Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-Term Trends 1996 - 2009

Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-term Trends 1996 - 2009
Resource Use in
Komodo National Park:
Long-Term Trends
1996 - 2009
PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

KomodoNationalPark
2
Resource Use in Komodo National Park:
Long-term Trends 1996 2009
H a r v e y A & Yu s a m a n d r a H
March 2010
Komodo National Park Resource Use Monitoring Series: 1996 - 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 & Yusamandra H (2010), Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-term trends
1996 - 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
Sumary for Decision Makers
Valuable ecosystem services are sustained within

Komodo National Park (KNP). KNP day fisheries generate
an estimated Rp 20 billion per annum, while tourism
generates an estimated Rp 42 107 billion per annum for
Labuan Bajo alone. These industries are dependent on
healthy ecosystems, and their maintenance is essential
for continued sustainable development of the region.
Resource Use Monitoring (RUM) is a key tool for assessing
management performance and informing adaptive
management in KNP. RUM can assist park managers
to evaluate management effectiveness, document
performance, and report to decision-makers and
stakeholders. This report examines long-term resource
use monitoring data for KNP.
Use of destructive fishing gears has declined within
KNP from 21.32 to 5.55 incidents per day. Surveillance,
enforcement and education strategies have contributed
to this decline. Around 5 boats per day still use
destructive gears within KNP, particularly meting. Review
and adaptation of management strategies would assist
further reduction of destructive fishing gears.
Community development and alternative livelihood

programs have successfully curtailed growth of the
fishing fleet in Komodo Village, in contrast to other
villages in KNP. Extension of these programs to other
communities would help regulate further growth of the
fishing fleets.
Fishing activity in KNP has been maintained at or below

1996 levels, with approximately 70 boats and 170
fishermen active in KNP. The number of fishermen from
outside KNP has decreased from almost 50% in 1996.
KomodoNationalPark
Fishing activity within designated no-take areas is

high, with around 30 zoning violations per day and
2078.8 T of fish extracted from no-take areas per year.
The legal status of KNPs zonation system is unclear,
particularly with regard to supporting district-level
legislation. Implementation of KNPs zonation system
could be strengthened through review of management
objectives, gaps and needs.
Awareness of KNPs resource regulation is low amongst

stakeholders, with less than 50% of fishermen
demonstrating knowledge of the zonation system in
2009. At a meeting in April 2010, community members
stated they had not received any outreach since 2004.
Compliance with KNP resource regulations could be
strengthened though development of outreach and
education programs.
Tourism activity is focused in seven hot spotswithin KNP.
Fishing activity is also high in these locations. Permanent
or semi-permanent ranger stations at these hot-spots
could reduce user conflicts, minimize enforcement costs,
and enhance the visitor experience.
Seven tourism boats originating from outside West

Manggarai use KNP every day. The local economy only
captures a small percentage of revenues from these
vessels. Revenue capture could be improved via e.g.
further development of tourist attractions on mainland
Flores, or development of a tiered tourism licensing
system.
RUM has not yet been fully integrated into adaptive

management in KNP. Capacity building, standardized
sortie schedules, and improved data management
would increase the value of RUM to park managers. RUM
can assist park managers to maximize management
effectiveness within KNP. Priority management and
monitoring issues are examined in detail in this
report.
8
Abbreviations
BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Autority)

FRS Floating Ranger Station
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS Geographic Information System
IFC International Finance Corporation
KNP Komodo National Park
PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (Forest Protection and Nature Conservation)
PNK PT Putri Naga Komodo
RUM Resource Use Monitoring
KomodoNationalPark
10
Forward
Komodo National Park was initially established in 1980 to protect the unique
Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) and its habitat. UNESCO declared the area
a World Heritage Site in 1991. More recently the Park has also been recognized
for its highly diverse and resilient coral reefs. Komodo National Park includes
one of the worlds richest marine environments, encompassing 120,000 ha of
marine waters including highly diverse habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves,
seamounts, and semi-enclosed bays. Scientists and divers rank Komodos coral
reefs among the most diverse and best preserved in Indonesia. The reefs have
proved to be highly resilient to climate change impacts, due to continual mixing of warm surface waters
with cool deep waters, driven by strong currents and upwelling. Komodo is a center of Indonesias marine
biodiversity, and is home to more than 380 coral species, 1000 reef fish species, 14 species of whales, and
manta aggregation sites. As a result, Komodo National Park has become an increasingly popular tourism
destination drawing visitors from around the world.
While many other marine parks have fallen into decline, Komodo National Park has seen a significant
decrease in destructive fishing practices and maintenance of coral reef conditions as well as major fish
assemblages in the past 10 years. The Nature Conservancy helped mobilize technical assistance and
resources to assist and support the Park with the implementation of long term conservation strategies on
the ground from 1995-onwards. For more than a decade, the Directorate General for Forest Protection and
Nature Conservation and The Nature Conservancy have worked together to address threats such as illegal
fishing and over-fishing in the Park. This work is continued by PT Putri Naga Komodo, a unique enterprise
that supports the long-term management of the Park on the basis of three integrated strategies:
Protecting the Parks natural resources,
Supporting the sustainable development of local communiqies living in and around the Park, and
Enabling Park management to reach financial self-sufficiency through nature-based tourism

development.
Programs for the long term monitoring of natural resources and resource utilization provide essential
information to support adaptive management in Komodo National Park. This report will reveal patterns
of declines and improvements of fish stocks and coral reefs over the past 15 years and provide specific
recommendations on how to adapt management strategies to achive biodiversity goals.
Rili Djohani
President-Director, PT. Putri Naga Komodo
Director, The Nature Conservancys Coral Triangle Program

KomodoNationalPark
Acknowledgements
This long-term analysis of marine resource use in Komodo National Park is based on data collected by
BTNK, PNK and TNC between 1996 and 2009.
Between 2005 and 2009 fieldwork was supported by grants from the IFC and TNC. Before 2005, TNC and
their donors financed fieldwork.
The authors are grateful for the efforts of all BTNK, PNK and TNC staff that have contributed to collecting
the information presented in this report.
We acknowledge the critical role of past and present directors of Komodo National Park for recognising the
value of RUM data to park management, supporting RUM operations, and their commitment to continue
building on KNPs success as a biodiversity refuge, traditional use area and tourism destination.
12
Executive Summary
Resource Use Monitoring (RUM) was carried out in Komodo National Park between 1996 and 2009.
RUM helps park managers to identify resource use patterns, threats and opportunities, to monitor the
performance of management interventions, to inform adaptive management, and maximise management
effectiveness.
RUM data shows that use of destructive fishing gears has declined within KNP, that growth of fishing fleets
has been curtailed within villages subject to community development and alternative livelihood programs,
and that fishing pressure within KNP did not increase between 1996 and 2009. The number of fishermen
originating from outside KNP has decreased.
However KNPs zonation system is not fully implemented, with high fishing activity and extraction within
designated no-take zones. The legal status of KNPs zonation system is unclear, and further implementation
of this management objective would benefit from a review of gaps and needs, particularly related to
supporting national and local legislation. Knowledge of zonation systems and resource regulations is low
amongst stakeholders, and there is considerable scope for strengthening outreach and communication
programs.
Tourism activity is high within seven hot spots in KNP. The potential for resource conflict in these areas is
not yet addressed in management strategies.
RUM capacity building and adaptive management objectives of the KCMI Project have not yet been fully
realised. Obstacles include intermittent technical lead to deliver capacity building programs, irregularity of
RUM operations, limited data management capacity, and the need for complex data processing to correct
for these issues. Consequently only limited communication of RUM data to stakeholders has occurred, and
findings have not been fully integrated into an adaptive management process.
KomodoNationalPark
14
Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 17
1.1 Komodo National Park.......................................................................................... 20
1.1.1 Physical Features and Biodiversity.............................................................. 20
1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and Benefits................................................................. 20
1.1.3 Governance................................................................................................... 21
1.1.4 Marine Threats and Impacts......................................................................... 22
1.2 Resource Use Monitoring...................................................................................... 22
2 Methods............................................................................................................ 27
2.1 Fieldwork............................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Data Management.................................................................................................. 29
2.3 Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 29
3 Results.............................................................................................................. 31
3.1 Operations.............................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Tourism.................................................................................................................. 33
3.3 Fisheries................................................................................................................. 34
4 Discussion......................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Values of KNPs key resources.............................................................................. 40
4.2 Destructive Fishing................................................................................................ 40
4.3 Zonation System.................................................................................................... 41
4.4 Sustainable Fisheries.............................................................................................. 42
4.4.1 Demersal Fisheries....................................................................................... 42
4.4.2 Pelagic Fisheries........................................................................................... 42
4.4.3 Licensing and Exclusive Use Rights............................................................ 42
4.4.4 By-catch........................................................................................................ 43
4.4.5 Development of the fishery.......................................................................... 43
4.5 Tourism and Sustainable Financing ...................................................................... 43
4.6 Capacity Building.................................................................................................. 44
4.7 Adaptive Management........................................................................................... 45
4.8 Stakeholder Engagement........................................................................................ 46
5 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 47
5.1 RUM Capacity....................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Resource Use Patterns............................................................................................ 48
5.3 Adaptive Management........................................................................................... 49
6 Recommendations............................................................................................... 51
6.1 Management........................................................................................................... 52
6.1.1 Tourism......................................................................................................... 52
6.1.2 Fisheries........................................................................................................ 52
6.2 Monitoring............................................................................................................. 53
7 Literature Cited.................................................................................................. 55
Appendix A: Proforma.............................................................................................. 59
Appendix B: Fishery Resource Patterns ...................................................................... 65
Appendix C: Management Effectiveness Summary......................................................... 71
Appendix D: 2........................................................................................................ 17-Jun-96 30
5 .......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
Appendix E: 3......................................................................................................... 25-Jun-96 36
2 1......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
Appendix F: 4......................................................................................................... 3-Jul-96 35
KomodoNationalPark
16
1
Introduction
KomodoNationalPark
18
Resource Use Monitoring (RUM) in Komodo National (ii) The impacts of resource use on these resourc-
Park (KNP) is a critical tool for assessing the impact es and ecosystems; and
of management strategies on marine resource
use, evaluating management effectiveness, and (iii) The performance of the KCMI project as a
informing adaptive management. This report
whole and the quality and effectiveness of
provides the first analysis of long-term resource
use trends in KNP, and the impact of management park management in fulfilling conservation
interventions. and sustainable use objectives.
In 1996 the Government of Indonesia invited The Specific performance indicators were identified
Nature Conservancy (TNC) to assist the Komodo (Table 1), as was the need to establish systematic
National Park Authority (BTNK) to strengthen biodiversity assessments and monitoring of all key
marine and terrestrial management strategies in species and environmental variables to support an
KNP. A marine RUM program was implemented at adaptive management approach.
this time.
Project plans specified the need for continuous
In 2005 the Komodo project was extended assessment of resource use and tourism impacts
with investment from the Global Environment in order to support conservation and tourism
Facility (GEF) through the International Finance management activities, including:
Corporation (IFC), with the aim of ensuring the
long-term effective management of KNP through Fishery resource use monitoring to determine
a collaborative management approach (IFC 2004).
which community groups are involved in which
Specific objectives included:
fishing activities, and where and when they
(i) Conservation and sustainable use of KNPs fish; to identify changes in fishing behaviors
unique biodiversity assets; arising from management interventions; and
to assess the number of fishermen involved,
(ii) Improved park management via an adaptive
type of fishing gear, the quantity, quality and
approach able to respond to changing threats
species composition of the catch, etc.
and opportunities; and
Tourism resource use monitoring to identify
(iii) Strengthened accountability of park manage-
changes in visitor numbers and profiles arising
ment agencies. The project was implemented
form management interventions; and to assess
via PT Putri Naga Komodo, a not-for-profit joint
biophysical impacts.
venture between TNC and a private partner.
The existing RUM program was extended through
Implementation was guided by the Project revised SOPs (Katherina et al 2007) to address these
Document (IFC 2004), a 7-year Implementation Plan specific needs and indicators.
(PNK 2006) and 25-year Master Plan for Management
in Komodo National Park (PHKA & TNC 2000). This report presents the first analysis of long-
term (1996 to 2009) resource use trends in KNP.
Monitoring and Evaluation was identified as a critical By reference to performance indicators and levels
project component, to continuously assess: specified in the Project Document and 25-year
Management Plan, it aims to:
(i) The status of key terrestrial and marine re-
sources and ecosystems in KNP; Evaluate park management capacity building
objectives in the context of RUM;
KomodoNationalPark
Identify any trends and changes in resource to KNPs appeal as a tourism destination. Threatened
use behavior and patterns within KNP; or endangered species (IUCN 2009) have been
recorded within KNPs waters, including dugongs
Explore any management impact on resource (Dugong dugon), manta rays (Manta birostris),
whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus), blacktip reef
use behavior and patterns within KNP; and
shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), Baramundi cod
(Cromileptes altivelis), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus
Assess the degree to which RUM has been undulates), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
integrated into adaptive management of KNP. green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and giant clam
(Tridacna gigas) (Erdman 2004).
1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and
1.1 Komodo National Park Benefits
KNP maintains ecosystem goods and services
1.1.1 Physical Features and
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) that
Biodiversity
provide benefits at the local, national and global level
Komodo National Park (119 30 E, 8 35 S) is located
(Box 1). High economic values have been attributed
in the Lesser Sunda islands of Indonesia, East Nusa
to the types of coastal ecosystems contained within
Tenggara province. Lying in the Sape straits between
KNP due to the services they provide: mangrove
Flores and Sumbawa, it comprises the three islands
systems are worth an estimated US$ 4,290 annually
of Komodo, Rinca and Padar, smaller surrounding
per hectare, seagrasses and lagoons provide
islands, the straits between the main islands and
benefits of around US$ 73,900 per year per hectare,
all waters within 1000 m of shore (Figure 1Error!
while coral reefs are among the most economically
Reference source not found.). Komodo National
valuable of all ecosystems at US$ 129,000 per year
Park (KNP) encompasses both marine and terrestrial
per hectare (TEEB 2009).
environments, including habitats of the vulnerable
Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) and 132,000 As a protected area containing marine and coastal
ha of the worlds richest marine environments, ecosystems, KNP plays a key role in:
including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass meadows,
seamounts and bays. Maintaining Indonesias healthy coasts and
KNPs marine ecosystems support high biodiversity, seas in order to sustain social and economic
including over 1,000 species of fish, 385 species development; and
of reef building corals (Beger & Turak 2005), 70
species of sponge (PHKA & TNC 2000) and 9 species Maintaining significant natural resources on
of seagrass (Pedju 2004). Large charismatic fauna, behalf of the global community (IUCN et al
including 10 species of dolphin, 7 species of whale
2008).
(Kahn 2000) and two species of sea turtle, contribute
Figure 1: Location of Komodo National Park, Indonesia within the Lesser Sunda and Coral Triangle marine eco-region.
20
At the local level, KNPs marine ecosystems underpin Box 1 - MPA benefits
economies, livelihoods and food security through,
for example: MPAs provide a range of global, national and local benefits (Kelle-
her 1999), including:
Increased diving tourism and resulting Conservation of biodiversity, especially critical habitats of
threatened species;
revenues (Bonaire Marine Park, Netherlands
Protection of attractive habitats and species on which sustain-
Antilles); able tourism can be based;
Increased productivity of fisheries by:
Increased subsistence fish catches, expanded insurance against stock collapse;
tourist activity, and greater involvement of buffer against recruitment failure;
local people in managing resorts and boats increase in densities and average sizes of individuals;
(Tai Island, Fiji); increase in reproductive output;
provision of centres for dispersal of propagules and adults
Growth of tourism and resulting revenue (spillover);
through gate, guide, and camping fees, rental containing more natural species composition, age struc-
ture, spawning potential and genetic variability;
of boats and equipment, and hotel expenses Contribute to increased knowledge of marine science through:
(Malindi/ Watamu, Mobasa and Kisite/ information on functional linkages,
Mpunguti National Parks and Reserves, Kenya); implementation of the precautionary principle,
and provision of control sites for research and ecological
benchmarks against which to measure human-induced
change;
Accrual of indirect benefits through the
potential as nodes in monitoring networks;
creation of jobs in hotels and for guides and
more natural systems where natural mortality can be
boatmen (Salm et al 2000). compared with fishing mortality;
A refuge for intensely exploited species;
The economic value of KNP, in terms of income
Protection of genetic diversity of heavily exploited popula-
from fisheries and tourism alone for the residents tions;
of Komodo District is estimated at around 60 billion
Protection of cultural diversity, e.g. sacred places, wrecks and
rupiah (approximately USD 6 million) per annum lighthouses.
(Statistics Indonesia 2009). The figure is possibly
even larger when supporting industries such as approximately 3.5 million ha (Komodo National Park,
transport are considered. With approximately 90% Nusa Penida MPA, Savu Sea MPA). These marine areas
of working people in the park relying on fishing as make a significant contribution to national targets,
their primary income (PHKA & TNC 2000), marine committed to under the Convention on Biological
ecosystem goods and services are critical to the Diversity (CBD), to protect 10% of Indonesias
social and economic welfare of local communities marine and coastal environments by 2012, and 20%
(Moberg & Folke 1999). Park management and by 2020.
governance seeks to sustain and enhance KNPs
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the benefits KNP has been established and is managed within a
they provide framework of international law and multi-national
treaties (Box 2), national policy and legislation
1.1.3 Governance (UNEP-WCMC 2005). Designation as a national park
KNP lies within the 45 million ha Lesser Sunda occurred in 1984 under PHKA Decree 46/kpts/VI-Sek/
marine eco-region of the Coral Triangle, and is 1984, with a zoning system and associated resource
part of an interconnected network of three Marine use regulations authorised in 2001 under PHKA
Protected Areas (MPA) covering a combined area of Decree 65/kpts/DJ-V/ 2001. Specific management
KomodoNationalPark
objectives result from designation as a Man and these impacts and will recover with time (Hughes &
Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site in 1986, Connell 1999).
contributing to commitments under the CBD and
fulfilling recommendations of the Jakarta Mandate KNPs human populations, which depend principally
on Marine and Coastal Diversity. on fishing for their livelihoods, have increased by
1000% since 1930, bringing a resulting increase in
1.1.4 Marine Threats and anthropogenic disturbances (PHKA & TNC 2000).
Impacts Global issues such as climate change and ocean
KNPs high biodiversity and associated ecosystem acidification add to these threats. The impact of
services are maintained by the high variety of multiple stressors, both natural and anthropogenic,
habitat types and conditions in KNP (Beger & Turak have a multiplicative effect on ecosystems (Bryant
2005), including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass et al 1998), with human-damaged reefs more
meadows, seamounts and bays. Ecosystem services vulnerable to natural disturbances and taking
often rely on ecological pathways connecting longer to recover (Brown 1997).
different habitats (Box 3). Processes and disturbances
upstream may affect the quantity and quality of Primary threats to the ecosystem goods and services
derived from KNPs marine ecosystems include
destructive fishing (especially blast and cyanide
Box 2: International law and treaties applicable to KNP
fishing), overfishing, Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, mass
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 1986 designates KNP as bleaching events and anchor damage (Mous et al
a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve with three functions: conser-
2007; PHKA & TNC 2000).
vation; sustainable economic development; and provision of sites
and facilities to support research, education and training.
World Heritage Convention 1986 designates KNP as a World
Heritage Site under criteria: 1.2 Resource Use
(vii) contains superlative natural phenomena and areas of aes- Monitoring
thetic importance due to outstanding universal value;
(x) contains important habitats for conservation, including Resource use is the use of renewable marine
those of threatened species. resources, including take (e.g. fishing, coral mining)
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 KNP contributes to and non-take activities (e.g. tourism, education)
commitments made by Indonesia, as a Party to the Convention on (Mous, PJ & Halim, M 2004).
Biological Diversity (CBD) to:
develop a national biodiversity strategy; RUM in KNP provides managers with a tool to:
to establish systems of protected areas to conserve biodiver-
sity; and Identify and monitor the ways in which
to promote environmentally sound and sustainable develop- societies use marine resources in KNP
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;
KNPs ecosystem services provided downstream Regulating services e.g. protection of beaches and coastlines
(Box 4), with resulting impact on local economies, from erosion or damage by storm surges, waves and tsuna-
mis;
livelihoods and food security.
Cultural services e.g. tourism, recreation and traditional
KNPs marine ecosystems have always been subject practices;
to natural disturbances (Box 5) that may periodically Supporting services e.g. nursery habitats, nutrient and car-
affect or devastate habitats with resulting ecosystem- bon cycling.
wide repercussions. Healthy habitats are resilient to (UNEP-WCMC 2006) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
22
Box 3: Connectivity between coral reef, mangrove and sea grass habitats (CRMP 2004).
(Hughes et al 2005), including destructive on resource use patterns;

and unsustainable resource use;
Evaluate compliance with management
Monitor natural resource (e.g. fishery, reef, strategies, and help identify the factors
dive site) condition, status and threats in influencing compliance (Keane et al 2008);
KNP;
Engage stakeholders through participation in
Evaluate the impact of management strategies monitoring activities and communication of
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
monitoring findings, and hence build support Management Plan defines specific resource use
for management objectives (Mak & Moncur targets (Table 2).
1998; Steins & Edwards 1998; Western et al Due to the significant potential for RUM to contribute
1994); to the long-term effective management of KNP,
strengthening the capacity of park management
RUM provides critical information to support the to incorporate RUM into adaptive management
Government of Indonesias commitment to effective approaches is a key project objective.
management of protected areas National Plan of
Action under the Coral Triangle Initiative (Action This report aims to:
9), and can assist park managers to (i) evaluate
Evaluate park management capacity building
management effectiveness, (ii) document the
performance of management efforts at achieving objectives in the context of RUM;
goals and objectives, (iii) report progress to decision-
makers and stakeholders (Pomeroy et al 2004). Identify any trends and changes in resource
use behavior and patterns within KNP;
RUM findings can assist park managers to adapt
strategies in response to emerging threats and
Explore any management impact on resource
opportunities. It provides the means to monitor
and evaluate the extent to which management use behavior and patterns within KNP; and
strategies achieve specified objectives, and to
implement science-based adaptive management. Assess the degree to which RUM has been
integrated into adaptive management of KNP.
In addition to key performance indicators specified
in the Project Document (Table 1), KNPs 25-year
Table 1: Key performance indicators specified in the Project Document related to resource use within KNP.
Objective to be Monitored Performance Indicator Expected Change

Sustainable Use Extent of destructive fishing within Annual destructive fishing effort in park waters de-
park boundaries. creasing by 15% per year.
Amount of by-catch in legal fisheries Reduction of by-catch by at least 10% per year.
Use of hookah compressors in park Use of these (now banned) compressors will decrease
waters. by 20% per year, completely stopping by end of year 5.
Sustainable development of pelagic Pelagic fishing will have expanded in a sustainable
fishing by local fishermen. manner, accompanied by a diversification of target
species, fishing methods and gear types.
Quality of Park Management Involvement of stakeholder groups The new collaborative management structure to in-
in park management clude a wide range of stakeholders, including the park
authorities, local communities, private sector interests,
local government and NGOs.
Operation of a zoning system A zonation will have been set up by end of yr 2 and will
have been used to tailor management activities to the
biodiversity objectives of each zone.
Use of adaptive research to support Increased use of adaptive research, for example into
park management Komodo dragon reproduction and reef regeneration.
Use of biodiversity assessments The use of biodiversity assessments and monitoring
systems will have become standard practice in the
management of KNP by end of yr 5.
24
Table 3:Resource use management targets in KNP (PHKA & TNC 2000).
Resource Use Type Target

Fisheries Pelagic resources in the Pelagic Use Zone and coastal resources in the Traditional Use Zones are used in
a sustainable manner.
Coral reefs and spawning sites are preserved, both within and outside KNP.
Pelagic fishing methods are diversified, and post harvest methods are improved.
Mariculture is sustainably developed in the Traditional Use Zone and outside the KNP area.
Tourism An overall tourism management plan is developed and implemented.
Effective co-management of natural resources in the Buffer Zones is implemented in cooperation with
the appropriate agencies.
Park management facilities, and infrastructure are develop on the basis of an EIA.
Research is implemented on the impacts of tourism, and the needs of tourists.
A trial system is implemented for charging of a progressive entrance fee for KNP, with all revenues col-
lected used to finance Park management.
Research Agreements developed covering intellectual property rights.
A biological monitoring and inventory plan for all marine and terrestrial habitats implemented, with
special attention given to fragile habitats and threatened species.
An overall research plan developed and implemented in collaboration with scientific partners and ad-
dressing key management issues for the Park.
General Protection An operational zonation system in place, protecting all areas with high biological value.
Park regulations are clear, enforceable, and ensure the protection of the natural resources.
KomodoNationalPark
26
2
Methodology
KomodoNationalPark
2.1 Fieldwork possible that RUM preferentially targeted fishermen

and specific regions of the park, especially north
RUM followed published SOPs, (Katherina et al Komodo to Papagarang (pers. obs.; Abubakar Pasya,
2007) implemented in 2007. Prior to 2007 survey pers. comm).
schedules were variable. Methods described here
are based on SOPs. Interviews were conducted with boat captains.
Interviews consisted of fixed questions and
RUM was carried out via speedboat every two observations. Interview responses and observations
weeks. Sorties followed a fixed route (Figure 2), and were recorded on proforma (Appendix A). Interview
aimed to cover >75% of KNPs marine area. Where questions and observations included:
possible, sorties consisted of the following minimum
personnel: Date/ time and geographic coordinates;
Boat captain; Type of boats (fishing, sport fishing, yacht,

tourism boat);
Boat crew; Park section and management zone;
Science and Monitoring Coordinator; For fishing boats:

Active/ resting/ travelling;
RUM assistant (Community Organizer or other
Gear type;
community member where possible);
Target species;
BTNK rangers. Hours worked;
RUM teams aimed to record all park users Weight of fish caught;
encountered along the sortie route. Prior to 2009, it is Number of crew;
7
2
8
10
3
9
6
4 14 11
13
5
12 15
16
Figure 2: RUM sortie route as defined in SOP.
28
For tourism boats: Economic values of KNP fisheries were calculated

from 2009 market values for each fishery (Table 3).
Number of tourists;
Duration of stay; Economic values of tourism were calculated
using 1996 tourist spending behaviour data (total
For all boats: expenditure in Labuan Bajo per tourist per visit
Port of origin; US$ 90.70 15.70 (Walpole & Goodwin 2000)),
adjusted for 2009 inflation (proportional purchasing
Type of boat (inboard, outboard, no power parity per capita Gross Domestic Product
engine). (International Monetary Fund 2009)) to US$ 153
26.59 per person per visit.
2.2 Data Management

Table 3: Market values of KNP fishery target species (derived from
Data were recorded onto proforma in the field. average 2009 values).
Data were transferred to a Microsoft Excel database
on return to the office. Database versions were Target Species Value (Rp kg-1)
maintained by both BTNK and PNK. Lobster 80000
Sharks 45000
Sea Cucumber 40000
2.3 Data Analysis Reef Fish 40000
Sea Shells 32000
RUM data was collected between 1996 and 2009,
Pelagic Fish 25000
with occasional changes in SOPs during this period.
Squid 15000
This study was approached as a meta-analysis to
Seaweed 12000
accommodate methodological changes.
Shrimp 10000
Initially a detailed review and cleaning of long-term Mixed Fish 7000
databases was completed. Individual database files
were consolidated. Missing data related to park
section and zone was identified, and GIS used to fill
gaps based on recorded coordinates.
Counts of resource users were standardised to allow
comparison between years, and accommodate
variable sortie frequency and park coverage. Each
sortie record in the database included an estimate of
the percentage coverage of each park section, from
which the area was calculated. Counts of resource
users were converted to densities (resource users per
ha). Where appropriate, densities were extrapolated
to provide an estimate of total resource user density
per section, per zone, and for the entire park.
Fishery extraction rates (Catch Per Unit Effort, CPUE)
were calculated as the average weight of fish caught
per person per hour of work (kg person-1 hr-1). RUM
teams recorded hours worked from 2007, following
revision of SOPs.
KomodoNationalPark
30
3
Results
KomodoNationalPark
3.1 Operations
Between 1996 and 2009 the frequency of RUM
sorties was highly variable (2006: 0 sorties; 1998:
41 sorties) (Figure 3). The average park coverage
per sortie was highly variable (min: 23.75% in 2000;
max: 77.04% in 2009). The 75% threshold specified
by SOPs was achieved for the first time in 2009. The
average number of boats interviewed per day was
low between 1996 and 2008 (12.85 boats day-1 to
18 boats day-1 respectively), with a rapid increase
in 2009 (40.97 boats day-1) (Figure 4). Most boats
encountered by RUM teams were close to shore
(<500m) and within Wilderness Zones (Figure 5). Figure 5: Location of RUM interview conducted between 1996 and
2009.
Figure 3: Frequency of RUM sorties and average percentage of

park covered per patrol between 1996 and 2009. Figure 6: Average number of tourist boats operating within KNP
per day between 1996 and 2009.
Figure 4: Average number and standard error of boats encountered

per day during RUM sorties from 1996 to 2009.
32
3.2 Tourism
The average number of tourism boats encountered
per day was high during 2009 (23.35) and 2007
(11.59), and low (<5) for all other years (Figure 6).
In 2002, 2007, 2008 and 2009, more than 50% of
tourism boats originated from Labuan Bajo and
Seraya. Marine tourism was dominated by a small
number of operators who were consistently among
the top ten most active operators (Table 4). The
average number of tourists per boats was highest
in 2003 (10.18), declined to 5.56 in 2007, and
steadily rose to 6.95 in 2009 (Figure 7). The density
of tourism boats was high within seven hot spots
Figure 7: Average number of tourists per tourist boat between
at Loh Liang/ Pink Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest 1996 and 2009.
Komodo (Batu Moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili
Lawa), Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda)
and south Rinca (Loh Desami) (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Location of tourist boats at anchor between 1996 and

2009.
Table 4: Rank table of top 10 tourism boats operating in KNP each year, based on the number of times encountered during RUM sorties.
Rank Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 gren komodo sea safari 3 putri papua putra papua Reefseeker Seven seas Seven seas
2 Komodo Plus Ombak Biru 0 tarata Grand Ko- Bajo Dive Club Charlie
modo
3 Surya Indah gren komodo adelar adelar rajawali somba rajawali
4 budi agung tarata Ombak Biru pindito Parewa Ari Jaya
5 Ombak Biru solara sea safari Arijaya carlif Alba
6 Andalan safari III brandmajo Feliana reef seker dua satu
7 calypos queen ot the pelagian Mermaid 1 Charly Primadona
see
8 Parewa II evening star charditina Blue Gate II Ombak Biru Blue Dragon
9 dolphin mermid I Sypamela Papilon feef seekers Simaji
10 Karya Bersam phinisi ambasi crusader Tandem raja wali Bidadari
KomodoNationalPark
3.3 Fisheries
Fishery target species in KNP include reef, mixed and
pelagic fish, squid, lobster, shrimp, sea cucumbers,
shells, seaweed and sharks. Reef fisheries were
the dominant component, yielding between 82 T
(2008) and 1390 T (1997) per year (Figure 9). Very
high pelagic fishery yields were recorded in 1996
and 2007 (3073.52 T and 2077.38 T respectively).
For all other years pelagic fishery yields constituted
a minor proportion of total catch (c. 200 T year-1)
and were lower than reef fishery yields. High mixed
fishery yields were recorded in 2008 and 2009
(782.15 T and 306.97 T respectively), representing
Figure 9: Estimated total yield and vale of KNP fisheries per year
a significant increase over previous years (average from 1996 to 2009.
38.66 T 1996 to 2007), and coincided with reduced
reef fishery yields. Rapid growth of seaweed culture (68.48 and 78.45 boats per day respectively) (Figure
in KNP was recorded between 2005 and 2007, with 11), but decreased between 2000 and 2003 (72.00 to
subsequent decline (2005: 2.97 T; 2007: 146.04 T; 40.20 boats per day) with subsequent rapid increase
2009: 93.12 T). to pre-2000 levels. Prior to 2000, fishing boats from
outside West Manggarai district represented a
Pelagic fisheries yielded a greater weight of fish per significant component (>50%) of the KNP fishing
hour (2009: 3.56 kg person-1 hr-1) than both reef and fleet, but declined after 2000 (Figure 12). The
mixed fisheries (2009: 1.64 and 2.12 kg person-1 hr-1 average number of fishermen working in KNP per
respectively) (Figure 10a). Greatest economic yields day remained stable between 1996 (180.33) and
were obtained from reef (Rp 32,045 person-1 hr-1), 2009 (159.80) (Figure 13). Between 2004 and 2009
pelagic (Rp 28,966 person-1 hr-1) and shrimp fisheries the number of fishing boats increased in Rinca
(Rp 26,945 person-1 hr-1) (Figure 10b). (106 191) and Papagarang villages (193 292),
but remained stable in Komodo village (158 158)
The average number of fishing boats operating
(Figure 14).
within the park in 2009 was similar to 1996 levels
Figure 10: Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for KNP fisheries showing (a) annual variation in average yields between 2007 and 2009, and
(b) average financial yields for KNP fisheries.
34
Figure 11: Average number of fishing boats operating in KNP

per day between 1996 and 2009, with registered port of origin
indicated. Figure 14: Variations in the number of fishing boats registered in
three villages within KNP between 2001 and 2009 (Pasya 2009).
Figure 12: Average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per

day between 1996 and 2009, with eligibility for exclusive use
rights licenses indicated (Halim et al 2005; PHKA & TNC 2000). Figure 15: Average number of fishing boats in KNP per day
actively fishing within no take zones (Wilderness, Tourism and
Research zones) and permitted fishing zones (Traditional Use and
Pelagic zones).
Figure 13: Average numbers of people working within KNP fisher-

ies per day during the period 1996 to 2009.
Figure 16: Proportion of fishermen interviewed during 2009 dem-

onstrating knowledge of KNP zoning systems.
KomodoNationalPark
For all years, fishing activity was distributed

throughout the park, and focussed predominantly
on near shore areas (less than 500m) (Figure B3).
Most active fishing boats were within designated
no-take areas (e.g. in 2008, 27.80 active fishing boats
per day within NTZ, 2.31 active fishing boats per day
within permitted fishing zones) (Figure 15), except in
2009 when an equal distribution was recorded. The
greatest fishery yields (Figure B2) were from areas
designated as No-Take Zones (e.g. in 2009 2078.8 T
of fish was extracted from NTZs, compared to 1615.2
T of fish from permitted fishing grounds). In 2009
45.37% of fishermen demonstrated knowledge
of KNPs zoning system (Figure 16), and 47.27%
Figure 18: Average number of fishing boats in KNP per day using
possessed a valid BTNK fishing pass (Figure 17). gears prohibited or permitted under PERDA 28 (Bupati Manggarai
Barat 2005).
The number of fishing boats using destructive gears
prohibited under district law (PERDA 28) decreased
from 21.32 per day (1996) to 5.55 boats per day
(2009) (Figure 18). The average number of boats
using gears restricted under PHKA management
policies (PHKA & TNC 2000) remained relative stable
between 1996 (31.09 boats day-1) and 2009 (42.59
boats day-1) (Figure 19).
Vessels with inboard engines dominated the fishing
fleet for all years, with no advancement in vessel
technology detected between 1996 and 2009
(Figure 20). Traditional fishing gears dominated the
KNP fishing fleet for all years, with the proportion of
advanced gears increasing between 1996 (12.97%)
and 2009 (29.92%) (Figure 21). Figure 19: Average number of fishing boats in KNP per day using
gears prohibited or permitted under KNP 25-year management
plan (PHKA & TNC 2000).
Figure 17: Proportion of fishermen interviewed during 2009 in Figure 20: Average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per
possession of fishing permit for KNP issued by BTNK. day with vessels types indicated.
36
Figure 21: Average number of fishing boats using advanced and

traditional gear types operating in KNP per day between 1996
and 2009.
KomodoNationalPark
38
4
Discussion
KomodoNationalPark
4.1 Values of KNPs key Coral reefs and spawning sites are preserved,
resources both within and outside KNP.
Assessments of 1996 visitor expenditure (Walpole The KCMI Project Document further specifies that:
& Goodwin 2000) adjusted to 2009 values provide a
conservative estimate of the 2009 value of tourism Annual destructive fishing effort in park waters
in Labuan Bajo of US$ 4.2 10.7 million (Rp 42 will decrease by 15% per year; and
107 billion) per annum. This estimate is based on
between 33,005 and 59,233 visitors to KNP (Section
Use of (now banned) compressors will decrease
4.5). Actual values could be as much as 3 - 4 times
this estimate, due to an increase in the number of by 20% per year, completely stopping by end
high-end hotels (>US$ 40 ppn) and related services of year 5 (2010).
compared to the 1996 study.
Destructive fishing gears (Table 5) are prohibited
2009 fishery market values provide a conservative within the coastal waters of Manggarai district,
estimate of the total annual value of KNPs fisheries of including KNP, by District Government law (PERDA-
around US$ 2 million (Rp 20 billion) (Figure 9). Again 28). A decline from 21.32 incidents per day (1996) to
actual values are likely to be significantly higher, as 5.55 incidents per day (2009) (Figure 18) represents
this estimate does not consider significant night- a 75% decrease in destructive gears over 13 years.
fisheries in KNP for which only 1996 data exists. During the KCMI project (2005 2009) destructive
gears declined 27.49% (7.66 5.55 per day).
While these conservative estimates could be
improved via further economic assessments, they Table 5: Fishing gears prohibited in Manggarai coastal waters
serve to illustrate the high value of KNPs fishery and under PERDA 28 and within KNP under the 25-year management
plan.
tourism industries. KNPs mangrove systems could
be worth as much as US$ 4,290 per hectare per year,
PERDA-28
seagrasses and lagoons as much as US$ 73,900 per
hectare per year, and coral reefs as much as US$
KNP
129,000 per hectare per year (TEEB 2009).
These high value ecosystem services are intricately Trolling
linked to the sustainable growth and development Bottom fishing
of West Manggarai. Through effective resource Drifting gill net
management the value of these ecosystem Encircling gill net
services can be maintained to provide benefits to Bagan lift net
KNPs stakeholders. The following sections explore
Fish traps
resource use management objectives described in
Compressor, hookah
IFC 2004; PHKA & TNC 2000.
Reef gleaning
Bomb, chemical poison, natural poison
4.2 Destructive Fishing

KNPs 25-year Management Plan includes the Surveillance, enforcement and outreach programs,
following targets: combined with robust district government
legislation and effective partnership between BTNK
Pelagic resources in the Pelagic Use Zone and and Police enforcement officers appears to have
successfully diminished destructive fishing within
coastal resources in the Traditional Use Zones
KNP. These programs should continue to prevent re-
are used in a sustainable manner; and emergence, and to target remaining bomb (low-risk)
40
and compressor (medium-risk) fishing particularly A zoning scheme for KNP was proposed in the 25-
at night. While these programs have successfully Year management Plan (PHKA & TNC 2000) and
reduced destructive fishing, it should be noted that endorsed by PHKA in 2001 (Keputusan Dirjen PHKA
5.55 incidents per day is still high. The majority of 2001). However the 7-Year Implementation Plan
destructive fishing recorded in 2009 (Figure 18) notes that regulations (in the 25-Year Management
was meting/ reef gleaning. Park managers should Plan) need further clarification and more detail, while
consider programs that specifically address meting the KCMI Project Document states park zoning and
in order to further reduce destructive fishing within regulations will be complemented by local legislation
KNP. issued by the district and provincial governments.
The legal status of KNPs zoning system is currently
unclear, resulting in limited implementation and
4.3 Zonation System enforcement of zoning and resource use regulations.
While the zoning system is included as an appendix
KNPs 25-year Management Plan includes the to the 2001 PHKA Decree, legislation that specifically
following targets: defines zone boundaries, regulations, and sanctions
does not appear to be fully formed. The absence of
An operational zonation system in place, this legislation (particularly at the local level) has
protecting all areas with high biological inhibited any enforcement and processing of zoning
value; violations. In addition, associated outreach and
awareness campaigns have been hampered, and
Park regulations are clear, enforceable, and there is considerable scope to strengthen bottom-
up implementation and support for KNPs zonation
ensure the protection of the natural resources; system.
and
Limited implementation of KNPs zoning system
Fish stocks are protected by closing all known could lead to potential dispute or conflict between
resource users. Fishing activity was high within No-
fish spawning aggregation sites to fisheries; Take Zones, including within seven hot spots of
high tourism activity (Section 4.5). There are some
The KCMI Project Document further specifies that:
indications that disputes have already occurred at
A zonation system will have been set up these location.
by end of year 2 (2007) and will have been Park managers could strengthen implementation
used to tailor management activities to the of KNPs zoning systems, build compliance and
minimise resource conflict through:
biodiversity objectives of each zone.
For each year between 1996 and 2008, more active Review and clarification of management
fishing boats were recorded within No-Take Zones objectives and strategies with stakeholders;
(Wilderness, Pelagic, Tourism) then within permitted
fishing zones (Figure 15). For the first time fishing Analysis management gaps and needs
activity within permitted zones exceeded fishing (especially information, legislation and
within no-take zones in 2009. No obvious differences
implementation capacity); and
in fishing activity (Figure B3) or fishing yields (Figure
B2) within No-Take Zones was detected before or
Management prioritisation of seven hot
after 2001 endorsement of KNPs zoning system.
In 2009 fishermens knowledge of KNP zoning and spots within KNP, and review of resource user
resource regulations was low (Figure 16). needs.
KomodoNationalPark
4 . 4 S u s t a i n a b l e F i s h e r i e s years (Figure 9), except 1996 and 2007 which include

estimates of night-time bagan fisheries absent
In addition to destructive gear and zonation from all other years (Pet, pers. com., Pasya, pers.
objectives, KNPs 25-year Management Plan includes com.). Monitoring of night-fisheries is required to
the following management objectives related to improve assessment of any shift from reef to pelagic
sustainable fisheries: fisheries.
Protect fish stocks by prohibiting demersal Socio-economic factors may impede a shift from
fishing in most areas of the Park; reef to pelagic fisheries, including a traditional
bias towards reef fisheries, and limited capacity
Promote a shift of fishing effort from demersal (equipment and expertise) of individual fishermen
to exploit pelagic fisheries. It is also likely that pelagic
to pelagic fishing;
fisheries are considered more labour intensive and
less economically attractive than reef fisheries, due
Implement traditional use zones with exclusive to higher weights (Figure 10a) but lower relative
fishing rights for Park inhabitants; and economic yields per hour (Figure 10b). Limited
implementation of KNPs zonation system (Section
Introduce a licensing system for all activities 4.3) and ambiguous fishery regulations result in the
inside Komodo National Park. maintenance of perverse incentives driving reef
fisheries and biodiversity depletion.
The KCMI Project Document further specifies that:
The use of restricted gear types (mostly high-volume,
By-catch will be reduced by at least 10% per non-specific gears that generate high by-catch, or
demersal gears) (PHKA & TNC 2000) remained stable
year; and
between 1996 and 2009 (Figure 19). Current gear
restrictions and regulations are not clearly defined
Pelagic fishing will have expanded in a and communicated in KNP, resulting in differing
sustainable manner, accompanied by a perceptions between individual enforcement
diversification of target species, fishing officers and park users (pers. obs.). Pak managers
methods and gear types. should consider reviewing fishing gear restrictions
and developing clear communication materials.
4.4.1 Demersal Fisheries There is evidence that FRS patrols have had some
Between 1996 and 2009 demersal fishing (reef localised impact on reducing restricted fishing
fishery) yields remained stable (Figure 9), were gears along regular patrol routes (Harvey & Pasya
concentrated in coastal areas (section 4.3), and 2010). Clarification of gear restrictions, improved
constituted the dominant component of KNPs communication, and extension of FRS patrol routes
fisheries. No decline in reef fishery activity or yields is likely to help park managers achieve a park-wide
was detected. Reduced yields in 2008 and 2009 reduction in the use of restricted gears.
correspond to increased mixed fishery yields, and
4.4.3 Licensing and Exclusive
are likely to represent inconsistent identification
Use Rights
and recording of target species. This highlights the
Exclusive use and licensing programs had a short
need for continual review of SOPs, regular refresher
impact on fishing pressure, but by 2009 fishing
training programs, and technical expertise and lead
activity was similar to 1996 levels (Figure 11, Figure
to maintain data quality and value.
13). A trial program to establish exclusive use rights
4.4.2 Pelagic Fisheries and a fishery licensing system was implemented
No shift from reef to pelagic fisheries was detected between 2000 and 2003, and coincided with a
between 1996 and 2009. Pelagic fisheries constituted decline in the number of active fishing boats in KNP,
a minor component of KNPs day fisheries for all particularly of boats from outside West Manggarai
42
district. However, between 2001 and 2009 there was Vessels with inboard engines dominated the KNP
rapid increase (170%) in the number of fishing boats fishing fleet in 1996, and available data indicates
registered in villages within the park (Figure 12, no increase in vessel advancement (Figure 20).
Figure 14), coinciding with increased immigration Current RUM protocols do not distinguish between
to KNP, local registration of fishing boats by outside type or sizes of inboard boats, which would assist
parties, and reduced financial hurdles to fishing assessment of fishing behaviours.
boat ownership (Siatorus, pers. com., Pasya, pers.
com., Fudge, pers. com.). Immigration and local Use of advanced fishing gears has increased
boat registration may have been a response to (Figure 21), bringing greater extraction rates and
exclusive use policies. Improved integration with efficiencies and resulting in increased fishing effort
District Government, particularly the development despite limited growth of the fishing fleet. Regular
of supporting immigration policies, is essential to monitoring of stock status, resource patterns, and
the success of any exclusive use programs in KNP. CPUE, and application of the precautionary principle
will assist park managers to detect early signs
Localised reduction of the fishing fleet was recorded of threats and to adapt management strategies
in Komodo Village (Figure 14), where alternative accordingly.
livelihood and community development programs
are focussed. In Rinca and Papagarang villages, Some diversification of the fishery into seaweed
where current alternative livelihood programs culture occurred in 2005, with rapid growth and
and benefits from tourism are low, fishing fleets subsequent decline (2005: 2.97 T; 2007: 146.04 T;
increased. Opportunities exist to extend activities in 2009: 93.12 T). The decline coincides with successful
Komodo Village to minimise further growth of the KNP management approaches to limit promotion of
fishing fleet through: this industry within KNP (TNC 2008), due to potential
for negative ecological and socio-economic impacts
Development of cultural or hospitality (Ceccherelli & Campo 2002; Smith et al 2002; Stimson
1985).
businesses in Papagarang, due to ideal
location on tourism boat routes entering and
exiting the park. 4.5 Tourism and
S u s t a i n a b l e
Development of mariculture businesses within
Financing
the northeast KNP Traditional Use zone,
within easy access of both Rinca Village and Available RUM tourism data is insufficient to assess
long-term tourism trends. Records of tourist boats
Papagarang Village;
numbers (Figure 6) and tourists per boat (Figure
7) show little correlation with KNP ticket sales or
Continued development of tourism services cruise ship arrivals. RUM teams appear to have
within Rinca Village. preferentially targeted fishing boats prior to 2009,
in part due to indistinct separation between RUM
4.4.4 By-catch and surveillance and enforcement activities (Pasya,
Existing RUM data and SOPs do not support any pers. com.). To provide park managers with detailed
assessment of by-catch levels and identification of information on marine tourism growth, patterns,
any reduction due to management interventions. intensity, likely impacts and revenue potentials,
Development of RUM SOPs is required, and could be RUM teams should target all boats operating within
further enhanced via complimentary catch-based KNP as specified in SOPs.
or market-based fishery monitoring programs.
In 2009 RUM operational approaches were modified
4.4.5 Development of the to ensure tourism boats were fully monitored. These
fishery
KomodoNationalPark
assessments suggest there may have been as many to local economies is minimal. Revenues are
as 59,233 marine tourists to KNP in 2009 (23.35 boats received via ticket fees and KNP government
day-1 x 6.95 tourists boat-1). Only 33,005 ticket sales charges. However fuel and food purchases, business
were recorded in 2009. While there is potential for taxes and staff employment are usually paid in the
over-estimating from RUM data (periodic sampling, port of origin, with vessels only making occasional
multi-day tickets, etc), this discrepancy highlights visits to Labuan Bajo. Possible options to maximise
the limitations of current marine tourism monitoring the benefit to local economics from these vessels
and regulation in KNP, despite its dominance among include:
KNP arrivals.
Further development and promotion of tourist
While existing RUM tourism data is insufficient for
attractions within easy (1-day) access from
temporal assessments, spatial assessments can be
made. Combined marine tourism data from 1996 to Labuan Bajo to maximise tourist spending
2009 indicates seven hot spots of intense tourism within the local economy;
activity within KNP (Figure 8), including Loh Liang/
Pink Beach and Loh Buaya tourism zones, as well Implementation of a tiered harbour fee for
as northwest Komodo (Batu Moncong), northeast KNP or West Manggarai that seeks to retain
Komodo (Gili Lawa), Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo
tourist expenditure within the region.
(Loh Belanda) and south Rinca (Loh Desami). The
latter five areas all contain one or more well-known
dive sites. Establishment of permanent or semi-
permanent ranger stations at these hot spots 4 . 6 C a p a c i t y B u i l d i n g
would provide park managers with a low cost option
for monitoring ticketing regulations, monitoring The KCMI Project Document specifies the following
tourism intensity and impacts, and improving the objectives:
visitor experience.
The use of biodiversity assessments and
Visitor arrivals to KNP decreased in the wake of the monitoring systems will have become standard
Bali bombings and political unrest in 2005. This is
practice in the management of KNP by end of
reflected by a decrease in the average number of
tourists per boat (Figure 7). Unfortunately no data year 5.
is available to assess impacts on the number of
RUM sortie frequency was highly variable between
tourism operators in Labuan Bajo. This information
1996 and 2009 (2006: 0 sorties; 1998: 41 sorties)
could assist park managers to strike a balance
(Figure 3). Average park coverage was also highly
between job creation and both visitor experience
variable (min: 23.75%, 2000; max: 77.04%, 2009).
and environmental impacts. Regulation of
This variability complicates comparison and
tourism vessels via a licensing system would drive
analysis of data, and hence limits its value to park
competition and increase operator profits. The
management. While SOPs for monitoring systems
inclusion of quality of service and safety standards
have been established, further work is required to
in licensing criteria could incentivise operators to
address the following specific issues.
invest in these areas. Tourism licenses would also
provide additional revenue streams to government
(i) High RUM sortie frequencies in 1998, 2003
to support park management systems.
and 2004 are probably comprised of both
The number of tourism boats operating within RUM sorties, and Surveillance and Enforce-
KNP per day and originating from outside West
ment patrols during which RUM data was col-
Manggarai district is significant (average 6.37 boats
per day in 2009). While these operators use and sell lected. Surveillance and Enforcement patrols
KNPs natural resource attractions, their contribution and RUM sorties have conflicting route and
44
SOP requirements, and may result in biased understanding of resource use patterns by
assessments of resource patterns by target- park managers. With an interview rate almost
ing high risk areas. RUM should be conducted ten times higher than FRS patrols (Harvey &
form dedicated sorties during which RUM is Pasya 2010), RUM provides an optimal plat-
the primary objective. RUM teams should inform for engaging with fishermen and distrib-
clude Enforcement Officers to enable rapid uting outreach and awareness messages.
response to any critical incidents encountered
(vi) Occasional data recording errors, omissions
in the field.
or inconsistencies were detected in the Rum
(ii) RUM SOPs specify a park coverage of >75% database, and impact on management inter-
per sortie. This target was only achieved dur- pretation. A training workshop was hosted by
ing 2009. Full park coverage is essential to PNK during 2009, focussing on Global Posi-
provide managers with an accurate under- tioning System and Geographical Information
standing of park usage patterns. Partial cover- Systems, and with the aim of maximising data
age may result in data bias, and misinterpreta- accuracy. Continued investment into human
tion of resource use intensity, distribution and resource skills and expertise will maximise
trends. data quality and its resultant value to park
managers.
(iii) Data gaps (e.g. 2006) exist in the RUM data-
base, limiting its application to adaptive man- Technical expertise is required to lead RUM capacity
building programs, and ensure that a robust
agement. In addition, RUM provides a long-
sampling design is adopted and that findings are
term record of natural resource use patterns fully incorporated into an adaptive management
within coastal ecosystems that is globally rare framework.
and provides critical information for local and
national decision-making and global assess-
ments.
4.7 Adaptive Management
The KCMI Project Document specifies the following
(iv) Standardisation of RUM sortie frequencies objectives:
and schedules would increase the value of
Increased use of adaptive research to support
RUM to park managers wishing to incorporate
park management.
RUM into science-based decision-making. A
minimum frequency of two sortie days every Complex and time consuming data consolidation,
two weeks is recommended. cleaning and standardisation was required before
any analysis could be carried out for this report. RUM
(v) The average number of boats interviewed per data were distributed among several database files,
maintained in multiple locations. Database formats
day increased during the period 1996 (12.85
had changed several times between 1996 and 2009.
boats day-1) to 2009 (40.97 boats day-1) (Figure Missing data was identified for numerous records,
4). Greater interview rates increase cost effi- some of which could be determined using GIS.
ciency of RUM sorties, and facilitate improved These steps are rarely available to park managers,
due to limitations of time and resources.
KomodoNationalPark
Adoption of standardised sortie schedules and several big players highly active within KNP (Table
routes would increase the value and usability of 4). In 2009, Komodo Village (25.24%) and Rinca
RUM data to park managers. Access to technical Village (20.81%) comprised the greatest proportion
expertise should be improved to facilitate this of the local fishing fleet, followed by Labuan Bajo
process. At present it is unclear to what extent RUM (13.83%) and Mesa (12.57%). Park managers can
data has been implemented into park management maximise the efficiency (biggest impact, lowest
decision-making, with no records of management cost) of communication and outreach campaigns
plan reviews or adaptations identified during the by targeting these demographics.
preparation of this report.
The establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum
This report identifies several obstacles associated would greatly increase stockholder engagement and
with the implementation of KNPs zoning system, as participation in KNP management, and improved
well as potential for resource disputes within seven use and value of RUM data.
hot spots of high tourism activity. These issues
present ideal material for adaptive-management
review by KNP collaborative management partners.
4.8 S t a k e h o l d e r
Engagement
The KCMI Project Document species the following
targets:
Involvement of stakeholder groups in park

management.
Knowledge of zoning and resource regulations

remains limited amongst community stakeholders,
with only 45.37% of fishermen possessing
knowledge of zoning regulations in 2009 (Figure
16), and only 47.27% possessing required fishing
permits (Figure 17).
No records detailing communication of RUM
findings to community or other stakeholders were
identified during the preparation of this report.
Communication may have been inhibited by the
availability of technical expertise to interpret and
communicate findings. Long-term RUM findings
were presented at three villages within KNP in April
2010, with many community members reporting
that they had not received any similar socialisation
since 2004.
Stakeholder outreach and engagement could be
improved via targeting of dominant demographic
groups. The majority of tourism boats operating
in KNP originate from Labuan Bajo (Figure 6), with
46
5
Conclusions
KomodoNationalPark
RUM is a key program through which park managers Technical expertise and support is required
can assess management effectiveness, and adapt within the KCMI Project to lead capacity building
strategies in response to emerging threats and objectives.
opportunities. RUM is a constituent of the KCMI
Projects Monitoring & Evaluation component,
to assess program performance and determine 5.2 Resource Use
whether program objectives are being met.
Patterns
This report examines long-term resource use trends
The use of destructive fishing gears prohibited
in KNP to
under District Law (PERDA 28) has declined within
Evaluate KCMI Project park management KNP. The implementation of management plans and
surveillance and enforcement operations coincides
capacity building objectives in the context of with this decline. Currently meeting/ reef gleaning is
RUM; the primary destructive fishing technique employed
within KNP, with a negative impact on reef health
Identify any trends and changes in resource and associated ecosystem services.
use behavior and patterns within KNP; KNPs zonation system has yet to be fully
implemented, and fishing activity remains high
Explore any management impact on resource within designated No-Take Areas. A review is urgently
use behavior and patterns within KNP; and required to assess the legal status of KNPs zonation
system and identify gaps, particularly with regard to
Assess the degree to which RUM has been resource regulations, sanctions and supporting local
integrated into adaptive management of KNP. legislation. Clarification of zoning regulations would
strengthen outreach and awareness programs,
and address the current low level of knowledge of
zoning regulations among KNP stakeholders.
5.1 RUM Capacity
Fishing activity in 2009 was similar to 1996 levels,
Park management RUM capacity has been enhanced with a reduction in the number of external fishing
through the purchase, operation and staffing of a boats coinciding with licensing and exclusive use
fleet of speedboats by TNC in 1996. RUM SOPs were programs offset by growth of the fishing fleet within
implemented in 2007 within the KCMI Project, and KNP and surrounding villages. Reef fisheries remain
have been supported by training programs. the dominant component of KNPs fisheries, with
perverse incentives, socio-economic obstacles and
However variable RUM sortie frequency and park
limited related management interventions limiting
coverage coupled to limited data management
any shift to pelagic fisheries. However capacity
facilities and procedures have limited the value of
building and alternative livelihood programs in
RUM data to adaptive management, resulting in
Komodo Village may have successfully limited
data gaps and requiring complex processing of data
growth of the Komodo Village fishing fleet, and these
to identify trends and patterns. A standardised RUM
programs should be extended to Rinca, Papagarang
schedule (2 days every 2 weeks) covering >70%
and other villages.
of KNP would increase the value of RUM to park
managers. Tourism activity is high within seven hot spots
of KNP, and there is potential for resource user
Regular (annual) refresher training is required to
conflicts in these areas. Monitoring of ticketing
standardise approaches between surveyors, and
regulations could be improved, costs of surveillance
maintain skills. GPS use and target fish identification
reduced, and visitor experience improved trough
are key requirements of training programs.
the establishment of permanent or semi-permanent
48
ranger stations at these hot spots.
5.3 Adaptive Management

Stakeholder engagement in RUM remains low,
with some community involvement in monitoring
during 2009. In early 2010 monitoring findings were
presented to communities for the first since 2004,
and the proportion of community stakeholders
knowledgeable of KNP regulations is low.
Full integration of RUM into adaptive management
has been hindered by data management limitations,
variable sortie frequency and park coverage, and
the need for complex data processing and analysis.
Standardised RUM schedule and review of data
management procedures would dramatically
increase the value of RUM to park managers and
assist identification of resource trends, threats and
opportunities.
KomodoNationalPark
50
6
Recommendations
KomodoNationalPark
6.1 Management 6.1.2 Fisheries

A review of objectives, gaps and needs
6.1.1 Tourism
associated with KNP zonation system is
Tourism management should focus on seven
urgently required. This should include
hot spots within KNP to minimize resource
assessment of BTNK objectives in relation
user conflicts, minimize ticketing management
to zonation system, current legal status and
costs, and improve the visitor experience.
gaps.
Seven hot spots include Loh Liang/ Pink
Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest Komodo (Batu Resource user management should focus on
Moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa), seven hot spots within KNP to minimize
Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda) resource user conflicts and management costs.
and south Rinca (Loh Desami). Seven hot spots include Loh Liang/ Pink
Beach, Loh Buaya, northwest Komodo (Batu
Implementation of a tourism licensing system
Moncong), northeast Komodo (Gili Lawa),
would assist management of the growth of the
Tatawa/ Siaba, south Komodo (Loh Belanda)
tourism fleet in KNP (including a significant
and south Rinca (Loh Desami).
proportion originating from outside West
Manggarai district), minimize environmental Surveillance and enforcement strategies should
impacts, enhance service and safety standards, be reviewed to further reduce destructive gear
increase operator profits and growth of the use within KNP. Current destructive gear use is
sector, and generate additional revenues for primarily meeting/ reef gleaning.
park management.
A review and public communication of fishing
Significant tourist revenues are lost from gear restrictions is required to address differing
West Manggarai district through tourism perceptions between stakeholders. Publication
boats originating from other areas. Revenues of a fixed list of permitted gear types with
could be retained via further development illustrations would avoid ambiguity.
and promotion of mainland Flores tourism
attractions, and via a tiered licensing system Community support for zonation and no-take
which discounts local operators who contribute areas could be strengthened through innovative
to West Manggarai taxes, economy and labor approaches that maximize sustainable fishery
markets. yields and revenues, and demonstrate short-
term results at the local level. A possible
The efficiency and impact of tourism stakeholder example (United Nations 2008) includes
engagement strategies (including outreach establishing small, community-managed no-
and communications) could be maximised by take areas, within existing Wilderness Zones,
initially targeting Labuan Bajo operators and to protect specific species and life cycle and
the marine tourism big players identified in demonstrate short term increases in fishery
this report. yields or revenues.
52
The efficiency and impact of outreach or to boat categories;

communication strategies could be maximised
Inclusion of photographic target fish
by initially targeting dominant demographics,
identification guides;
including Komodo Village, Rinca Village,
Labuan Bajo and Mesa. Implementation of night RUM;
Opportunities for closer integration between Regular (annual) refresher training should
KNP and West Manggarai coastal zone be provided to RUM team to standardize
management and spatial planning should be approaches and maintain data quality. Priority
sought to maximise their effectiveness and areas include data recording, data management,
minimise costs and overheads. target species identification and GPS.
Data management facilities and procedures

6.2 Monitoring should be improved, including a centralized
data repository, detailed SOPs, and associated
Technical expertise is required within the KCMI training and capacity building.
project to deliver RUM capacity building and
associated adaptive management objectives.
The following adjustments should be made to

RUM SOPs:
Standardized sortie schedule (2 days every

2 weeks);
>70% KNP coverage per sortie;
RUM to be primary objective of sorties, with

Surveillance and Enforcement a secondary
role if RUM team includes Enforcement
Officers;
Inclusion of community organizers or other

stakeholders in the RUM team;
Targeting of all resource users within KNP,

and maintenance of high 2009 interview
rates (>40 interviews per day);
Addition of cruise ship, live-aboard,

day dive boat and fishery middle man
KomodoNationalPark
54
7
Literature Cited
KomodoNationalPark
Beger M, Turak E (2005). A Rapid Ecological Assessment of the Protected Areas: A Toolkit for South East Asia. IUCN,
reef fishes and scleractinian corals of Komodo National Gland, Switzerland and Bangkok, Thailand.
Park, Indonesia in 2005. The Nature Conservancy, Jennings S & Polunin N (1996). Impacts of fishing on tropical
Bjork M, Mohammad SM, Bjorkland M & Semesi A (1994). Cor- Reef Ecosystems, Ambio 25: 44-46.
alline Algae, Important Coral Reef Builders Threatened Johannes RE, Riepen M (1995). Environmental, Economic and
by Pollution, Ambio 24: 502-504. Social Implications of the Live Fish Trade in Asia and
Bohnsack, J., 1993, Proceedings of the Colloqium on Global teh Westren Pacific. Fisheries Development Associ-
Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History, ates, Wellington, New Zealand.
University of Miami, . Kahn B, (2000). Komodo National Park Cetacean surveys, A
Brown B (1997). Life and death of Coral Reefs. IN: Birkeland C rapid ecological assessment of Cetacean diversity,
(ed), Disturbances to Reefs in Recent Times, Chapman abundance and distribution. Monitoring report-April
and Hall, New York, pp. 370-2. 1999-2000.
Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M (1998). Reefs at Katherina, Sius U, Pasya A, Sihite J (2007). Pedoman Teknis
Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the Worlds Program Monitoring Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Laut
Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute (WRI), Inter- di Taman Nasional Komodo. Balai Taman Nasional
national Centre for Living Resources Management Komodo, Labuan Bajo, Indonesia.
(ICLARM), World Conservation Monitoring Centre Keane A, Jones JPG, Edwards-Jones G & Milner-Gulland EJ
(WCMC), United Nations Environment Programme (2008). The sleeping policeman: understanding issues
(UNEP), of enforcement and compliance in conservation, Ani-
Bupati Manggarai Barat, (2005). PERDA No. 28 tahun 2005: mal Conservation 11: 75-82.
Pemakaian alat penangkap ikan dan atau alat bantu Kelleher G, (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas, Phil-
penangkap ikan. . lips, A. ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
Ceccherelli G & Campo D (2002). Different effects of Caulerpa UK.
racemosa on two co-occurring seagrasses in the Medi- Keputusan Dirjen PHKA, (2001). No. 65/kpts/DJ-V/2001 .
terranean, Botanica Marina 45: 71-76. Mak J & Moncur JET (1998). Political economy of protecting
CRMP (2004). Environment and Coastal Ecosystem unique recreational resources: Hanauma Bay, Hawaii,
Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP & Polunin NV (2004). Coral reef cas- Ambio 217-223.
cades and the indirect effects of predator removal by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and
exploitation, Ecology Letters 7: 410-416. Human Well-being: Synthesis, World Resources Insti-
Erdman AM, (2004). A Natural History Guide to Komodo Na- tute ed. Island Press, Washington, DC..
tional Park (Books 1 - 3), The Nature Conservancy, In- Moberg F & Folke C (1999). Ecological goods and services of
donesia Coastal and Marine Program, Bali, Indonesia. coral reef ecosystems, Ecological Economics 29: 215-
Global Environment Facility (1996). The Hashemite Kingdom 233.
of Jordon: Gulf of Aquba Environmental Action Plan. Mous PJ, Katherina, McCorry D, Pet JS (2007). Status of coral
World Bank, Washington, DC. reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Results of
Halim, Gede, Mous (2005). Towards implementation of a li- a bi-annual survey over the period 1996 2002, with
censing and zoning plan for extractive uses in Komodo an update of the status in 2006. The Nature Conser-
National Park, NTT, Indonesia. The Nature Conservan- vancy, Bali, Indonesia.
cy, Bali, Indonesia. Mous, PJ, Halim, M (2004). Progress report on The Nature Con-
Harvey AH, Pasya A (2010). Surveillance and Enforcement in servancys Komodo marine conservation project. The
Komodo National Park, Indonesia: 1996 - 2010. PT Nature Conservancy, Indonesia.
Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia. Pasya (2009). Program Pendataan Armada Perikanan
Hughes TP & Connell JH (1999). Multiple stressors on coral Masyarakat dalam Wilayah Taman Nasional Komodo,
reefs: a long-term perspective, Limnology and Ocean- Tahun 2009. PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia.
ography 44: 932-940. Pedju M, (2004). Report on seagrass monitoring in Komodo
Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Folke C, Steneck RS & Wilson J (2005). National Park, July 2002--July 2003, Report from The
New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for Marine
ecosystems, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 380- Protected Areas, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia 55: .
386. Pennisi E, (1997). Brighter prospects for the worlds coral reefs,
IFC (2004). Komodo National Park Collaboratve Management Science 227: 491-493.
Initiative: Project Document. International Finance PHKA, TNC (2000). 25-Year Master Plan for Management, Ko-
Corporation, Washington, D.C.. modo National Park (Book 1-3). Komodo National Park
International Monetary Fund (2009). World Economic Outlook: Authority, Indonesia.
2009. International Monetary Fund, Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC, Francour P, Badalamenti F, Chemello
IUCN, 2009, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version R, Harmelin-Vivien ML, Hereu B, Milazzo M, Zabala M,
2009.1, IUCN, . Retrieved October 18, 2009. Danna G & others (2002). Trophic cascades in benthic
IUCN, CORDIO, ICRAN (2008). Managing Marine and Coastal marine ecosystems: lessons for fisheries and protect-
56
ed-area management, Environmental Conservation 27:

179-200.
PNK (2006). Komodo Collaborative Managememt Initiative:
7-year implementation plan. Putri Naga Komodo,
Indonesia.
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 Ef-
fectiveness, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK.
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.
Salm RV, Clark J & Siirila E (2000). Marine and Coastal Protect-
ed Areas: A guide for planners and managers, IUCN,
Washington DC.
Smith JE, Hunter CL & Smith CM (2002). Distribution and repro-
ductive characteristics of nonindigenous and invasive
marine algae in the Hawaiian Islands, Pacific Science
56: 299-316.
Statistics Indonesia (2009). Badan Pusat Statistik.
Steins NA & Edwards VM (1998). Harbour resource manage-
ment in Cowes, Isle of Wight: an analytical framework
for multiple-use decision-making, Journal of environ-
mental management 54: 67-81.
Stimson J, (1985). The effect of shading by the table coral
Acropora hyacinthus on understory corals, Ecology
40-53.
TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
for National and International Policy Makers - Sumary:
Responding to the Valu of Nature 2009.
TNC (2008). Seaweed Farming in and around Komodo National
Park: Position Paper. The Nature Conservancy,
UNEP-WCMC (2005). Komodo National Park, Indonesia. United
Nations Environment Program - World Conservation
Monitoring Centre,
UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and
other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral
reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 33pp.
United Nations (2008). Innovation for Sustainable Develop-
ment: Local Case Studies from Africa. United Nations,
New York. Report No. 978-92-1-104578-9
Walpole MJ & Goodwin HG (2000). Local economic impacts
of dragon tourism in indonesia, Annals of Tourism
Research 27: 559-576.
Western D, Strum SC & Wright RM (1994). Natural connec-
tions: perspectives in community-based conservation,
Island Pr,.
Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004, Status of the Coral Reefs of the
World: 2004, Australian Institute of Marine Science,
Townsville.
KomodoNationalPark
58
Appendix A: Proforma
A
Proforma
KomodoNationalPark
Formulir/Form P1
Tanggal:
Speedboat:
Sortie_ID.:
Nama Organisasi Fungsi tandatangan

1 Kapten
2 ABK
3 Polhut
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Form ini harus disimpan bersama data monitoring

Harap diperhatikan :
1. Pertanyaan atau tindakan di luar formulir isian hanya bisa dilakukan oleh petugas yang berwenang
2. Tim tidak diperkenankan untuk memancing, melakukan penangkapan dan atau memperoleh ikan (juga hasil laut lainnya)
dengan cara lainnya selama melakukan kegiatan monitoring pemanfaatan sumber daya. Dalam kondisi khusus, pembelian ikan
bisa dilakukan dengan cara pemberian tunai atau barter.
60
FORM P2. Sortie ID
Tgl/Bln/Thn jam:menit jam:menit

Tanggal Berangkat Jam Berangkat Jam Tiba
Tanggal Tiba Jam Berangkat Jam Tiba
Tempat Bermalam:
Sections Covered during this Sortie

1. Komodo N 9. Rinca, L. Kima & L. Buaya
2. Komodo NE 10. Rinca NE & Papagaran
3. Komodo Loh Liang 11. Rinca SE
4. Komodo SE 12. Rinca S & Loh Dasami
5. Komodo S 13. Rinca SW & Padar SE
6. Komodo SW 14. Padar NW
7. Komodo NW 15. Gili Motang N
8. Rinca N & Siaba 16. Gili Motang S
Total Vessels / Groups interviewed Arrest (Yes / No)
Gambarkan rute perjalanan pada peta di bawah ini:
10
4 14
11
13
5
15
12
16
62
1. Mesin dalam
Nomor
2. Mesin tempel
3. Tanpa mesin
Jenis kapal
4. Tanpa kapal
Tanggal
(Tgl/Bln/Thn)
1. Komodo
2. Rinca atau Kerora
3. Papagarang
Waktu
(jam:menit)
4. Warloka atau Golohmori

5. Mesa
6. Labuan Bajo atau Seraya
Lintang
S (08 ....)
Asal
7. Longos, Boleng, Rangko

8. Luar daerah dalam propinsi NTT
Bujur
E (119 ...)
9. Sape
Posisi
10. Bali
11. Daerah lain, Nasional
12. Luar negeri
Nama lokasi
1. Pancing tonda atau rawai tuna ( hanyut )

2. Pancing dasar atau rawai dasar (tetap)
1. Bahari
3. Jaring insang hanyut / tetap ( pukat ) 2. Pemanfaatan, Penelitian
4. Jaring/pukat cincin, pukat harimau, lampara 3. P., Tradisional Bahari
Zona
5. Bagan 4. P., Pelagis

6. Bubu 5. P., Wisata Bahari
7. Kompresor atau tabung ( alat selam ) 1. Nelayan
Jenis alat tangkap :
2. Wisata selam dan daratan

8. Meting ( tanpa alat selam )
3. Wisata mancing
9. Bom, sianida, potas, tuba atau bius, kemande
Pemanfaatan
4. Kapal Pesiar/kapal pribadi

10. Alat lainnya (tombak, panah, ...)
1. Kerja
0. Belum ada hasil
Formulir P3. Data Pemanfaatan( semua aktivitas nelayan & wisatawan di laut dan di pantai )
2. Jalan
Kegiatan
1. Ikan karang
3. Istirahat
2. Ikan pelagis Wawancara (Ya/Tidak)
3. Ikan hiu
4. Teripang
5. Udang kecil
Jenis hasil
Nama Kapal
6. Udang besar ( lobster, 2 ekor dalam 1 kg )

7. Siput ( 2 mutiara / 10 mata tujuh dalam 1 kg )
8. Cumi
Sortie_ID (see Form P1):
9. Campuran atau lain-lain

J (Jam)/H (Hari)
Kerja
Nama Kapten
Berat basah (kg)
Jumlah Awak Kapal
Berat kering (kg) Jumlah Wisatawan / Penumpang
Jumlah hasil
Keterangan:
KomodoNationalPark
FORM P4. Pemanfaatan sumberdaya menetap yang diamati selama

Pemanfaatan periode pengamatan
sumberdaya menetap
10
3
9
4 14
11
13
5
15
12
16
Aturan:
1. Masukkan semua tipe pemanfaatan sumberdaya yang kemungkinan tetap ada selama
periode 2-3 bulan atau lebih, tidak termasuk struktur permanent seperti pelabuhan dll
2. Masukkan Sortie_ID ketika pemanfaatan sumberdaya diamati untuk yang pertama

kali selama periode tiga bulan
3. Jangan mengeluarkan sebuah feature/data dari peta sketsa, walaupun sudah tidak ada
dalam periode tiga bulan tersebut
4. Pada saat akhir periode tiga bulan, peta dengan form P5 di-file, dan mulai dengan
peta baru
Penampakan Sketsa: titik, garis atau polygon dengan feature ID, penjelasan dimasukkan dalam
form P5
64
FORM P5. Pengamatan dilakukan selama periode:
P.sumberdaya tetap
SortieID FeatureID FeatureType Deskripsi

KomodoNationalPark
(buat form tambahan jika diperlukan)

Catatan
Feature type: titik, garis atau poligon
SortieID: SortieID dihitung dalam periode 3 bulan dimana feature (pemanfaatan tetap) disurvei
Appendix B: Fishery Resource Patterns
B
Fishery Resource
Patterns
T
T
66
T
T
1000
1500
2000
1000
1500
2000
100
150
200
250
500
500
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
50
0
0
0
0
0
1996 1996 1996 1996 1996
1997 1997 1997 1997 1997
1998 1998 1998 1998 1998
1999 1999 1999 1999 1999
KomodoNationalPark
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Shells
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
Seaweed
Reef Fish
Mixed Fish
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003
Sea Cucumber
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
T
T
T
Figure B 1: Annual yields of KNP fisheries from 1996 to 2009.

100
20
40
60
80
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
100
150
200
250
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
50
0
0
0
0
1996
1996 1996 1996 1996
1997
1997 1997 1997 1997
1998
1998 1998 1998 1998
1999
1999 1999 1999 1999
2000
2000 2000 2000 2000
2001
2001 2001 2001 2001
Squid
2002
2002 2002 2002 2002
Sharks
Shrimp
Lobster
PelagicFish
2003
2003 2003 2003 2003
2004
2004 2004 2004 2004
2005
2005 2005 2005 2005
2006
2006 2006 2006 2006
2007
2007 2007 2007 2007
2008
2008 2008 2008 2008
2009
2009 2009 2009 2009
1996 1997 1998
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007
T No Data
2008 2009
Section
Figure B 2: Annual trends in the distribution of total fishery yields across KNPs management sections and zones between 1996 and
2009.
KomodoNationalPark
68
Figure B 2: Annual trends in the distribution of fishing effort in KNP from 1996 to 2009.
KomodoNationalPark
70
Appendix C: Management Effectiveness
C
Management
Effectiveness
KomodoNationalPark
RUM provides biophysical and socio-economic data to 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
72
KomodoNationalPark
74
Appendix D: Raw Data
D
Raw Data
KomodoNationalPark
RUM raw data collected between 1996 and 2009 is summarised in the following table.
Detailed raw data can be downloaded in the file RUM_database.xlsx from www.gokomodo.org/resources.
html, or by contacting the General Manager, PT Putri Naga Komodo at info@putrinagakomodo.com.
Fishing Vessels Traditional Use Tourism Vessels
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
1 28-May-96 12
2 17-Jun-96 30 5
3 25-Jun-96 36 2 1
4 3-Jul-96 35 6 4
5 10-Jul-96 21 11 2
6 16-Jul-96 31 4 4
7 25-Jul-96 28 3
8 1-Aug-96 20 6
9 12-Aug-96 14 9 2
10 20-Aug-96 14 3 1
11 31-Aug-96 31 5 4
12 9-Sep-96 21 2
13 21-Sep-96 22 5 1
14 26-Sep-96 24 2
15 3-Oct-96 16 9
16 9-Oct-96 24 1 5
17 16-Oct-96 24 2
18 23-Oct-96 22 6 2
19 5-Nov-96 23 15
20 26-Nov-96 20 10
21 8-Jan-97 15 5 8
22 12-Feb-97 27 4 2
23 24-Feb-97 2 3
24 6-Mar-97 19 1
25 25-Mar-97 18 4 4
26 3-Apr-97 11 2
27 14-Apr-97 27 1 2
28 25-Apr-97 17 1
29 6-May-97 29 2 1
30 14-May-97 10 1
31 5-Jun-97 28 4 1
32 23-Jun-97 19
33 8-Jul-97 22 1
34 16-Aug-97 16 2
35 11-Sep-97 6
36 2-Oct-97 10 9 2
37 20-Oct-97 13 2
76
Fishing Vessels Tourism Vessels
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
38 8-Dec-97 13 2
39 12-Jan-98 16 1 2
40 23-Jan-98 13 3 1
41 3-Feb-98 46 7 3 5
42 9-Feb-98 12 2
43 20-Feb-98 20 2
44 27-Feb-98 18
45 4-Mar-98 13
46 10-Mar-98 20 5
47 20-Mar-98 25 5 2
48 24-Mar-98 52 2 2
49 3-Apr-98 21 1
50 16-Apr-98 26 1
51 21-Apr-98 20 2
52 29-Apr-98 15 1 4
53 6-May-98 30 1 1
54 18-May-98 14 1
55 26-May-98 18 4 2
56 1-Jun-98 12
57 9-Jun-98 19 3 9
58 17-Jun-98 28 2
59 24-Jun-98 24 8 2
60 29-Jun-98 27 2 1
61 7-Jul-98 10 3 3
62 16-Jul-98 38 7 4 2
63 22-Jul-98 13
64 29-Jul-98 13 3 2 6
65 10-Aug-98 10 2 3
66 19-Aug-98 25 5 7
67 23-Aug-98 20
68 29-Aug-98 6 1 1
69 3-Sep-98 17 3 1
70 12-Sep-98 9 4
71 17-Sep-98 45 2
72 25-Sep-98 23 6
73 6-Oct-98 16 3
74 22-Oct-98 9 1 1 1
75 3-Nov-98 21 2
76 10-Nov-98 21 1
77 7-Dec-98 12
78 17-Dec-98 9 6 3 3
79 28-Dec-98 5
80 5-Jan-99 16
81 12-Jan-99 23 4 1
82 21-Jan-99 5
KomodoNationalPark
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
83 28-Jan-99 11
84 8-Feb-99 7 2
85 18-Feb-99 11 4 1
86 25-Feb-99 12 4 2
87 2-Mar-99 14 7 2
88 12-Mar-99 13 1 1
89 20-Apr-99 13 3 2
90 27-Apr-99 24
91 30-Jun-99 13 1
92 14-Aug-99 16 1
93 2-Sep-99 9 8 1
94 9-Sep-99 19 2
95 12-Oct-99 19 3 1 1
96 18-Oct-99 16 9
97 28-Oct-99 19
98 8-Nov-99 12 1
99 15-Nov-99 24 2 1
100 23-Nov-99 15 3 1
101 30-Nov-99 23 4 1
102 7-Dec-99 11 2 1
103 15-Dec-99 21 5 1
104 21-Dec-99 10
105 11-Jan-00 14 1
106 20-Jan-00 6 1
107 1-Feb-00 26
108 16-Feb-00 9
109 23-Feb-00 18 4 1
110 1-Mar-00 8 5 2
111 11-Mar-00 15
112 29-Mar-00 22 1
113 11-Apr-00 24 2
114 10-May-00 20
115 23-Jan-01 13
116 31-Jan-01 16 2 1
117 7-Feb-01 11 4
118 3-Apr-01 14 2 1
119 16-May-01 11 1 3
120 6-Jul-01 5
121 25-Jul-01 14 2
122 2-Aug-01 22 3 1
123 13-Aug-01 26 2 7
124 30-Aug-01 34 4 1
125 6-Nov-01 15 4 1
126 13-Mar-02 11 4 1 3 1 1
127 25-Mar-02 24 1 1 1 2
78
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
128 3-Apr-02 30 6 1
129 15-Apr-02 24 5 1 3 1 1 2
130 26-Apr-02 3
131 8-May-02 6
132 17-May-02 18 6 1
133 5-Jun-02 25 7 1 1
134 19-Jun-02 13 12 4 1 1
135 27-Jun-02 17 1 2
136 4-Jul-02 6 4
137 16-Jul-02 15 13
138 24-Jul-02 27 4 2 4 3 3
139 5-Aug-02 25 18 1 3 5
140 26-Aug-02 18 2 1 2
141 27-Aug-02 16
142 13-Sep-02 15 3
143 18-Sep-02 19 4 1 3 1
144 25-Sep-02 23 1
145 16-Oct-02 31 3 1 4
146 5-Nov-02 12 9 2 2
147 19-Dec-02 10
148 7-Jan-03 9 1 3
149 16-Jan-03 14 9 2 2
150 24-Jan-03 6 16
151 7-Feb-03 17 6
152 15-Feb-03 2
153 19-Feb-03 6 3 1
154 26-Feb-03 17
155 6-Mar-03 19 4 1
156 13-Mar-03 6
157 18-Mar-03 19 1
158 26-Mar-03 24 2 1
159 8-Apr-03 38
160 15-Apr-03 4 1
161 23-Apr-03 5 4 1
162 29-Apr-03 29 7 1 2
163 13-May-03 11 2 3
164 27-May-03 16 2
165 5-Jun-03 13
166 16-Jun-03 17 1 1 1 3
167 23-Jun-03 21 1
168 2-Jul-03 6
169 14-Jul-03 28 3
170 23-Jul-03 10 5
171 30-Jul-03 7
172 5-Aug-03 29 4
KomodoNationalPark
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
173 13-Aug-03 18
174 4-Sep-03 11 1
175 12-Sep-03 24 2
176 24-Sep-03 9 1 5 1
177 7-Oct-03 29
178 14-Oct-03 11
179 23-Oct-03 17 2
180 4-Nov-03 20 3
181 18-Nov-03 42 2
182 8-Dec-03 16 1
183 17-Dec-03 8 14
184 29-Dec-03 20 6 2
185 6-Jan-04 10 1
186 15-Jan-04 28 10 2
187 23-Jan-04 29
188 27-Jan-04 21 11
189 17-Feb-04 6
190 26-Feb-04 62 3
191 4-Mar-04 17
192 12-Mar-04 26 12 3
193 18-Mar-04 15 20 1 3
194 25-Mar-04 30 2
195 7-Apr-04 19 13 2
196 23-Apr-04 34 2
197 28-Apr-04 10 9
198 6-May-04 30 2
199 13-May-04 33 4 4 1
200 25-May-04 17 2
201 8-Jun-04 17 4 2 1 1
202 18-Jun-04 52 1 1 1
203 24-Jun-04 21 2 2
204 8-Jul-04 14 3
205 15-Jul-04 30 5 1
206 5-Aug-04 22 8 2 1
207 13-Aug-04 28 3 5 1
208 24-Aug-04 37 1 7 4
209 7-Sep-04 13 9 6 2
210 16-Sep-04 36 1 2 3 1
211 29-Sep-04 7 1 3
212 14-Oct-04 27 7
213 20-Oct-04 42 5 2
214 4-Nov-04 55 2 6
215 9-Dec-04 33 3
216 16-Dec-04 30 41 3 1
217 28-Dec-04 21 7 2 2 1
80
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
218 5-Jan-05 35 7 1 2
219 13-Jan-05 22 7
220 26-Jan-05 20 4 1 1
221 3-Feb-05 26 7
222 16-Feb-05 59 5 2 1 1 1
223 24-Feb-05 29 6
224 3-Mar-05 52 2
225 7-Mar-05 19
226 16-Mar-05 25 7
227 18-Mar-05 14 3
228 22-Mar-05 7 2 1
229 30-Mar-05 24 5 1
230 6-Apr-05 20 9 1
231 13-Apr-05 42 8
232 29-Apr-05 25 4 1
233 27-May-05 7 5 1
234 3-Jun-05 22 1 2
235 25-Jun-07 12 13 1 7 3
236 5-Jul-07 29 3
237 16-Jul-07 40 2 5
238 25-Jul-07 8 10 7
239 16-Aug-07 16 3
240 30-Aug-07 12 4 1 12 1
241 10-Sep-07 15 10 2 2 9
242 24-Sep-07 17 7 1 7
243 2-Oct-07 25 3 1 3 4
244 10-Oct-07 15 1 3
245 23-Oct-07 15 3
246 2-Nov-07 14
247 13-Nov-07 78 13 1 2 1 3
248 22-Nov-07 9 2
249 15-Feb-08 16 5 4 1
250 27-Feb-08 2 1 1
251 5-Mar-08 52 4 1
252 13-Mar-08 62
253 18-Mar-08 8 1
254 27-Mar-08 32 1 1 4
255 3-Apr-08 10 35 1 1 1
256 9-Apr-08 26 3 2
257 15-Apr-08 14 4 18 1
258 23-Apr-08 22 3
259 27-May-08 23 5 5
260 3-Jun-08 20 3 3
261 25-Apr-09 62 16 3 7 1
262 8-May-09 19 4 5 4 2 5
KomodoNationalPark
Traditional Use
Traditional Use
Wilderness
Wilderness
Research
Research
Tourism
Tourism
Pelagic
Pelagic
Sortie Date
263 22-May-09 29 30 2 4 5 7 2
264 8-Jun-09 52 6 6 3 6 9 3
265 6-Jul-09 18 16 6 8 7 1
266 22-Jul-09 76 21 7 10 5 9 20 3
267 5-Aug-09 24 25 3 13 1 6 21 2
268 20-Aug-09 8 12 3 26 11 25 2
269 3-Sep-09 9 30 1 11 10 9
270 15-Sep-09 24 13 2 8 2 10 6 1 1
271 1-Oct-09 24 9 1 2 6 4 2
272 19-Oct-09 27 19 2 12 1 6 8
273 18-Nov-09 37 53 10 5 5 5 1 9 2
274 1-Dec-09 12 20 1 2 6 2 5 1
275 15-Dec-09 47 36 3 2 5 1 5 1
276 1-Jan-04 33 31 4 3 6
82
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
84 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

Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-Term Trends 1996 - 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-Term Trends 1996 - 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource Use in Komodo National Park: Long-term Trends 1996 - 2009

PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

Resource Use in Komodo National Park:

Long-term Trends 1996 2009

Komodo National Park Resource Use Monitoring Series: 1996 - 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

Sumary for Decision Makers

Valuable ecosystem services are sustained within

Community development and alternative livelihood

Fishing activity in KNP has been maintained at or below

Fishing activity within designated no-take areas is

Awareness of KNPs resource regulation is low amongst

Seven tourism boats originating from outside West

RUM has not yet been fully integrated into adaptive

BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Autority)

Protecting the Parks natural resources,

Enabling Park management to reach financial self-sufficiency through nature-based tourism

Director, The Nature Conservancys Coral Triangle Program

(Hughes et al 2005), including destructive on resource use patterns;

Objective to be Monitored Performance Indicator Expected Change

Resource Use Type Target

2.1 Fieldwork possible that RUM preferentially targeted fishermen

Boat captain; Type of boats (fishing, sport fishing, yacht,

Science and Monitoring Coordinator; For fishing boats:

Figure 2: RUM sortie route as defined in SOP.

For tourism boats: Economic values of KNP fisheries were calculated

2.2 Data Management

Figure 3: Frequency of RUM sorties and average percentage of

Figure 4: Average number and standard error of boats encountered

Figure 8: Location of tourist boats at anchor between 1996 and

Figure 11: Average number of fishing boats operating in KNP

Figure 12: Average number of fishing boats operating in KNP per

Figure 13: Average numbers of people working within KNP fisher-

Figure 16: Proportion of fishermen interviewed during 2009 dem-

For all years, fishing activity was distributed

Figure 21: Average number of fishing boats using advanced and

4.2 Destructive Fishing

4 . 4 S u s t a i n a b l e F i s h e r i e s years (Figure 9), except 1996 and 2007 which include

Involvement of stakeholder groups in park

Knowledge of zoning and resource regulations

ranger stations at these hot spots.

5.3 Adaptive Management

6.1 Management 6.1.2 Fisheries

The efficiency and impact of outreach or to boat categories;

Data management facilities and procedures

The following adjustments should be made to

Standardized sortie schedule (2 days every

>70% KNP coverage per sortie;

RUM to be primary objective of sorties, with

Inclusion of community organizers or other

Targeting of all resource users within KNP,

Addition of cruise ship, live-aboard,

ed-area management, Environmental Conservation 27:

Nama Organisasi Fungsi tandatangan

Form ini harus disimpan bersama data monitoring

FORM P2. Sortie ID

Tgl/Bln/Thn jam:menit jam:menit