Áreas de conocimiento de la gestión de proyectos según PMI

The regional planning board, BAPPEDA, is a coordination institution below the national planning board BAPPENAS. In 1998, BAPPEDA held a strate- gic position for coordinating development of various sectors in the region, including fisheries, and had offices at both provincial and district levels. The

provincial office of BAPPEDA was also the governor’s office. The provincial governor held two positions: he was head of the provincial government as well as the provincial representative of the Minister of Internal Affairs. BAP- PEDA had a close working relationship with the Department of Internal Af- fairs.

BAPPEDA had to that point largely concerned itself with the expansion of fisheries rather than with management or conservation. The department was also in charge of environmental impact assessment (EIA). However, assess- ments that did occur were typically very narrow, not cross-sectoral.

In Maluku, attempts to rationalize fisheries development policy led BAPPE- DA to develop the concept called ‘Gugus Pulau and Laut Pulau’. Under this scheme the province was divided up into eight clusters of islands (the Gugus

Pulau), with the Laut Pulau being the areas of open sea between these clus-

ters. In 1998, these divisions were still only poorly defined areas on paper, and were not operational management units. One problem that provincial planners faced was that administrative boundaries of districts and sub-dis- tricts did not coincide with ecological boundaries.

Among its many tasks, BAPPEDA had to oversee fisheries development project planning. However, much of BAPPEDA’s energy tended to be direct- ed to large international development projects rather than to smaller pro- grams for fisheries development. Once the planning of a fisheries project had been completed by BAPPEDA, implementation would be left to the Fish- eries Agency, which also had economic development as its first priority. So, in practice, there was no coordinating body focused on coastal and marine resources management and protection.

The various agencies and institutions involved in the fishery resource man- agement system in Maluku could be classified into two major groups; both groups were coordinated through BAPPEDA (Table 8.1). Group I was the group of institutions directly involved in the fishery activities and dealing with the supply of skilled human resources in the marine and maritime are- as; the supply of maritime facilities such as ships, harbours, and other equip- ment; facilitating training; and the provision of necessary funding (according to formal regulations). Group II was a group of institutions that dealt with marine and fishery problems as a subset of their duties. In addition there was the national research institute LIPI which was to provide information to policy makers. LIPI had a regional research centre in Ambon.

Twenty-six key respondents from various governmental institutions at provincial and lower levels were interviewed to identify their roles in fisheries development and management, and the strengths and weaknesses of each agency (Table 8.2). Roles were tabulated under the following management

functions: 1) information gathering and provision, 2) project planning, 3) project implementation, 4) evaluation of projects (physical and legal aspects), 5) enforcement of fisheries law, 6) funding of projects, 7) routine fisheries policy implementation, and 8) issuing permits and licenses and collection of taxes and fees.

The interviews revealed that information gathering and dissemination was performed by all agencies with the exception of the police. The planning of fisheries development projects involved BAPPEDA, all levels of the Fisheries Agency, the Law Bureau, and village government heads. Depending on the type of project, provincial and district levels of the Department of Transport and the resource conservation section of the Department of Forestry could also be involved. Interestingly, the Environment Bureau did not identify this as one of their areas of activity. They only became involved during the imple- mentation of a project, along with BAPPEDA, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Transport, the Fisheries Agency, and regional, district, and vil- lage government heads. In general, the Environment Bureau was a very weak player, not least because its area of jurisdiction relative to the environment section of BAPPEDA was unclear. Most agencies (except for the Environment Bureau and Law Bureau) had responsibility for evaluating physical and legal implications of projects, but evaluation and feedback into new project plan- ning was also an area of extreme weakness in the system.

Formally, enforcement was a shared responsibility of the police, the navy and the Fisheries Agency. The Department of Transport played a role in enforcing licensing regulations, whereas various government offices facilitated report- ing of offences or, in the case of village chiefs, applied sanctions available under local government and sasi rules.

TABLE 8.1 – Government bodies involved in fisheries management at the provincial level (1997-98)

Group I Fisheries Agency (Dinas Perikanan) Dept. Transport (Dep. Perhubungan & Dirgen Perhubungan Laut)

Navy (TNI Angkatan Laut)

Police (Polisi Republik Indonesia)

Group II

Dept. Internal Affairs (Dep. Dalam Negeri) Dept. Forestry (Dep. Kehutanan & Dirgen PHPA)

Environment Bureau (Biro Lingkungan Hidup)

Law Bureau (Biro Hukum)

Funding for fisheries development came from BAPPEDA, the Fisheries Agency and Department of Forestry, or was supported out of local govern- ment coffers. Most agencies performed routine management tasks, while licensing and collection of fees and taxes were the special purview of the Fisheries Agency and Department of Transport. The Environment Bureau, Department of Forestry and provincial and district government offices were not directly involved in day-to-day fisheries management tasks. The conclu- sion of these findings was that there was a clear need for communication and coordination among agencies.

Key findings from the interviews of government staff were as follows: • There was no special institution to manage coastal and fishery resources.

The management aspects were divided among a range of institutions. This caused difficulties in coordination.

• Authority seemed to be an important factor in the management process. Because of the top-down approach, determination of limits of authority had to precede any decision and often nothing was done without explicit approval from a higher level.

• Limited human resources and poor motivation very much affected all lev- els of the management system.

• Staff persons in every agency and at every level revealed a lack of knowl- edge of fisheries law and management principles.

• Limited equipment, facilities and funding hindered management and en- forcement functions. Budgetary problems were most critical at the lower (sub-district) levels, which greatly hindered both enforcement and the transfer of training and information to the village level.

• Sustainability of resources and habitat were low priorities compared to expansion and development of fisheries.

• Better scientific data and greater cooperation with research institutions and universities were deemed to be essential in order to support the man- agement system.

• Technical guidelines from the national level were inadequate. For exam- ple, national instructions to collect taxes on shellfish were not accompa- nied by instructions on implementing such a tax.

• Since the village could carry out many fisheries resource management functions, it meant that in theory the village held an important role in the management process. However, a legal basis for the village role, and in particular for the adat institution sasi, was not explicitly provided. Govern- ment staff persons acknowledged the strategic position of local govern- ments as implementing agents but also tended to see village chiefs as be- ing incompetent in resource management.

• Fisheries management issues were not of central concern to village chiefs, who had heavy workloads and were mostly concerned with economic de- velopment.

• Control by the navy was difficult because they were found only at the pro- vincial level and tended to focus on international piracy and deep-water fisheries infringements.

• Cooperation between the navy and the police as well as with the army

(Babinsa who may be present in villages) was not optimal.

• The enforcers (police and navy) were important players. In many cases infractions that were not dealt with properly caused other problems to arise (for instance bad relations with community leaders) which ham- pered management.