000) as a framework
for non-compliance and enforcement are important for assessing management and conservation
components in any system of rules (Keane et al outcomes. The report is intended to provide an
2008), and essential for successful conservation account of surveillance and enforcement support,
and natural resource management (Gezelius 2002; and to stimulate discussion of the reports findings
Gibson et al 2005; Ostrom 1990; Rowcliffe et al 2004;amongst all stakeholders. Particularly important
Walsh et al 2003). will be the synthesis of the findings presented in
this report with operational, law enforcement and
Managing a protected area means managing political perspectives that lie within the expertise of
people (Campbell et al 2010). As a protected area, BTNK, and with public perceptions and opinions of
KNP is governed by a series of rules and regulations all stakeholders in KNP.
designed to protect natural assets, and to maintain
the local, national and global ecosystem services
they provide (PHKA & TNC 2000). Key objectives
include safeguarding KNPs biodiversity, supporting
sustainable growth of tourism and fishery sectors,
and minimising conflicts between resource users.
Building compliance with management rules and
regulations is a multifaceted process involving
(Campbell et al 2010):
Education;
Building community support for conservation;
Developing appropriate management plans and

supporting legislation;
Informing the public about the penalties for non-

compliance;
Monitoring for non-compliance; and
Developing the legal frameworks to enforce

legislation, and to impose sanctions and
prosecutions.
BTNK holds sovereign authority for enforcement

in KNP. TNC, through PNK, has supported the
compliance building process in KNP since 1996.
This report seeks to review and evaluate TNCs
support of surveillance and enforcement in KNP,
examine the lessons learnt, and identify future
KomodoNationalPark
1.1 Komodo National Park 1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and

Benefits
1.1.1 Physical Features and KNP maintains ecosystem goods and services
Biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) that
Komodo National Park (119 30 E, 8 35 S) is located provide benefits at the local, national and global level
in the Lesser Sunda islands of Indonesia, East Nusa (Box 1). High economic values have been attributed
Tenggara province. Lying in the Sape straits between to the types of coastal ecosystems contained within
Flores and Sumbawa, it comprises the three islands KNP due to the services they provide: mangrove
of Komodo, Rinca and Padar, smaller surrounding systems are worth an estimated US$ 4,290 annually
islands, the straits between the main islands and all per hectare, seagrasses and lagoons provide
waters within 1000 m of shore (Figure 1). Komodo benefits of around US$ 73,900 per year per hectare,
National Park (KNP) encompasses both marine and while coral reefs are among the most economically
terrestrial environments, including habitats of the valuable of all ecosystems at US$ 129,000 per year
vulnerable Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) per hectare (TEEB 2009).
and 132,000 ha of the worlds richest marine
environments, including coral reefs, mangroves, As a protected area containing marine and coastal
seagrass meadows, seamounts and bays. ecosystems, KNP plays a key role in:
KNPs marine ecosystems support high biodiversity, Maintaining Indonesias healthy coasts and seas in
including over 1,000 species of fish, 385 species order to sustain social and economic development;
of reef building corals (Beger & Turak 2005), 70
species of sponge (PHKA & TNC 2000) and 9 species and
of seagrass (Pedju 2004). Large charismatic fauna,
including 10 species of dolphin, 7 species of whale Maintaining significant natural resources on behalf
(Kahn 2000) and two species of sea turtle, contribute of the global community (IUCN et al 2008).
to KNPs appeal as a tourism destination. Threatened
or endangered species (IUCN 2009) have been At the local level, KNPs marine ecosystems underpin
recorded within KNPs waters, including dugongs economies, livelihoods and food security through,
(Dugong dugon), manta rays (Manta birostris), for example:
whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus), blacktip reef
shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), Barramundi cod Increased diving tourism and resulting revenues
(Cromileptes altivelis), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus (Bonaire Marine Park, Netherlands Antilles);
undulates), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and giant clam Increased subsistence fish catches, expanded
(Tridacna gigas) (Erdman 2004). tourist activity, and greater involvement of local
people in managing resorts and boats (Tai Island,
Fiji);
Figure 1: Location of Komodo National Park, Indonesia within the Lesser Sunda and Coral Triangle marine eco-region.
18
Growth of tourism and resulting revenue through Box 1 - MPA benefits

gate, guide, and camping fees, rental of boats and
MPAs provide a range of global, national and local benefits (Kelle-
equipment, and hotel expenses (Malindi/ Watamu, her 1999), including:
Mobasa and Kisite/ Mpunguti National Parks and Conservation of biodiversity, especially critical habitats of
threatened species;
Reserves, Kenya); and
Protection of attractive habitats and species on which sustain-
able tourism can be based;
Accrual of indirect benefits through the creation of Increased productivity of fisheries by:
jobs in hotels and for guides and boatmen (Salm insurance against stock collapse;
et al 2000). buffer against recruitment failure;
increase in densities and average sizes of individuals;
The economic value of KNP, in terms of income
from fisheries and tourism alone for the residents increase in reproductive output;
of Komodo District is estimated at around 60 billion provision of centres for dispersal of propagules and adults
(spillover);
rupiah (approximately USD 6 million) per annum
(Statistics Indonesia 2009). The figure is possibly containing more natural species composition, age struc-
ture, spawning potential and genetic variability;
even larger when supporting industries such as
transport are considered. With approximately 90% Contribute to increased knowledge of marine science through:
of working people in the park relying on fishing as information on functional linkages,

their primary income (PHKA & TNC 2000), marine implementation of the precautionary principle,
ecosystem goods and services are critical to the provision of control sites for research and ecological
social and economic welfare of local communities benchmarks against which to measure human-induced
(Moberg & Folke 1999). Park management and change;
governance seeks to sustain and enhance KNPs potential as nodes in monitoring networks;
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the benefits more natural systems where natural mortality can be
they provide compared with fishing mortality;
A refuge for intensely exploited species;
1.1.3 Governance
Protection of genetic diversity of heavily exploited popula-
KNP lies within the 45 million ha Lesser Sunda tions;
marine eco-region of the Coral Triangle, and is
Protection of cultural diversity, e.g. sacred places, wrecks and
part of an interconnected network of three Marine lighthouses.
Protected Areas (MPA) covering a combined area of
approximately 3.5 million ha (Komodo National Park, objectives result from designation as a Man and
Nusa Penida MPA, Savu Sea MPA). These marine areas Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site in 1986,
make a significant contribution to national targets, contributing to commitments under the CBD and
committed to under the Convention on Biological fulfilling recommendations of the Jakarta Mandate
Diversity (CBD), to protect 10% of Indonesias on Marine and Coastal Diversity.
marine and coastal environments by 2012, and 20%
by 2020. 1.1.4 Marine Threats and
Impacts
KNP has been established and is managed within a KNPs high biodiversity and associated ecosystem
framework of international law and multi-national services are maintained by the high variety of
treaties (Box 1), national policy and legislation habitat types and conditions in KNP (Beger & Turak
(UNEP-WCMC 2005). Designation as a national park 2005), including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass
occurred in 1984 under PHKA Decree 46/kpts/VI-Sek/ meadows, seamounts and bays. Ecosystem services
1984, with a zoning system and associated resource often rely on ecological pathways connecting
use regulations authorised in 2001 under PHKA different habitats (Box 3). Processes and disturbances
Decree 65/kpts/DJ-V/ 2001. Specific management upstream may affect the quantity and quality of
KomodoNationalPark
KNPs ecosystem services provided downstream destructive fishing (especially blast and cyanide
(Box 4), with resulting impact on local economies, fishing), overfishing, Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, mass
livelihoods and food security. bleaching events and anchor damage (Mous et al
2007; PHKA & TNC 2000).
KNPs marine ecosystems have always been subject
to natural disturbances (Box 5) that may periodically
affect or devastate habitats with resulting ecosystem-
wide repercussions. Healthy habitats are resilient to 1 . 2 S u r v e i l l a n c e and
these impacts and will recover with time (Hughes & Enforcement in KNP
Connell 1999).
1.2.1 Objectives
KNPs human populations, which depend principally Surveillance and Enforcement operations in KNP
on fishing for their livelihoods, have increased by aim to reduce anthropogenic threats to KNPs
1000% since 1930, bringing a resulting increase in ecosystems and services by monitoring compliance
anthropogenic disturbances (PHKA & TNC 2000). with and enforcing management regulations.
Global issues such as climate change and ocean Compliance with rules is a critical determinant of
protected area effectiveness.
Box 2: International law and treaties applicable to KNP Specific objectives for protection in KNP include:
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 1986 designates KNP as
a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve with three functions: conser-
An operational zonation system in place, protecting
vation; sustainable economic development; and provision of sites all areas with high biological value.
and facilities to support research, education and training.
World Heritage Convention 1986 designates KNP as a World
An effective surveillance system implemented by
Heritage Site under criteria:
(vii) contains superlative natural phenomena and areas of aes-
motivated Park staff, to enforce regulations.
thetic importance due to outstanding universal value;
(x) contains important habitats for conservation, including Park regulations are clear, enforceable, and ensure
those of threatened species.
the protection of the natural resources.
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 KNP contributes to
commitments made by Indonesia, as a Party to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) to: The Parks fauna and flora are protected and
develop a national biodiversity strategy; conserved in their natural habitats.
to establish systems of protected areas to conserve biodiver-
sity; and Limited harvesting activities do not threaten the
to promote environmentally sound and sustainable develop- populations of any species in the Park.
ment in areas adjacent to protected areas.
Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Diversity 1995 - em- Box 4: Ecosystem Services
phasised the importance of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in
national biodiversity strategies. Coral reefs and associated habitats provide a suite of ecosystem
services falling within four broad categories:
Provisioning services e.g. fisheries, mariculture;
acidification add to these threats. The impact of
Regulating services e.g. protection of beaches and coastlines
multiple stressors, both natural and anthropogenic, from erosion or damage by storm surges, waves and tsuna-
have a multiplicative effect on ecosystems (Bryant mis;
et al 1998), with human-damaged reefs more Cultural services e.g. tourism, recreation and traditional
vulnerable to natural disturbances and taking practices;
longer to recover (Brown 1997). Supporting services e.g. nursery habitats, nutrient and car-
bon cycling.
Primary threats to the ecosystem goods and services (UNEP-WCMC 2006) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
derived from KNPs marine ecosystems include
20
Box 3: Connectivity between coral reef, mangrove and sea grass habitats (CRMP 2004).
Effective surveillance and enforcement is a strategy Plan guides management activities, including
for achieving biodiversity and sustainable use surveillance and enforcement (PHKA & TNC 2000).
objectives and performance indicators in KNP,
including reduction in destructive fishing and
recovery of fish stocks (IFC 2004; PHKA & TNC
2000).
Sovereign authority for surveillance and enforcement
in KNP lies with BTNK, within a national framework
governed by PHKA. KNPs 25-Year Management
Box 5: Disturbance to Coral Reefs Polunin 1996; Pennisi; Pinnegar et al 2002; Roberts 1995).
Natural disturbances to coral reefs include: Destructive fishing practices, including bomb and cyanide fish-
ing, muroami and trawling, are non-selective, remove large
disease, numbers of undersized target species and non-target species
and cause habitat damage. Cyanide fishing to support the live
temperature extremes,
food fish trade has led to widespread reductions in groupers, Na-
pest outbreaks including Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, poleon wrasse and other species (Johannes & Riepen 1995).
cyclones, Climate change will increase background disturbances (through
e.g. elevated sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification and
seismic events including earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes increased storm frequency and intensity) reducing resilience to
Anthropogenic disturbances to coral reefs include: other human disturbances (Bryant et al 1998).
Pollution, including mine runoff and sewage discharge, poi- Coastal development, including reclamation and construction,
sons reef communities, pollutes reef waters and promotes algal alters coastal dynamics, removes important nursery grounds, and
growth (Bjork et al 1994; Brown 1997; Richmond 1994); increases terrestrial run-off and pollution (Wilkinson 2004).
Overfishing results in shifts in fish size, abundance and species Unregulated tourism can impact on coral reefs through tram-
composition of reef communities. The removal of key herbivore pling by swimmers and divers, anchor damage, and sewage dis-
and predator species may cause cascading effects in the trophic charge from hotels (Global Environment Facility 1996).
web, bringing large scale changes to ecosystems and the servic-
es they provide (Bohnsack 1993; Dulvy et al 2004; Jennings &
KomodoNationalPark
1.2.2 Zoning scheme and Regulations on zoning, fishing, marine and

management plan terrestrial legislation are known, understood and
KNPs 25-year management plan outlines
are being respected;
management objectives, policies and restrictions in
the park, including policies governing fishing gear
restrictions, user fees, access rights and resource User fees (where appropriate) are being
use regulations. appropriately collected and tickets issued;
The 25-year management plan outlines a proposed Mooring buoys are being used;
zoning scheme. Authority was granted to BTNK to
implement a zoning scheme in KNP PHKA Decree
Tourism operators are appropriately licensed and
No. 65/kpt/DJ-V/2001 (Keputusan Dirjen PHKA
2001) and included the proposed zoning scheme as tourists are using beaches, dive sites and other
an appendix. The proposed zoning scheme defines popular areas according to regulations;
seven use zones within KNP, and their corresponding
resource regulations (Figure 2). Other activities in or adjacent to KNP, that might
1.2.3 Enforcement operations have an adverse impact on it, are monitored;
BTNK plans and manages surveillance and
enforcement operations in KNP. Operational support Visitors and users are made aware of the importance,
is provided by TNC via PNK, and has included purpose and value of KNP and the resources it is
operational management of floating ranger stations, established to protect.
operational management of radio communication
facilities, operational support of terrestrial ranger
The report assesses management and conservation
stations, and training and technical support. outcomes in KNP related to surveillance and
Police, navy and army collaborate with BTNK on enforcement operations supported by TNC and PNK.
enforcement programs as required. The report references objectives and performance
indicators specified in IFC 2004; PHKA & TNC 2000.
The primary instrument of enforcement in KNP is
The report is intended to inform stakeholder
patrolling and surveillance. This involves physical
discussions and KNPs adaptive management
observation of the park to see who is using it and
process.
how, and in particular to check that:
Figure 2: Zoning scheme and resource use regulations in KNP based on PHKA No. 65/kpts/DJ-V/2001.
22
2
Methodology
KomodoNationalPark
2.1 Patrol Logistics a n d available for patrol and quick response as required,
Support as well as to support other park management
activities. Prior to the acquisition of FRS Kerapu
Between 2000 and 2009, four FRSs patrolled KNP at in 2000, park surveillance and enforcement was
various times (Table 1), managed and operated by conducted entirely from speedboat. Currently
TNC and subsequently PNK. A speedboat supports speedboat platforms are rarely used for patrolling.
each FRS, providing quick response capability.
Surveillance teams work ten-day patrols within KNP, Surveillance and enforcement operations are lead
with each FRS manned by a crew of six accompanied by BTNK, who coordinate with police, navy and army.
by two BTNK rangers and two Police officers. PNK provides resources for regular coordination
meetings between BTNK, PNK, the local police and
Table 1: Inventory of Floating Ranger Stations of KNP, including
commission and decommission dates. other relevant enforcement agencies.
Vessel name Commission Date Decommission Date PNK provides surveillance equipment (radio
FRS Kerapu 2000 2002 equipment, GPS, portable generators) in each
FRS Salmon 2003 2008 FRS and resources for biannual stock-taking and
FRS Lajang 2003 - maintenance. A joint-radio communication system
FRS Kingfisher 2007 - is coordinated and regularly maintained by PNK
and BTNK at the Park headquarters. Each station is
FRSs operate a rotational schedule. Optimal strategies equipped by a short band radio and a Motorola radio
define two FRSs patrolling KNP simultaneously to operated 24 hours a day. The radio communication
provide maximal coverage. From 2008, only two FRS is used mostly for reporting the surveillance status,
have been operational in KNP, working alternating but also to report and record the tourism activities,
10-day patrols. including the passing by of visitor boats.
Three PNK speedboats and two BTNK speedboats are
Figure 3: Management sections of KNP.
24
2.2 Patrol Strategies

Two FRSs operate alternating 10-day patrols in
KNP. Park users encountered during patrols are
approached and interviewed. Enforcement teams
record all interactions with park users. Details
of each interaction are recorded on proforma
(Appendix A), including information about location,
management zone, park section (Figure 3), type of
activity, and details of any violation of laws and park
regulations.
Violations of laws or regulations may result in issue of
verbal or written warnings, confiscation of restricted
equipment, or arrest depending on severity of the
violation.
Enforcement records are transferred to a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet after each patrol. A duplicate
copy of this database is maintained by both BTNK
and PNK.
2.3 Data analysis

This analysis of long-term surveillance and
enforcement trends in KNP required initial
identification of data records. Data were held in
several asynchronous database versions stored in
various locations.
Data from multiple sources were first compiled
into a single database. All data were cleaned and
formatted to ensure compatibility without loss of
information. Many records did not specify the park
zone within which interviews occurred. GIS was used
to populate this missing data based on recorded
GPS coordinates.
Where appropriate data was normalised to account
for variable patrol intensities between years.
A standard measure of the average number of
surveillance interactions per active patrol day was
used.
Patrol lengths were evaluated using GIS for a random
sample of 20% of all patrols for each year.
KomodoNationalPark
26
3
Results &
Discussion
KomodoNationalPark
3.1 Data Management 2005 to 2009, summary patrol data for 2003, and
records of enforcement cases and prosecutions
Records and documentation on inter-organisational 1985 until 2009.
coordination is essential to assist monitoring and
evaluation of the adaptive management process.
Surveillance and enforcement in KNP is an inter-
organisational operation, involving BTNK, PNK, 3.2 S u r v e i l l a n c e
Police, and other enforcement agencies. Close and Enforcement
coordination is required for effective planning Operations
and implementation of surveillance. PNK provides
resources to support regular coordination meetings Compliance-building objectives in KNP may be
between organisations. During the preparation inhibited by a reduction in patrol activity and the
of this report we were unable to locate any absence of alternative strategies. FRS patrol activity
documented records of coordination meetings varied widely between 2003 and 2009 (Figure 4).
to review the surveillance planning and adaptive Highest patrol activity was recorded in 2003 (249
feedback process. patrol days). Patrol activity was lowest in 2005 (59
patrol days), with no FRS patrol records for 2004. The
Surveillance and enforcement data is not readily number of active FRS patrol days per year declined
available for assessment and review by park between 2007 and 2009 (218 194 patrol days).
managers. Records were distributed across several
database versions held in various locations. One FRS could sustain current levels of patrolling,
We carried out complex and time-consuming minimising operational and maintenance costs.
consolidation, cleaning and formatting of data For all years, there were periods >110 days per
before any interpretation could be attempted. year during which no FRS patrol activity occurred.
Improved data management procedures would Capability exists for 730 active patrol days per year
assist rapid reference and analysis by park managers under the current situation of two FRS in KNP. In
and enforcement agencies. These records provide 2009, only 194 active patrol days were recorded.
critical insights that can help to target surveillance Under current strategies, surveillance and
and enforcement operations more efficiently and enforcement costs are high, with potential for
effectively. improving efficiency. The average number of
We identified detailed patrol records for the period surveillance interactions with park users ranged
Figure 4: Annual variation in the total number of days of active

Figure 5: Selection of FRS patrol tracks for the period 2005 to
FRS patrols between 2003 and 2009.
2009.
28
Figure 6: Average length (nm) and standard error of FRS patrols Figure 7 Annual variation in the average number of interceptions
between 2005 and 2009. per day by FRS patrols between 2003 and 2009.
from 5.11 (2003) to 7.21 (2007) per active patrol KNP, with potential for increasing effort within
day (Figure 7). Total FRS operational budgets in several important fishing and tourism areas. From
2009 were US$ 143,000, equating to a total cost 2005, patrols recorded the location of surveillance
per surveillance interaction of US$ 130. Of these interactions. For all years, the greatest number
interactions, 17 resulted in successful identification of interactions was in sections 1 and 2 (north and
and arrest for violations, at a cost of US$ 8,411 per northeast Komodo, including Gili Lawa) (Figure B1).
arrest. This figure does not consider additional costs A high number of interactions were also recorded
of legal and prosecution fees. in sections 14 and 14 (Padar) and sections 9 and 10
(Loh Kima to Papagarang). Interactions were low in
FRS patrol efficiency declined between 2007 and sections 5 and 6 (south and southwest Komodo), and
2009, impacting on compliance-building and visitor very low in sections 15 and 16 (Gili Motang). These
experience objectives. The number of surveillance trends are likely to be indicative of variable patrol
interactions per day declined from 2007 to 2009 intensity between sections, rather than variable
(7.21 5.65), despite a corresponding increase in distribution of resource users or rule breakers. High
the average number of fishing boats operating in fishing activity has been recorded for all sections
the park from 63.25 to 78.44 per day, and increase in of KNP, particularly within wilderness zones and
tourism boats from 11.59 to 23.35 per day (Harvey designated No-Take Zones, and high tourism activity
& Yusamandra 2010). has been recorded in seven hot spots (Harvey &
Yusamandra 2010).
FRS patrol efficiency was equal across all days of the
week, with no significant variation in the average
number of interviews conducted (Figure 8).
Potential exists for extending the coverage, range
and impact of FRS patrols by around 300%. Between
2005 and 2009 FRS patrols covered most areas of
KNP, with a focus on the Papagarang to Loh Kima
region and north Komodo (Figure 5). Patrol length
was variable, and averaged approximately 145
nm across all years (Figure 7). Fully loaded with
fuel, each FRS has a maximum potential range of
approximately 500 nm per patrol.
FRS patrol effort was focussed on north and central Figure 8 Average number of interceptions per day of the week
between 2003 and 2009.
KomodoNationalPark
Current FRS detection rates may be insufficient Community policing: Similarly, local fishing
to achieve park-wide compliance with resource communities constitute a large network of
regulations. Approximately 80 fishing boats and 25
potential monitors that are already active in the
tourist boat operate in KNP every day. RUM suggests
that >50% of fishing boats do not currently comply park. With around 80 fishing boats operating
with published KNP management regulations (e.g. in the park every day, potential exists for high
use of illegal fishing gears, fishing within no-take rates of detection of illegal activities. Through
zones) (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). During 2009
engaging with these communities, and the further
FRS patrols interacted with only 5.65 boats per
day, with only 10 recorded cases of illegal marine development of management initiatives that
resource activity for the entire year. Detection foster participative approaches and stakeholder
rates of this level are likely to be insufficient to stewardship, local communities could compliment
deter non-compliance (Walker 2009). Incentives
existing surveillance and monitoring programs. This
to break the rules will remain high if the perceived
probability or severity of punishment is low (Cook approach is best suited to monitoring of illegal
1977). Perceptions of detection rates are a greater activities that are already negatively perceived
deterrent than punishment severity (Avio & Clark by most community sectors, e.g. bomb fishing.
1978; Ehrlich 1973), and should be a focus of
Potential mechanisms include the development
management strategies.
of community police forces that would report to
Detection rates could be improved by increasing and work collaboratively with BTNK rangers and
guard density. Under current operational
arrangements, two FRSs operate alternating 10- enforcement officers.
day patrols. The density of guards in KNPs marine
habitats at any one time is one per 1,200 km2. Terrestrial ranger post coastal patrols: The existing
Guard density is the strongest predictor of park network of terrestrial ranger posts in KNP provides
effectiveness at protecting biodiversity, with the only limited coverage of marine areas. KNPs
most effective parks having at least 3 guards per
coastal waters are a buffer between open-access
100 km2 (Bruner et al 2001). A greater density of
marine patrols and higher detection rates in KNP pelagic zones and restricted core zones, through
could assist park managers to secure increased which rule-breakers must pass. Monitoring and
compliance with management regulations via top- surveillance of coastal waters is easier than on
down approaches.
the surrounding land, with less opportunity for
Several opportunities exist to increase marine guard concealment. Localised patrolling of coastal
density in KNP with minimal investment: waters could be achieved using speedboats or
Tourism industry policing: Currently, dive operators dinghies stationed at each terrestrial ranger post.
and tourism boats regularly report violations This approach would significantly increase daily
and resource disputes by radio. Integrated coverage of KNPs wilderness zones, while reducing
communication and patrol management systems costs compared to current systems. Initial costs
would enable patrol teams to respond to reported would be offset against savings from reduced FRS
incidents as required, targeting effort and resources operations that patrol or stand guard on critical
towards outcomes. At present, the network of areas beyond the reach of coastal patrol.
marine tourism operators in KNP is an underutilised

surveillance opportunity.
30
Figure 9 Average number of interactions with tourism vessels per Figure 10 Total number of tourism cases between 2008 and 2009.
day between 2005 and 2009.
There is potential for FRS patrols to make an increased
3.3 Enforcement o f contribution to the visitor experience in KNP. Patrol
Tourism Regulations teams perform a dual role within KNP, as both
Interactions between FRS patrols and tourism boats enforcers of park regulations and as ambassadors
were low, impacting on enforcement of ticketing providing assistance to visiting tourists. In the
regulations, compliance with codes of conduct, and latter role, rangers are a source of information on
the visitor experience. Interactions with tourism park regulations, environmental conditions, safety
boats were moderate between 2005 and 2009 issues, attractions and services, and other visitor
information. Surveillance and enforcement records
(Figure 9). In 2009, FRS patrols interacted with 8.35%
of the total tourist boats operating in KNP each day contain little to no details of minor tourism violations,
(av. 1.95 interceptions per day, av. 23.35 operating verbal warnings issued, or information provided to
(Harvey & Yusamandra 2010)). tourism operators. Development of surveillance
and enforcement SOPs to capture this information
Violations of park regulations by tourists were low. would assist park managers to identify key issues,
Records of tourism-related violations or issues human resource requirements, training needs,
exist for 2008 and 2009 only (Figure 10). Only six and appropriate strategies to improve the visitor
tourism cases were recorded for 2008, and two experience in KNP. Collaboration with other related
during 2009. Ticket violations are the main breach agencies in Indonesia, e.g. Bali tourism police, could
of park regulations, followed by unlicensed tourism provide opportunities to minimise costs by sharing
operators. One emergency case was recorded in lessons learnt, SOPs, and training opportunities.
2008, related to search and recovery of missing
divers.
Current costs for enforcing ticketing regulations are
disproportionately higher than the cost of ticketing
violations. Ticket violations in KNP represent a
loss of US$ 15 from park revenues. In contrast,
monitoring for ticketing violations costs US$ 130 per
interaction, with each successful case costing US$
8,441. Tourism activity is concentrated in seven hot
spots within KNP (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). The
costs of monitoring for ticketing violations could be
reduced through the establishment of permanent
or semi-permanent ranger posts at these locations.
KomodoNationalPark
3.4 Enforcement of Fishery 3.4.2 Exclusive Use Rights

Regulations Proposals for establishing exclusive use rights in
KNP distinguish between permitted and restricted
3.4.1 Gear Restrictions villages of origin (Halim et al 2003). A licensing
Fishing techniques and behaviours encountered system was trialled in 2004, as an initial step towards
by FRS patrols remained consistent. From 2007, establishing exclusive use rights.
surveillance and enforcement records include
details about the types of fishing gears encountered. From 2005, surveillance and enforcement records
Between 2007 and 2009, the proportion of different detail the community of origin of fishermen
gear types encountered by patrols remained stable encountered by FRS patrols. Between 2005 and
(Figure 11). 2009, the proportions of fishermen from different
origins encountered by patrols remained stable
The proportion of fishing boats encountered by FRS (Figure 14).
patrols using destructive fishing gears prohibited
under district laws (PERDA 28) declined between In 2009, the greatest proportion of fishermen
2006 and 2009 (34.93 27.39 %) (Figure 12). The originated from Palau Mesa (21.62%), followed by
use of destructive fishing gears within KNP declined Labuan Bajo (15.13%), Komodo village (12.03%), and
over the same period (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). Sape (11.09%). Patrol encounter rates approximate
fishing fleet demographics for the entire park
The proportion of fishing boats encountered by FRS (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010), suggesting that
patrols using restricted gears (PHKA & TNC 2000) current patrol strategies adequately encompass a
declined between 2006 and 2009 (40.82 26.32 %) random sample of all KNP resource users.
(Figure 13). FRS patrols appear to have effectively
reduced restricted gears use within patrol areas. The proportion of fishing boats originating from
However park-wide RUM suggests that restricted restricted communities decreased between 2005
gears accounted for 56.45% of total fishing effort and 2009 (38.57 34.75 %) (Figure 15). This reflects
in 2009 (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). FRS patrol a reduction in external fishermen across the entire
routes may not fully encompass key regions of park (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010), however
KNP where restricted gears are commonly used. migration into KNP may have offset any benefits of
Analysis of restricted gear spatial patterns derived reduced resource exploitation.
from RUM could assist park managers to target FRS 3 . 4 . 3
patrols to critical areas, and improve detection and
interception of restricted gears.
Figure 11 Annual variation in the types of fishing gears used Figure 12 Annual variation in the number of fishing boats en-
in KNP, shown as average number of boats encountered by FRS countered by FRS patrols per day using fishing gears restricted
patrols per day. under PERDA 28.
32
Figure 13: Annual variation in the number of fishing boats

encountered by FRS patrols per day using fishing gears restricted
under (PHKA & TNC 2000).
3.4.4 Zone Restrictions

From 2007 surveillance and enforcement records
detail the management zone within which Figure 14: Annual variations in the average number of fishing
interactions occurred.The distribution of interactions boats per day originating from different communities intercepted
across management zones remained stable from by FRS patrols
2007 to 2009 (Figure 16).
designated no take zones (Harvey & Yusamandra
The greatest proportion of interactions between 2010), providing a detection rate of 23.49%. Increased
patrols and resource users occurred within guard density, and review and extension of current
Wilderness Zones, ranging from 33.34% (2009) to patrol routes, would enable park managers to rapidly
39.47 % (2007) of all interactions. elevate detection and interception rates above the
33% threshold required for effective deterrence of
Detection of zoning violations by FRS patrols was rule-breaking behaviour (Walker 2009).
reasonably high. In 2009, FRS patrols intercepted
an average of 8.49 fishing boats per day actively Despite reasonable detection rates of zoning
fishing within no-take zones (Wilderness, Tourism violations, no recorded cases of enforcement or
and Research zones). Park-wide RUM indicates that prosecution of zoning violations occurred between
an average 36.14 boats per day actively fish within 1984 and 2009. The legal status of KNPs zonation
Figure 15 Annual variation in the average number of fishing boats

encountered by FRS patrols per day classified as permitted or Figure 16 Annual variations in the average number of fishing
restricted communities according to exclusive use rights propos- boats encountered by FRS patrols per day operating in different
als (Halim et al 2003; PHKA & TNC 2000). zones within KNP.
KomodoNationalPark
system is unclear. PHKA Decree No. 65/kpt/DJ- poachers and rule-breakers becomes increasingly
V/2001 grants authority to BTNK to implement a difficult amongst the concealing terrain and
zoning system, but zone boundaries, regulations vegetation. Focussed surveillance and enforcement
and sanctions do not appear to be defined in any of coastal buffer zones would assist park managers
subsequent legislation. to pre-empt and prevent violations of terrestrial
regulations.
Given this situation, park managers could strengthen
compliance with zoning systems in KNP by optimally Increased guard density in both marine and
investing limited funds towards: terrestrial environments could assist park managers
to increase detection and interception of rule-
Review and clarification of management plans and breakers. Tourism policing, community policing and
zoning regulations; coastal patrols from terrestrial ranger stations are
potential low-cost scenarios for increasing guard
Review, gap analysis and strengthening of related density in coastal areas. Close communication
and coordination with existing FRS patrol teams is
legal frameworks and processes (especially
essential for success, allowing enforcement officers
district legislation), including training for legal to respond to reports and enabling patrol efforts
practitioners; and resources to be targeted efficiently.
Enforcement records contain no recorded cases of
Review and development of surveillance and
zoning violations, despite an average 36.14 boats
enforcement SOPs to provide clear guidance for per day actively fishing within no take zones during
identifying and responding to zoning violations. 2009 (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010), and 8.49 boats
intercepted by FRS patrols. A review of management
3.4.5 Cases plans, including associated policy and legislation,
From 1985, records exist detailing enforcement cases would assist park managers to identify gaps and
and prosecutions in KNP. The number of recorded target limited funds most efficiently.
cases rose from one in 1985 to 17 in 2009. Increases
in enforcement cases coincide with investments in
surveillance and enforcement in KNP (Figure 17).
Since 1996, the majority of recorded cases were
related to violations in the marine environment.
Cases of illegal gear use dominated records from
2007 to 2009, and may reflect strong governance of
destructive gear types under PERDA 28 district laws
(Bupati Manggarai Barat 2005).
Despite this growth, the overall number of
enforcement cases remained low, with only six
recorded cases of illegal gear use during 2009.
Throughout KNP, an average of 5.55 boats per day
used destructive gears and 42.59 boats per day
used restricted gears (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010).
During 2009, only 0.04% of restricted gear use in
KNP was successfully detected and prosecuted.
Enforcement cases related to terrestrial violations
remained low (2009: 1 bird nest poaching, 1 Figure 17 Annual trends in the number and type of enforcement
cases in KNP.
protected species). Once ashore, detection of
34
4
Conclusions
KomodoNationalPark
Investments and support to surveillance and teams are ambassadors within KNP, well positioned
enforcement operations in KNP have increased to provide guidance, information and advice
capacity to monitor and enforce resource regulations. to tourists, providing a high quality service and
All major enforcement infrastructure investments enhancing the visitor experience. Development of
(e.g. speedboat patrols, FRS patrols) coincided with SOPs and review of current tourism interactions
an increase in enforcement cases, with illegal and would assist park managers to strengthen this
destructive fishing gears comprising the majority of role. Collaboration with national agencies (e.g.
cases. Bali tourism police) could minimise costs through
sharing of lessons learnt, procedures and training
Between 1996 and 2009 the use of destructive fishing opportunities.
gears prohibited under district laws (PERDA 28) (e.g.
bomb and cyanide fishing) declined throughout Achieving compliance with natural resource
KNP, although meting/ reef gleaning remains a regulations is a multifaceted process involving:
significant activity (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010).
Detection by FRS patrols of restricted fishing gears Education;
declined between 2005 and 2009, however restricted
gears continue to constitute a significant proportion Building community support for conservation;
of total fishing effort across the entire area of KNP.
FRS patrols appear to achieve localised deterrence Developing appropriate management plans and
of restricted gears within regular patrol areas. supporting legislation;
Furthermore, there is scope to clarify definitions of
restricted and permitted gear types, with differing Informing the public about the penalties for non-
perceptions between individual enforcement
officers, fishermen and other stakeholders. compliance;
Detection of zoning violations is high, with 23.49% Monitoring for non-compliance; and
of all fishing boats active in no take zones detected
by FRS patrols. However there are no enforcement Developing the legal frameworks to enforce
cases related to zoning violations on record. Zoning
legislation, and to impose sanctions and
schemes are the primary instrument behind marine
conservation, fish bank and resource conflict prosecutions.
objectives in KNP. The legal status of KNPs zoning
Current surveillance and enforcement expenditure
system is unclear. A review of management objectives
in KNP is focussed towards monitoring for non-
and analysis of gaps and needs, particularly with
compliance. At over US$ 140,000 per year,
regard to supporting legislation and SOPs, would
investment in FRS patrols is high. This investment
assist park managers to strengthen compliance with
equates to a cost per resource user interaction of
zoning regulations.
US$ 130, and a cost of detecting violations of US$
The costs of monitoring (US$ 130 per case) and 8,442 per enforcement case. Legal and prosecution
enforcing (US$ 8,441 per case) tourism violations fees are additional.
currently far exceed the benefits (US$ 15 per case).
Despite this high investment:
Tourism activity in KNP is concentrated with seven
hot spots. The cost of monitoring tourist behaviour Patrol activity is variable;
and ticketing regulations could be reduced by
establishing permanent or semi-permanent ranger
Guard density is only 1 per 1,200km2;
posts at these hot spots.
The cost effectiveness of FRS patrols could be There are >110 non-operational days per year;
enhanced through additional roles. Enforcement
36
The remaining 250 operational days could be media coverage of successful prosecutions would
conducted from a single FRS to minimise operational enhance perceived risk of violating rules.
and maintenance costs;
Detection of restricted gear types remains low;
Possible legislative gaps exist, preventing

enforcement of zoning regulations.
Optimal investment to support surveillance and

enforcement in KNP should be targeted towards
strategies that increase guard density, increase the
probability of detection, and increase the likelihood
that violators receive a significant sanction if
apprehended.
A review of surveillance and enforcement operations
may consider the following key requirements:
The need for additional surveillance mechanisms to

complement existing single guard FRS platforms
and increase guard density: Tourism patrolling,
community patrolling, and coastal patrols from
terrestrial rangers stations provide potential low
cost scenarios.
The need for increased detection rates: In addition

to increased guard density explained above,
detection rates could be enhanced through review
and clarification of resource use regulations,
clarification of SOPs and clear guidance for
enforcement officers, and strategic targeting of
surveillance efforts at key locations based on up-
to-date assessments of resource use patterns and
issues.
The need for gap analysis and strengthening of legal

frameworks: The legal status of KNPs zoning system
should be clarified, including clear legal definition
of zone boundaries, regulations and sanctions.
Training for legal practitioners, financial support of
the prosecution process, and communication and
KomodoNationalPark
38
5
Recommendations
KomodoNationalPark
A review of FRS operational strategies would assist and fishery activity. Findings would assist park
park managers to minimize operational downtime, managers to target surveillance and enforcement
identify superfluous enforcement assets, and operations more effectively and efficiently.
reduce costs. Since 2003 FRS patrols were active
<250 days per year. This level of patrol activity Park managers could enhance the visitor experience
in KNP by strengthening the ambassadorial role of
could be maintained with one FRS to minimize
FRS patrols. As a first step, improved documentation
operational costs.
of tourism interactions would assist park managers
A review of management plans and gap analysis of to identify key issues and needs. Collaboration with
supporting legislation would assist park managers other national agencies (e.g. Bali tourism police)
to strengthen compliance with zoning regulations. could provide low cost sharing of lessons learnt,
The legal status of KNPs zoning system is unclear, procedures and training opportunities.
with possible impacts on objectives to conserve
biodiversity, maintain sustainable resources, and A review of data management procedures would
improve the value of FRS patrol data to park
minimize user conflicts and disputes.
managers. Data analyzed for this report was
A review of surveillance and enforcement strategies compiled from multiple database files and
would assist park managers to increase detection locations, and required labor intensive cleaning
rates and guard densities in KNP. Possible low-cost and formatting. These steps are often not available
scenarios include tourism patrolling, community to park managers constrained by time and resource
patrolling and coastal patrols from terrestrial rangers limitations. Improvements in data management
stations. These approaches would compliment FRS would help park managers to identify priority areas,
operations while reducing costs and focusing effort cost saving measures, and operational needs.
on critical locations (Appendix D).
Regular refresher training, particularly in GPS use,
A review of surveillance and enforcement budgets data recording and data management, would ensure
would assist park managers and PNK/ TNC to standardized approaches, minimize data gaps and
identify management gaps. Current expenditure errors, and maximize the value of surveillance and
is heavily weighted towards monitoring for non- enforcement records to park managers.
compliance via FRS patrols. This may result in under
spending in critical areas, including strengthening
management plans and regulations, strengthening
legal frameworks, training and capacity building,
constituency building, and outreach and
communication.
A review of spatial patterns of resource use would

assist park managers to identify priority areas,
particularly seven hot spots of high tourism
40
6
Literature Cited
KomodoNationalPark
Avio KL & Clark CS (1978). The supply of property offences in Halim M, Wiadnya G, Mous PJ (2003). Towards implementation
Ontario: evidence on the deterrent effect of pun- of a licensing and zoning plan for extractive uses
ishment, Canadian Journal of Economics 1-19. in Komodo National Park, NTT, Indonesia. Unpub-
Beger M, Turak E (2005). A Rapid Ecological Assessment of lished,
the reef fishes and scleractinian corals of Komodo Harvey AH, Yusamandra H (2010). Resource Use Monitoring in
National Park, Indonesia in 2005. The Nature Komodo National Park, Indonesia 1996-2010. PT
Conservancy, Putri Naga Komodo,
Bjork M, Mohammad SM, Bjorkland M & Semesi A (1994). Hughes TP & Connell JH (1999). Multiple stressors on coral
Coralline Algae, Important Coral Reef Builders reefs: a long-term perspective, Limnology and
Threatened by Pollution, Ambio 24: 502-504. Oceanography 44: 932-940.
Bohnsack, J., 1993, Proceedings of the Colloqium on Global As- IFC (2004). Komodo National Park Collaboratve Management
pects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History, Initiative: Project Document. International Finance
University of Miami, . Corporation,
Brown B (1997). Life and death of Coral Reefs. IN: Birkeland C IUCN, 2009, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
(ed), Disturbances to Reefs in Recent Times, Chap- 2009.1, IUCN, . Retrieved October 18, 2009.
man and Hall, New York, pp. 370-2. IUCN, CORDIO, ICRAN (2008). Managing Marine and Coastal
Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE & da Fonseca GA (2001). Effec- Protected Areas: A Toolkit for South East Asia.
tiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity, IUCN,
Science 291: 125-128. Jennings S & Polunin N (1996). Impacts of fishing on tropical
Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M (1998). Reefs at Reef Ecosystems, Ambio 25: 44-46.
Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the Johannes RE, Riepen M (1995). Environmental, Economic and
Worlds Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute Social Implications of the Live Fish Trade in Asia
(WRI), International Centre for Living Resources and teh Westren Pacific. Fisheries Development
Management (ICLARM), World Conservation Moni- Associates,
toring Centre (WCMC), United Nations Environ- Kahn B, (2000). Komodo National Park Cetacean surveys, A
ment Programme (UNEP), rapid ecological assessment of Cetacean diversity,
Bupati Manggarai Barat, (2005). PERDA No. 28 tahun 2005: Pe- abundance and distribution. Monitoring report-
makaian alat penangkap ikan dan atau alat bantu April 1999-2000.
penangkap ikan. . Keane A, Jones JPG, Edwards-Jones G & Milner-Gulland EJ
Campbell M, Ardon J, Brooke S, Cornelissen A & Mahung C (2008). The sleeping policeman: understanding
(2010). MPA Enforcement: How Practitioners Are issues of enforcement and compliance in conser-
Developing New Tools, Strategies, and Partner- vation, Animal Conservation 11: 75-82.
ships, MPA news 11: 1-4. Kelleher G, (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas,
Cook PJ, (1977). Punishment and crime: A critique of cur- Phillips, A. ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam-
rent findings concerning the preventive effects bridge, UK.
of punishment, Law and contemporary problems Keputusan Dirjen PHKA, (2001). No. 65/kpts/DJ-V/2001 .
164-204. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and
CRMP (2004). Environment and Coastal Ecosystem Human Well-being: Synthesis, World Resources
Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP & Polunin NV (2004). Coral reef cas- Institute ed. Island Press, Washington, DC..
cades and the indirect effects of predator removal Moberg F & Folke C (1999). Ecological goods and services of
by exploitation, Ecology Letters 7: 410-416. coral reef ecosystems, Ecological Economics 29:
Ehrlich I, (1973). Participation in illegitimate activities: A theo- 215-233.
retical and empirical investigation, Journal of politi- Mous PJ, Katherina, McCorry D, Pet JS (2007). Status of coral
cal Economy 81: 521. reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Results
Erdman AM, (2004). A Natural History Guide to Komodo of a bi-annual survey over the period 1996 2002,
National Park (Books 1 - 3), The Nature Conser- with an update of the status in 2006. The Nature
vancy, Indonesia Coastal and Marine Program, Bali, Conservancy,
Indonesia. Ostrom E, (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of in-
Gezelius SS, (2002). Do norms count? State regulation and stitutions for collective action, Cambridge Univ Pr,.
compliance in a Norwegian fishing community, Ostrom E, Gardner R & Walker J (1994). Rules, games, and
Acta Sociologica 45: 305-314. common-pool resources, Univ of Michigan Pr,.
Gibson CC, Williams JT & Ostrom E (2005). Local enforcement Pedju M, (2004). Report on seagrass monitoring in Komodo
and better forests, World Development 33: 273- National Park, July 2002--July 2003, Report from
284. The Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for
Global Environment Facility (1996). The Hashemite Kingdom of Marine Protected Areas, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia 55:
Jordon: Gulf of Aquba Environmental Action Plan. .
World Bank, Pennisi E, (1997). Brighter prospects for the worlds coral reefs,
42
Science 227: 491-493.

PHKA, TNC (2000). 25-Year Master Plan for Management, Ko-
modo National Park (Book 1-3). Komodo National
Park Authority,
Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC, Francour P, Badalamenti F, Chemello
R, Harmelin-Vivien ML, Hereu B, Milazzo M, Zabala
M, Danna G & others (2002). Trophic cascades in
benthic marine ecosystems: lessons for fisheries
and protected-area management, Environmental
Conservation 27: 179-200.
Richmond R, (1994). Coral Reef Resources: Pollutions Impacts,
Forum for Applied Reserach and Public Policy 9:
55-56.
Roberts C, (1995). Effects of Fishing on the Ecosystem Structure
of Coral Reefs, Conservation Biology 9: 989-992.
Rowcliffe JM, De Merode E & Cowlishaw G (2004). Do wildlife
laws work? Species protection and the applica-
tion of a prey choice model to poaching decisions,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series
B: Biological Sciences 271: 2631.
Salm RV, Clark J & Siirila E (2000). Marine and Coastal Pro-
tected Areas: A guide for planners and managers,
IUCN, Washington DC.
Statistics Indonesia (2009). Badan Pusat Statistik.
TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for
National and International Policy Makers - Sumary:
Responding to the Valu of Nature 2009.
UNEP-WCMC (2005). Komodo National Park, Indonesia. United
Nations Environment Program - World Conserva-
tion Monitoring Centre,
UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and
other ecosystem services from mangroves and
coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, 33pp.
Walker KL, (2009). Protected-area monitoring dilemmas: a new
tool to assess success, Conservation biology : the
journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 23:
1294-1303.
Walsh PD, Abernethy KA, Bermejo M, Beyers R, De Wachter
P, Akou ME, Huijbregts B, Mambounga DI, Toham
AK, Kilbourn AM & others (2003). Catastrophic ape
decline in western equatorial Africa, Nature 422:
611-614.
Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004, Status of the Coral Reefs of the
World: 2004, Australian Institute of Marine Sci-
ence, Townsville.
KomodoNationalPark
44
A
Proforma
KomodoNationalPark
Lampiran 1. Form Izin Aktivitas di Kawasan Taman Nasional Komodo dari Pos Darat
11922' BT 119 27'29 11933' 119 38'29 11944' 119 49'30
PETA PENUNJUKAN ZONASI
LAUT FLORES TAMAN NASIONAL KOMODO

KABUPATEN MANGGARAI
PROPINSI NUSA TENGGARA TIMUR
LUAS 173.300 Ha.

Gili Lawa Laut SKALA 1 : 100.000
827' LS
827'
Gili Lawa Darat
0 5 10 15
Kilometer
Loh Wenci U
P. Sebayor
;
Mesa P. Ungu
LAMPIRAN SURAT KEPUTUSAN DIREKTUR JENDERAL
Loh Serikaya P. KOMODO PERLINDUNGAN DAN KONSERVASI ALAM
NOMOR : 65/Kpts/DJ-V/2001
Kukusan
8 32'29
8 32'29
TANGGAL : 30 Mei 2001
Loh Sebita ;
P. Magiatan
P. Siaba Besar
; DIREKTUR JENDERAL
Papagaran PERLINDUNGAN DAN KONSERVASI ALAM
Loh Liang
; Wahjudi Wardojo
NIP. 080035208
; Warloka
P. Lassa
P. Punya KETERANGAN
; Pemukiman
Batas Taman Nasional Komodo
Rinca ; Garis Pantai
P. Merah Karang
Zona Inti
Zona Rimba
838'
838'
Zona Bahari
P. PADAR Zona Pemanfaatan Wisata Daratan
Zona Pemanafaatan Wisata Bahari
Loh Kima Zona Pemanfaatan Tradisional Daratan

Kerora ;
Zona Pemanfaatan Tradisional Bahari
ntah
; Golohmori Zona Pemukiman Masyarakat Tradisional
Zona Pemanfaatan Khusus Penelitian dan Pendidikan
at Li
Loh Wia Zona Pemanfaatan Khusus Pelagis
Sel
P. Padar Kecil
Loh Ginggo Sumber
1. Rencana Pengelolaan 25 Tahun TN Komodo, 2000
2. Peta Penutupan Lahan Kawasan Kehutanan, tahun 2000 skala 1:50.000
Loh Baru FLORES Departemen Kehutanan
3. Peta Tata Batas Kawasan Pelestarian Alam Perairan TN Komodo skala 1:100.000,
Departemen Kehutanan, tahun 2000
11900' 11920' 11940' 12000'

8 43'29
8 43'29
P. RINCA Petunjuk Lokasi Peta
820' 820'
Taman Nasional
Komodo
o
Mol
at
Sel
P. Flores
840' 840'
P. Sumbawa
849' LS
849' LS
Batas Taman Nasional
11900' 11920' 11940' 12000'
11922' BT 119 27'29 11933' 119 38'29 11944' 119 49'30" BT
1 Tanggal Ijin Dikeluarkan
2. Nama Pos/Resort
3 Nama Petugas
4 Nama Nelayan/Penduduk
5 Asal Nelayan
6 Tujuan

7 Jenis alat tangkap
8 Petugas Pos/Ressort Nelayan/Penduduk

Stempel pos
Nama dan tandatangan Nama dan tandatangan
Keterangan : Nelayan diijinkan beroperasi di Zona Pemanfaatan Tradisional Bahari dan Zona Pemanfaatan Pelagis
46
Lampiran 2. Form Isian Laporan kegiatan harian Pos/ Resort/ Pos Apung
Tanggal Kegiatan keterangan

1/1/07 berlayar dari Misal :
malam berlabuh di . Diputuskan tidak berlayar karena cuaca buruk
evaluasi patroli
2/1/07

3/1/07

4/1/07

FRS Salmon, 1-10 Januari 2007

Ketua Tim Patroli
Ttd
48
Lampiran 3. Form Isian Kegiatan Patroli FRS KomodoNationalPark
Catatan
1. Setiap kapal nelayan yang ditanya, petugas harus mencatat posisi GPS
2. Jika nelayan berada di zona yang dilarang, petugas harus mengambil surat pernyataan
bahwa dia melanggar aturan, mengambil foto dan nelayan diminta meninggalkan
lokasi,
Lampiran 4. Form Isian Laporan kegiatan Pemberian Ijin Memasuki Kawasan oleh Pos /Resort di
Darat
Tanggal Nama Asal Kegiatan Jenis Daerah Petugas Keterangan

Nelayan Nelayan Nelayan Alat Tujuan
tangkap Nelayan
Keterangan
Setiap nelayan yang datang minta ijin menangkap ikan, petugas harus mencatat
Petugas harus menjeaskan dimana posisi nelayan bisa melakukan aktivitas, dan jika melanggar sampai 3 kali maka nelayan akan ditangkap
dan diproses sesuai hokum yang berlaku
Lampiran 5. Rekapitulasi Data Pelaksanaan Patroli Pengamanan di FRS
No Nama Nelayan Asal Jenis Zona Posisi Tanda keterangan

Nelayan Pelanggaran Nelayan GPS Tangan
Ditangkap
KomodoNationalPark
Lampiran 6. Rekapitulasi Pelanggar Aturan yang Dijumpai Team Patroli Pengamanan Kawasan
No Nama Nelayan Asal Jenis Zona Posisi Petugas Foto

Nelayan Pelanggaran Nelayan GPS FRS Nelayan
Ditangkap
Catatan :
Rekapitlasi ini akan selalu diperbaharui berdasarkan data lapang
Semua FRS akan dibekali dengan daftar terbaru
Semua FRS akan dibekali dengan daftar terbaru
50
Lampiran 7. Form Surat Pernyataan
SURAT PERNYATAAN
Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini :

Nama : .
Asal : .
Telah melakukan (aktivitas yang dilarang /tidak melapor ke pos jaga) di dalam kawasan Taman
Nasional Komodo, yaitu di daerah .......................... dari tanggal ................... s/d ......................
Jika dikemudian hari saya tertangkap kembali maka saya bersedia diproses mengikuti aturan hu-
kum yang berlaku
Lokasi, tanggal dan tahun
Ttd ttd ttd

Nelayan ybs petugas Saksi
1.................... 1...................... 1.........................
2.................... 2...................... 2.........................
3.................... 3....................... 3.........................
Keterangan
1. Posisi Nelayan : GPS dan Zona
2. Alat Tangkap :
3. Jumlah dan jenis Ikan yang diambil :
3. Foto harus diambil
Catatan. Surat pernyataan harus dibuat untuk nelayan/penduduk yang melanggar zonasi dan yang tidak melapor ke pos jaga
KomodoNationalPark
52
B
FRS Patrol Patterns
KomodoNationalPark
Figure B1:Total number of interceptions per park section between 2003 and 2009.
54
C
Management
Effectiveness
KomodoNationalPark
Surveillance and enforcement records can assist park managers to evaluate management effectiveness,
adapt management strategies, document management performance, and report progress to decision-
makers and stakeholders1.
Key findings of this report relevant to management effectiveness evaluations are presented below, in a
scorecard format following Carter2.
1 Pomeroy R, Parks JE & Watson LM (2004). How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine
Protected Area Management Effectiveness, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
2 Carter E (2010). Protocol for Assessing Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness in Indonesia. The Nature Conservancy
56
D
Patrol Scenarios
KomodoNationalPark
Scenario 1: Minimum FRS Presence
Objectives
Visible presence of park staff;
Deter illegal activities;
Enforce destructive fishing regulations;
Enforce ticketing regulations;
Strategy
Two FRS operating an alternating 10-day patrol schedule.
On Duty FRS follows predetermined patrol route specified by BTNK. Fuel capacity of 2000 L provides a range
of approximately 500 nm.
Off duty FRS stands by in Laban Bajo.
This strategy has been applied throughout 2009.
Cost
Approximate annual costs based on 2009 prices and expenditure.
2. OPERATING EXPENSES
2.1. FUEL 55,483
2.2. MAINTENANCE
DOCKING 8,852
SPAREPARTS, TOOLS, ETC 6,000
2.3. PERMITS & INSURANCE 8,860
2.4. FOOD SUPPLIES 12,600
2.5. SALARY
PNK CREW 23,804
PARTNER FEES 9,000
2.6. OFF DUTY 18,392
TOTAL US$ 142,991
58
Scenario 2: Maximum FRS Presence, FRS patrols
Objectives
Increase interception and detection rates;
Monitor park usage patterns.
Strategy
Two FRSs patrol simultaneously on a staggered 10-day patrol;
FRS follows predetermined patrol route specified by BTNK. Fuel capacity of 2000 L provides a range of
approximately 500 nm;
Off duty costs are eliminated, but fuel costs increase.
Cost
Estimated annual costs based on 2009 prices and expenditure.
2.1. FUEL 110,966
2.2. MAINTENANCE
DOCKING 8,852
SPAREPARTS, TOOLS, ETC 6,000
2.5. SALARY
PNK CREW 23,804
PARTNER FEES 9,000
2.6. OFF DUTY
TOTAL US$ 180,082
KomodoNationalPark
Scenario 3: Maximal FRS Presence, FRS Stands Guard
Objective
Enforce regulations at priority areas and/ or assets;
Monitor park usage patterns.
Strategy
FRS stands guard at designated high priority sites or operational bases.
Patrols conducted by speedboat, with FRS used as a base of operations.
Results in dramatically reduced FRS fuel costs, and a minimal increase in speedboat costs.
Results in greatly increased park coverage.
Costs
Estimated annual costs based on 2009 prices and expenditure.
2.1. FUEL
FRS 22,193
SPEEDBOAT 13,140
2.2. MAINTENANCE
DOCKING (every month) 8,852
SPAREPARTS, TOOLS, ETC (annual budget) 6,000
2.5. SALARY
PNK CREW 23,804
PARTNER FEES 9,000
2.6. OFF DUTY
TOTAL US$ 104,449
60
Scenario 4: Surveillance and Enforcement integrated with Monitoring
Objective
Monitor park usage patterns;
Socialise and raise awareness of park regulations.
Strategy
Surveillance and enforcement officers accompany other park monitoring activities e.g. RUM or SPAG.
Surveillance coverage is increased.
Costs are minimised by delivering multiple management objectives during a single sortie.
Cost
No additional costs (PNK holds an existing budget for RUM and SPAG sorties)
KomodoNationalPark
Scenario 5: Devolved Surveillance
Objectives
Socialise and raise awareness of park regulations;
Foster conservation constituency.
Strategy
A community surveillance patrol is developed, with support from BTNK, PNK and other enforcement
agencies;
Community patrols monitor for clearly defined illegal resource use activities. Monitoring can be conducted
alongside normal day-to-day activities, e.g. fishing.
A communication system is required, that will enable community patrols to notify park staff about
violations. Interception and enforcement responsibilities remain with BTNK.
This scenario is most effective when common access to resources, and a resulting preference for maximising
short-term profits, is reversed via exclusive usage rights or other resource tenure systems.
Costs
Associated costs will comprise a one-time investment, in contrast to other scenarios presented which
generate an annual cost. Costs for Scenario 5 will predominantly relate to communication, training, and
organisational strengthening. As a broad estimate, a total budget of $50,000 would be required. However
actual costs are likely to be significantly lower, and this estimate can be further refined at the project
planning stage.
62
E
Raw Data
KomodoNationalPark
Surveillance and enforcement data collectd between 1985 and 2009 is summarised in the following
tables.
Detailed raw data can be downloaded in the file surveillance_database.xlsx from www.gokomodo.org/
Table A: Enforcment cases and prosecutions 1985 to 2009 Poaching - Swallows

Poaching - Game
Protected Biota
Illegal Logging
Compressor
Illegal Gear
Cyanide
Tourism
Burning
Others
Bomb
Year
1985 1
1988 2 1
1991 2 2
1992 2 1
1993 1
1994 1
1995 1
1996 1
1997 2 3 1
1998 1 3
1999 1
2000 1 1 1 1
2001 1 1 1
2002 1 1 1
2003 2 2 1 2 1
2004
4 1 1
2005 1 3 1
2006 1
2007 2 11 4
2008 1 1 3 5 5
2009 1 1 6 1 3 1 2 2
64
Table B: Surveillnace and enforcement interactions with park users 2007 to 2009.
Zone
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Research
Tourism
Pelagic
Year Month
2007 2 46 2 6 3
3 37 1 18 12 3
4 143 1 13 33
5 130 5 22 25 3
6 76 24 16
7 68 5 14 25 3
8 26 4 2 5 3
9 78 3 4 14
10 77 4 10 28
11 70 6 13 1
12 59 2 7 18 1
2008 1 113 8 20
2 51 6 16 12 1
3 93 4 16 16 1
4 60 5 13 12 6
5 42 5 4 11
6 93 2 12 13 5
7 77 1 13 7
8 39 2 4 11 1
9 45 4 1 11
10 57 2 19
11 91 1 8 23 5
12 56 27 9 1
2009 1 39 6 24 15 2
2 35 3 6 10
3 62 1 13 15
4 69 4 23 21 1
5 65 4 6 23 6
6 72 2 2 22
7 56 8 7 14
8 61 2 16 11 2
9 53 2 2
10 23 4 8 10 1
11 51 12 13
12 37 3 8 15 4
KomodoNationalPark
COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION, SUPPORTIVE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND

FOCUSED ON FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH NATURE-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
FOR KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, WORLD HERITAGE SITE
PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

An enterprise partnership between The Nature Conservancy, the Global Environment Facility, and the International Finance Corporation
that supports the Komodo National Park Authority under the Directorate General for Forest Protection & Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry
66 K O M O D O C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N A G E M E N T I N I T I AT I V E

Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park - Long-Term Trends 1985 - 2009

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park - Long-Term Trends 1985 - 2009

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park: Long-term Trends 1985 - 2009

PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

Surveillance and Enforcement in Komodo National Park:

Long-term Trends 1985 2009

Komodo National Park Surveillance and Enforcement Series: 1985 - 2009

The Nature Conservancy

PT Putri Naga Komodo

Published by: The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Komodo

Copyright: 2010 The Nature Conservancy/ PT Putri Naga Komodo

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited

Illustrations: Donald Bason

Summary for Decision Makers

Surveillance and enforcement in KNP is the sovereign

Specific investments into surveillance and enforcement

Enforcement records and park-wide RUM data indicate a

The number of restricted fishing gears detected by FRS

FRS patrols successfully detected a high proportion

Interaction between enforcement teams and tourists

The cost of monitoring and enforcing violations by

Current patrol intensities could be maintained with one

Current budgets are heavily weighted towards

BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Authority)

In systems of natural resource management, rules actions and next steps.

Building community support for conservation;

Developing appropriate management plans and

Informing the public about the penalties for non-

Monitoring for non-compliance; and

Developing the legal frameworks to enforce

BTNK holds sovereign authority for enforcement

1.1 Komodo National Park 1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and

Growth of tourism and resulting revenue through Box 1 - MPA benefits

of working people in the park relying on fishing as information on functional linkages,

1.2.2 Zoning scheme and Regulations on zoning, fishing, marine and

Three PNK speedboats and two BTNK speedboats are

Figure 3: Management sections of KNP.

2.2 Patrol Strategies

2.3 Data analysis

Figure 4: Annual variation in the total number of days of active

3.4 Enforcement of Fishery 3.4.2 Exclusive Use Rights

Figure 13: Annual variation in the number of fishing boats

3.4.4 Zone Restrictions

Figure 15 Annual variation in the average number of fishing boats

Detection of restricted gear types remains low;

Possible legislative gaps exist, preventing

Optimal investment to support surveillance and

The need for additional surveillance mechanisms to

The need for increased detection rates: In addition

The need for gap analysis and strengthening of legal

A review of spatial patterns of resource use would

Science 227: 491-493.

PETA PENUNJUKAN ZONASI

LAUT FLORES TAMAN NASIONAL KOMODO

LUAS 173.300 Ha.

Loh Kima Zona Pemanfaatan Tradisional Daratan

11900' 11920' 11940' 12000'

11900' 11920' 11940' 12000'

11922' BT 119 27'29 11933' 119 38'29 11944' 119 49'30" BT

1 Tanggal Ijin Dikeluarkan

7 Jenis alat tangkap

8 Petugas Pos/Ressort Nelayan/Penduduk

Tanggal Kegiatan keterangan

FRS Salmon, 1-10 Januari 2007