Effect of Transfer Authority For Conservation Of Marine Protected Areas in North Sumatera Province

                                              Hamzah Lubis¹ and Mayang Sari Yeanny<sup>2

1</sup> Environmental Lecturer at the Medan Institute of Technology, Expert in the Field of Environmental Research and Development of North Sumatra Province
²D Biology Department of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of North Sumatra.

                                                               Abstract

Damage to coral reefs causes environmental damage and decreases in fish catches which have an impact on the welfare of coastal communities. One way to overcome the damage to coral reefs is by Marine Protected Areas (MPA). The Government of Indonesia through Law Number 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government and Law Number 27 of 2007 concerning Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands gives MPA authority to Regency / City Governments. However, through Law Number 23 of 2004 concerning Regional Government, conservation management authority is withdrawn from the Regency / City Government to the Provincial Government.

The study was conducted to obtain the influence of the transfer of authority on MPA management in North Sumatra. The study was carried out at 4 (four) MPAs in North Sumatra Province in 2018 and private MPAs managed by the community. Methods of data collection using observation, questionnaire and in-depth interviews.
The results of the study indicate that the Government of North Sumatra Province is not ready to accept the delegation of authority for conservation management from the districts / cities in North Sumatra. The prescribed MPA (1) MPA Sawo-Lahewa in North Nias Regency in 2017 and (2) Limited Protection Areas of Terubuk Fish in Labuhan Batu in 2016 until 2018 have not been managed. Likewise 3 MPAs in Central Tapanuli, South Nias and Serdang Bedagai have not been managed and are still in the reserve stage. The proposed MPA pending from Madina Regency, Batubara Regency and Sibolga City as well as the proposed limited Protected Area for Batak Fish, Shellfish, Turtle, Teripang from the regency / city have not yet been continued. Likewise, data collection, guidance, and community-managed private MPA assistance have not been conducted.

Keywords: 1. Conservation 2. Marine Protected Areas 3. Limited Protection Areas 4. North Sumatra

Preliminary
Indonesia has 25,000 km2 of coral reefs (10%) of 284,300 km2 of the world's coral reefs with high diversity (569 species of 82 genera, 15 tribes of a total of 845 coral species in the world, 90% of families of Fungiidae in Indonesian waters, 41 species of 43 species of coral world and 94 types of 124 types of Acropora world). This coral reef has been damaged. Data from the Oceanographic Research Center of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) in 2017 in 108 locations and 1,064 monitoring stations in all Indonesian waters, causing poor coral reef conditions of 35.15%, sufficient conditions of 35.06%, good condition 23.40%, and very good conditions 6.39% (Anonymous, 2017). As a result of the damage to coral reefs this causes a decrease in fish biomass, a decrease in fish catch, a decrease in income and welfare of fishermen and indirectly a decrease in national foreign exchange income and welfare of the people (Ban et al., 2015). The rate of damage to coral reefs from year to year is increasing, therefore, if the rate of damage to coral reefs is not overcome, then fish catches will run out in 2048 (Machumu et all, 2013).

Damage to coral reefs can be overcome by forming Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and increasing ownership authority over marine resources (Ban et all, 2015). The formation and management of MPA will be successful, if stakeholders have the view that MPA benefits them. Therefore MPA management is based on agreements, legislation, conservation education and provision of alternative income eyes. Vice versa, the formation of the MPA will fail if stakeholders have a negative image of conservation (Machumu et all, 2013).

Marine Protection Area

Marine Protection Area (MPA) based on Government Regulation Number 60 of 2007 concerning Fish Resource Conservation, as a protected water area, managed by a zoning system, to realize sustainable management of fish resources and their environment. The definition of fish refers to Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries, is any type of organism that is whole or part of its life cycle in the aquatic environment.

According to the UN Union (International Union Conservation Nature-IUCN), the MPA is a clear geographical space, recognized and managed effectively, to refer to the sustainability of natural resources including cultural values ​​in it (Briggs et all, 2018). Agbeja (2017) details protection at sea, for fauna, flora, history and cultural enhancement. MPA as an effective management model for the sustainability of marine resources (Setyawati, 2014).
The results of the MPA study show that fish marked in MPA move in and out of the MPA, so that fishermen can catch abundant fish outside the MPA (Clements et all, 2012). MPA can stop fishing and modify fishing models in other parts of the MPA (Machumu et all, 2013). Likewise, the determination of core zoning (a closed area without fish harvesting throughout the year), has been shown to be effective in increasing the amount of fish biomass (Ban et al., 2015), increasing biodiversity (Ban et all, 2015), (Charles et all, 2016), (Waltter , 2017), (Islam et all, 20127) therefore there has been an increase in the number and extent of MPAs in the last three decades (Ban et al., 2015).

The derivative impact of MPA will restore fish resources (Pascall, 2011), (Charles et all, 2016), increasing economics (Pascal, 2011), (Charles et all, 2016), (Ban et all, 2015), (Machumu et all, 2013), (Waltter, 2017), improving alternative livelihoods for local communities (Machumu et all, 2013), increasing social, cultural relations, developing ecotourism services (Pascal, 2011) and models to address habitat degradation and declining fish stocks (Machumu et all, 2013). On a macro scale MPA is useful for reducing the adverse effects of natural resource destruction (Machum et all, 2013), preserving the environment both globally, regionally, nationally and locally (Heinonen, 2013).

MPA also functions as the implementation of the Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) program for planning, management, land use, permit systems and marine zoning, natural resource conflict resolution (Briggs et all, 2018), sea and coastal management, increased productivity and fish stocks and ecosystem recovery (Islam et all, 2017), increasing resilience to over-exploitation and uncertainty, and preventing the collapse of aquatic resources (Sumaila et all, 2012). Because in its management, the government must involve the community (Waltter, 2017), by designing the active participation of coastal communities, fishermen, and other marine users in designing and implementing MPAs (Charles et all, 2016).

MPA area

Globally there are approximately 5,000 MPA, an area of ​​2.85 million km2 or 0.8% of 361 million km2 of the world's sea, and 2.0% of 147 million km2 of territorial sea (Agbeja, 2017). The 2015 global MPA was distributed in Chile (25.3%), Britain (21.9%), United States (15.5%), New Zealand (15.2%), Kiribati (11.9%) and Australia ( 1.9%). By the end of 2015, the Palau Government had radically set 80% of its EEZ into an MPA (Wilheml et all, 2014).

Global MPA data is comparable to the global ocean area in 2008 of 0.9% (Wilhelm et al., 2014), in 2011 MPA was 1.3% of the sea area and 3.2% of the Ecological Economic Zone (Leenhardt et all, 2014), or MPA of 1.6% (Jentoft et all, 2012). The MPA area is still small when compared to the area of ​​land conservation area covering 11.6% of the 17.3 million km2 of the world's land (Machumu et all, 2013). Most MPAs are near shore and shallow water (Wilheml   et al., 2014). The IUCN MPA target is based on the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity of> 10% in 2020. But the MPA expansion is very slow, only 1.3% of the sea area and 3.2% in the EEZ, so based on the Sustainable Development Goal in 2015 targeting the MPA is still > 10% in 2020. The MPA target set at the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress is 30% in 2030 (Briggs et all, 2018). Nationally, Indonesia's sea area is 5.8 million km2, which consists of 2.95 million km2 of archipelago waters, 0.30 million km2 of territorial sea, and 2.55 million km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone and 17,504 small islands (Setyawati, 2014 ) MPA Indonesia in 2012 was 15.7 million ha (0.27%) of Indonesia's sea area. The Indonesian government sets the MPA area for 2020 to reach 20 million ha (0.34%). As a comparison, the percentage of Finnish MPA area is 46,000 km² (10%) of the national sea area (Heinonen, 2013).

North Sumatra Province has 17 coastal districts / cities from 33 city districts, 8 regencies / cities located on the East Coast and 9 regencies / cities located on the West Coast of North Sumatra. Demographically, coastal residents inhabit 85 coastal sub-districts with 539 coastal villages. The area of ​​North Sumatra is 72,981 km2, consisting of 32,384.62 km2 of land and 40. 596.38 km2 of sea (55.63%), with a coastline of 1,299.5 km and 192 small islands (DKP-SU, 2016). The sea area has been designated as MPA North Nias Sawo-Lahewa Aquatic Park covering an area of ​​29,230.85 ha (0.72%) with the Decree of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia Number 54 / KEPMEN-KP / 2017 dated December 22, 2017. Provincial Government Sumatra has reserved 3 (three) MPAs covering 138,483.40 Ha (3.41%) based on the Decree of the Governor of North Sumatra Number 188.44 / 629 / KPTS / 2017 dated November 21, 2017.

Transfer of Conservation Authority

Law No.23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government Article 27 and attachment to the letter "y" division of affairs in the field of maritime affairs and fisheries, revoke the authority of fisheries and marine management of the Regency / City Government and transfer them to the Provincial Government. The authority of the Provincial Government to manage natural resources in the sea includes exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of marine assets up to 12 mills. Thus, since 2014 the Regency / City Government has no right to manage or foster MPA.

This research was conducted to get the influence of the transfer of authority on MPA management in North Sumatra, where before 2004 MPA management was carried out by the Regency / City Government and there was no MPA managed by the Provincial Government. The study was conducted at 4 (four) MPAs in Serdang Bedagai District, Tapanuli Tengah District, North Nias Regency, South Nias Regency and private MPA managed by the community. Methods of collecting data by observation, questionnaire and in-depth interviews. The results of the study are presented descriptively.

Issues of Transfer of Authority

Based on the research data, the transfer of MPA management authority from the Regency / City Government to the government of North Sumatra Province, caused the burden on the Provincial Government to increase. This transfer of authority raises issues of marine conservation management in North Sumatra Province, including:

1. There are no MPA institutions and management

The Government of Nias Regency since 2007 has established an MPA covering an area of ​​29,000.00 ha, for the protection of sustainable fisheries, coral reef and mangrove marine tourism. In 2008, the division of Nias Regency became Nias Regency and North Nias Regency. Most of the MPA areas that have been established are in North Nias District, so there is no longer MPA management. When the MPA management was transferred to the Province, the Government of North Sumatra Province reserved an MPA of 29,230.85 ha. Based on the Decree of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia Number 54 / KEPMEN-KP / 2017 dated December 22, 2017 stipulates MPA Sawo-Lahewa, North Nias as a Aquatic Tourism Park.

The MPA function to protect, conserve, utilize the potential of fisheries and important ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses as well as important species such as turtles, dolphins, marta rays, napoleon, lola, dugong, clams, sharks, whales, sea bamboo, bahar roots , goat head, triton trumpet, sea cucumber, and hollow nautilus. MPA serves to support the development of water tourism. This MPA is managed with 5 zones, in the form of MPA-1 with an area of ​​2,485.34 ha, MPA-2 with an area of ​​12,562.50 ha, MPA-3 with an area of ​​7,371.09 ha, MPA-4 with an area of ​​3,948.80 ha and MPA -5 with an area of ​​2,863 12 ha.

In the decree on the decision of the MPA Sawo-Lahewa, it was stated that the management was handed over to the Government of North Sumatra Province. Although the Central Government has established it as the Sawo-Lahewa MPA since 2017, the Provincial Government has not yet established institutional, management, and budgeting activities. Thus, since the 2007 MPA determination, since 2008 until 2018, there has been no MPA management at all. The MPA area is like a no man's land, no conservation functions are carried out. Such conditions have caused a decline in coral reef cover, increased degradation of the marine environment and a decline in the economic and social community around the MPA.

2. There is no MPA determination aru

The Central Tapanuli Regency Government since 2007 has managed MPA covering an area of ​​81,243.00 ha, the South Nias Regency Government has managed the MPA since 2008 covering an area of ​​56,000.00 ha and the Serdang Bedagai District Government has managed the MPA since 2008 covering 1,240.35 ha. Management has been stalled since 2014 because the conservation authority was taken over by the province. Administrative activities carried out by the North Sumatra Provincial Government in the form of MPA reserves covering 138,483.40 ha with the Decree of the Governor of North Sumatra Number 188.44 / 629 / KPTS / 2017 dated November 21, 2017.  The North Sumatra Provincial Government, which has accepted the responsibility of managing MPA since 2014, has not been able to manage the MPA because of its absence. Therefore, there has been no management of MPA in Central Tapanuli, South Nias and Serdang Bedagai Districts since 2014. With conditions without management, open access areas, it can be ascertained that there has been a decline in coral reef cover, environmental damage and a decline in the surrounding economy and social MPA.

3. Abandoned MPA proposal

The transfer of MPA management authority from the District Government to the Provincial Government based on Law Number 23 of 2014, has led to the abandonment of the proposed establishment of the MPA in various districts / cities in North Sumatra Province. The results of research in the field, Batubara Regency, Sibolga City and Mandailing Natal District have prepared a new MPA proposal document. With this transfer of authority, the Regency / City Government does not have the authority to propose an MPA. Therefore, the North Sumatra Provincial Government should follow up on preparing MPA proposal documents. But until 2018, the district / city MPA proposal file was not followed up by the Provincial Government.

4. Abandoned the proposed Limited Protection Area

The Government of North Sumatra Province has a Limited Protection Area for Terubuk Fish (Tenualosa ilisha), in Labuhan Batu based on Decree of Kepmenkp Number 34 / KEPMEN-KP / 2016 dated August 2, 2016. Although it has been established since 2016, there is no institution yet, until 2018 management, funding and conservation activities in the field. In addition, the Regency / City Government has also compiled a proposal for a limited protection area for Batak and Shellfish for Dara in Asahan District, Turtle and Oyster Protection in Central Tapanuli Regency and others. Because the authority of the conservation proposal has been transferred from the Regency / City Government to the Provincial Government, the North Sumatra Provincial Government should continue to propose a limited area of ​​fish protection. The results of the study show that the proposed limited protected area has not been continued by the North Sumatra Provincial Government.

5. There is no private MPA coaching

   The shift in the authority of conservation management from the Regency / City Government to the Provincial Government has led to the development of private conservation institutions managed by small-scale communities such as "animals lost their mothers". The district / city government does not want to take care of it because it is not a main task and function anymore, while the Provincial Government does not have data, relations, development budgets and distance between provincial capitals and conservation locations in remote rural areas. Because of the lack of guidance and funding assistance, the private MPA has stagnated management. The conservation management community group hopes for guidance, placement of extension agents and funding assistance.

Conclusion

1. The Government of North Sumatra Province through the Department of Marine and Fisheries is not yet ready to accept the delegation of authority in the field of conservation from the Regency / City Government in accordance with Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government. The transfer of authority does not make MPA management better, what happens is that the MPA is increasingly neglected.

2. The negative impact of the transfer of conservation authority from the Regency / City Government to North Sumatra Province, in the form of:

(1). The Government of North Sumatra Province is obliged to manage MPAs that have been determined by the Central Government: (1) North Nias MPA Sawo-Lahewa in 2017 (established 2007) and (2) Terubuk Fish Restricted Areas in 2016 in Labuhan Batu Regency. However, until 2018 it has not been managed, there are no institutions, management management models, budgets and conservation implementation in these conservation areas.

 (2). The North Sumatra Provincial Government has only reserved 3 new MPAs in 2017 but because the Central Government has not yet established the Central Tapanuli MPA (established 2007), South Nias (2008) and Serdang Bedagai (2008) cannot be managed by the Government of North Sumatra Province.
(3) The Government of North Sumatra Province has not yet followed up on the proposed MPA and the proposed Limited Protection Area which was delayed due to the transfer of management authority from the Regency / City Government to the Provincial Government.

(4). The North Sumatra Provincial Government has not yet received a private MPA managed by the community, as has not been done coaching, assistance and funding assistance.

List of Librarians

Anonim. 2017. Kondisi Terumbu Karang Indonesia Mengkhawatirkan. Republika.Online. . 07 June 2017 23:03 WIB. https://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/17/06/07/or6px4361-kondisi-terumbu-karang-indonesia-mengkhawatirkan

Agbeja.Y.E.2017. Marine protected area: Prospective Tool For Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management in Nigeria. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. Vol. 9(6), pp. 158-166, June 2017

Ban.N.C, Louisa S. Evans, Mateja Nenadovic  and Michael Schoon. 2015. Interplay of Multiple Goods, Ecosystem Services, and Property Rights in Large Social-Ecological Marine Protected Areas. Ecology and Society 20(4): 2

Briggs.J, Stacy K. Baez, Terry Dawson, Bronwen Golder, Bethan C. O'Leary, Jerome Petit, Callum M. Roberts, Alex Rogers, dan Angelo Villagomez.2018. Recommendations to IUCN to Improve Marine Protected Area Classification and Reporting. February 6 th  2018. Submitted by: The Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project

Clements.C,  Victor Bonito , Rikki Grober-Dunsmore,  Milika Sobey.2012. Effects of Small, Fijian Community-Based Marine Protected Areas on Exploited Reef Fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol.449: 233-243,2012.

Charles.A, Lena Westlund, Devin M Bartley, Warrick J Fletcher, Serge Garica, Hugh Govan and Jessica Sanders. 2016. Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas: insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation : Marine and   Freshwater  Ecosystems. 26 (Suppl. 2): 165–184 (2016)

DKP-SU.2016. Statistik Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sumatera Utara 2016. Medan. Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan Provinsi Sumatera Utara

                                                   

Heinonen,M.2013. Applying IUCN Protrcted Area Management Categories in Finland. Final version approved by the National IUCN Committee of Finland, June 17th, 2013.IUCN

Islam.G.M , Shzee Yew Tai  , Mohd Noh Kusairi  , Shuib Ahmad , Farhana Mohd Noh Aswani , Muhamad Khair Afham Muhamad Senan  , Ali Ahmad. 2017.  Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia .Ocean & Coastal Management  (2017) 34-42

Jentoft.S, Jose J. Pascual-Fernandez,  Raquel De la Cruz Modino, Manuel Gonzalez-Ramallal , Ratana Chuenpagdee. 2012. What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies from. Springer Science + Business Media, Hum Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10745-012-9459-6, Februari 2012

Leenhardt.P,  Bertrand Cazalet, Bernard Salvat, Joachim Claudet, François Feral.2014. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: Conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management- XXX (2013) 1-7

Machumu,M.E  and Amararatne Yakupitiyage.2013.  Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Managing the Drivers of Ecosystem Change: A Case of Mnazi Bay Marine Park, Tanzania.  Jurnal Ambio. 2013 Apr; 42(3): 369–380.

Pascal.N.2011. Cost-benefi t analysis of community-based marine protected areas: Five case studies in Vanuatu. SPC Fisheries Newsletter - January/April 2011

Setyawati.2014.Managing Marine Protected Areas in  Indonesia. Jurnal  Marine  Biological  Associated of  India, 56 (1), 13-18, January-June 2014

Sumaila.U.S, Sylvie Guenette, Jackie Alder, David Pollard dan Ratana Chuenpagdee.2012. Marine Protected Area: Guiding Principles and Benefits. WWF

Waltter,N.2017. Marine Protected Area Management in the  Finnish Gulf of Bothnia Connections BetweenUunderwater Nature, Human Activity and Management. Faculty of Business and Science  University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management  Ísafjörður, May 2017

Wilhelm.T.A, Charles R.C,Sheppard; Annel S.Sheppard, Carlos F Gaymer, John Parks, Daniel Wagner and Naia Lewis.2014. Large marine protected areas – advantages and challenges of going big.2014. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater  Ecosystems. 24 (Suppl. 2): 24–30 (2014)

*Paper of  International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Developmen (ICNRSD) held  at Grand Inna Hotel, Medan, Indonesia on Agustus 2 ^nd-3^nd, 2018

                    

                    Pengaruh Pengalihan Kewenangan Konservasi Terhadap Marine Protected Areas
                                                       di Provinsi Sumatera Utara

                                          Hamzah Lubis¹ dan Mayang Sari Yeanny²

¹Dosen Lingkungan Institut Teknologi Medan, Tenaga Ahli Bidang Lingkungan Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Provinsi Sumatera Utara

²Departemen Biologi Fakultas MIPA Universitas Sumatera Utara

                                                       Abstrak

Kerusakan terumbu karang mengakibatkan kerusakan lingkungan dan penurunan tangkapan ikan yang berdampak bagi kesejahteraan masyarakat pesisir.  Salahsatu cara untuk mengatasi kerusakan terumbu karang dengan Marine Protected Areas (MPA). Pemerintah Indonesia melalui Undang-undang Nomor 32 tahun 2004 Tentang Pemerintah Daerah dan Undang-Undang Nomor 27 tahun 2007 Tentang Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil memberi kewenangan MPA kepada Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota. Namun melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintah Daerah, kewenangan pengelolaan konservasi ditarik  dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke Pemerintah Provinsi.

Penelitian dilakukan untuk mendapatkan pengaruh pengalihan kewenangan pada pengelolaan MPA di Sumatera Utara. Penelitian dilakukan pada 4 (empat) MPA di Provinsi Sumatera Utara tahun 2018 dan MPA swasta yang dikelola masyarakat.Metoda pengambilan data dengan metoda observasi, kuisoner dan wawancara mendalam.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara belum siap menerima pelimpahan kewenangan  pengelolaan konservasi dari kabupaten/kota di Sumatera Utara. MPA yang telah ditetapkan (1) MPA  Sawo-Lahewa di Kabupaten Nias Utara tahun 2017 dan (2) Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas Ikan Terubuk di Labuhan Batu tahun 2016 sampai tahun 2018 belum  dikelola. Demikian juga 3 MPA di Tapanuli Tengah, Nias Selatan dan Serdang Bedagai belum dikelola dan masih tahap pencadangan. Usulan MPA yang tertunda dari Kabupaten Madina, Kabupaten Batubara dan Kota Sibolga serta usulan Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas terunda untuk Ikan Batak, Kerang Anak Dara, Penyu, Teripang  dari kabupaten/kota belum juga dilanjutkan. Demikian juga pendataan, pembinaan, pendampingan  MPA swasta yang dikelola masyarakat belum dilakukan.

 Kata Kunci: 1.Konservasi 2. Marine Protected Areas  3. Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas  4.Sumatera Utara 

Pendahuluan

Indonesia memiliki 25.000 km² terumu karang (10%)  dari 284.300 km² terumbu karang dunia dengan keanekaragam tinggi (569 jenis dari 82 marga,15 suku dari total 845 jenis karang di dunia, 90% famili Fungiidae  di perairan Indonesia, 41 jenis dari 43 jenis karang dunia dan  94 jenis dari 124 jenis Acropora dunia). Terumbu karang ini telah mengalami kerusakan. Data Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) tahun 2017 di 108 lokasi dan 1.064 stasiun pantau di seluruh perairan Indonesia, menyebabkan tutupan terumbu karang kondisi jelek 35,15%, kondisi cukup 35,06%, kondisi baik 23,40%, dan kondisi sangat baiki 6,39% (Anonim, 2017).

Akibat kerusakan terumbu karang ini menyebabkan penurunan biomassa ikan, penurunan  tangkapan ikan, penurunan pendapatan dan kesejahteraan nelayan serta  secara tidak langsung penurunan penerimaan devisa negara dan kesejahateraan rakyat (Ban et all,2015).  Laju kerusakan terumbu karang dari tahun ke tahun semakin meningkat, oleh karena itu, jika laju kerusakan terumbu karang tidak diatasi, maka tangkapan ikan akan habis tahun 2048 (Machumu et all,2013).

Kerusakan terumbu karang dapat diatasi dengan  membentuk  Marine Protected Areas (MPA) dan meningkatkan kewenangan kepemilikan atas sumberdaya laut (Ban et all,2015).  Pembentukan dan pengelolaan MPA akan  berhasil, jika para pemangku kepentingan memiliki pandangan bahwa MPA menguntungkan mereka.  Oleh karena itu pengelolaan MPA berdasarkan kesepakatan, peraturan perundang-undangan, pendidikan konservasi dan penyediaan mata penghasilan alternatif. Demikian juga sebaliknya, pembentukan MPA akan gagal jika  pemangku kepentingan  memiliki  citra negatif  terhadap konservasi (Machumu et all,2013).

Marine Protection Area

            Marine Protection Area (MPA) berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 60 tahun 2007 Tentang Konservasi Sumberdaya Ikan, sebagai kawasan perairan yang dilindungi, dikelola dengan sistem zonasi, untuk mewujudkan pengelolaan sumber daya ikan dan lingkungannya secara berkelanjutan. Pengertian ikan merujuk pada Undang-Undang Nomor 45 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perikanan, adalah segala jenis organisme yang seluruh atau sebagian dari siklus hidupnya berada di dalam lingkungan perairan.

MPA menurut lembaga konservasi PBB (International Union  Conservation Nature-IUCN) adalah ruang geografis yang jelas, diakui  dan dikelola secara efektif,  untuk mewujutkan  keberlanjutan  sumberdaya alam termasuk nilai-nilai budaya didalamnya (Briggs et all,2018).  Agbeja (2017) mendetilkan perlindungan  di laut, untuk  fauna , flora, sejarah dan peningkalan  budaya. MPA sebagai model pengelolaan efektif untuk keberlanjutan  sumber daya laut (Setyawati,2014).

Hasil penelitian MPA menunjukkan bahwa ikan yang ditandai di MPA bergerak  keluar-masuk  MPA, sehingga  nelayan dapat  menangkap ikan limpahan di luar MPA (Clements  et all,2012). MPA dapat menghentikan penangkapan ikan dan  memodifikasi model penangkapan ikan di bagian lain MPA (Machumu et all,2013). Demikian juga penetapan zonasi inti (area tertutup tanpa pengambilan ikan sepanjang tahun), terbukti efektif menaikkan jumlah biomassa ikan (Ban et all,2015), meningkatkan keanekaragaman hayati (Ban et all,2015), (Charles et all,2016), (Waltter,2017), (Islam et all,20127) oleh karena itu terjadi peningkatan jumlah dan luasan MPA  dalam tiga dekade terakhir (Ban et all,2015). 

Dampak turunannya MPA akan memulihkan sumberdaya ikan (Pascall,2011), (Charles et all,2016),  meningkatkan ekononomi (Pascal,2011), (Charles et all, 2016), (Ban et all,2015), (Machumu et all,2013), (Waltter,2017),  meningkatkan mata pencarian alternatif bagi masyarakat lokal (Machumu et all,2013), meningkatnya kekerabatan sosial,  budaya, berkembangnya jasa ekowisata (Pascal,2011) dan model untuk mengatasi degradasi habitat dan menurunnya stok ikan (Machumu et all,2013).  Dalam skala makro MPA bermanfaat untuk mengurangi dampak buruk dari perusakan sumberdaya alam (Machum et all,2013), memelihara lingkungan hidup baik global, regional, nasional  dan lokal (Heinonen,2013).

MPA juga berfungsi sebagai pelaksanaan program Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) untuk perencanaan, manajemen, penggunaan lahan, sistem izin dan zonasi laut, resolusi konflik sumber daya alam (Briggs et all,2018),  pengelolaan laut dan pesisir , peningkatan produktivitas dan  stok ikan dan pemulihan ekosistem (Islam et all,2017), meningkatkan ketahanan terhadap eksploitasi berlebihan dan ketidakpastian, serta mencegah kolapsnya sumber daya perairan (Sumaila et all,2012). Oleh karena dalam pengelolaanya, pemerintah harus melibatkan masyarakat (Waltter,2017), dengan merancang partisipasi aktif masyarakat pesisir, nelayan, dan pengguna laut lainnya dalam merancang dan mengimplementasikan MPA (Charles et all, 2016).

Luasan MPA

Secara global terdapat  lebih kurang 5.000 MPA, seluas  2,85 juta km²  atau 0,8% dari 361 juta km² laut dunia, dan 2,0% dari 147 juta km² laut teritorial (Agbeja,2017). MPA global tahun 2015  terdistribusi di  Chili (25,3%), Inggris (21,9%), Amerika Serikat (15,5%), Selandia Baru (15,2%), Kiribati (11,9%) dan Australia (1,9%).  Akhir tahun 2015, Pemerintah Palau secara radikal telah menetapkan 80% ZEE-nya menjadi MPA (Wilheml et all,2014). 

Data luasan MPA global berbanding dengan luas laut global tahun 2008 seluas 0,9% (Wilheml et all,2014), tahun 2011 MPA seluas 1,3% wilayah laut dan 3,2%  Zona Ekonomi Eklsuif (Leenhardt et all, 2014), atau MPA seluas 1,6%  (Jentoft et all,2012). Luasan MPA masih kecil bila dibanding dengan  luasan kawasan konservasi daratan seluas 11,6% dari 17,3 juta km² daratan dunia (Machumu  et all,2013). Sebagian besar MPA berada dekat pantai dan perairan dangkal (Wilheml et all,2014).

Target luasan MPA IUCN  berdasarkan Convention on Biological  Diversity tahun 2010 sebesar >10% tahun 2020. Namun perluasan MPA sangat lambat hanya 1,3% wilayah laut dan 3,2%  di ZEE, maka berdasarkan Sustainable Development Goal  tahun 2015 menargetkan kembali  MPA tetap sebesar >10% pada tahun 2020. Target yang MPA yang ditetapkan  pada IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 sebesar 30% pada tahun 2030 (Briggs et all, 2018).

Secara nasional, luas laut  Indonesia 5,8 juta km² , yang terdiri perairan kepulauan 2,95 juta km² , laut teritorial 0,30 juta km² ,  dan Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif 2,55 juta km² dan memiliki 17.504 pulau-pulau kecil  (Setyawati,2014).  MPA Indonesia pada tahun 2012 seluas 15,7 juta ha (0,27%) luas laut Indonesia.  Pemerintah Indonesia menetapkan luasan MPA tahun 2020 mencapai  20 juta ha (0,34%). Sebagai perbandingan prosentase luasan MPA Finlandia 46.000 km² (10%) dari luas laut nasional (Heinonen,2013).

Provinsi Sumatera Utara memiliki 17 kabupaten/kota pesisir dari 33 kabupaten kota, 8 kabupaten/kota berada di Pantai Timur dan 9 kabupaten/kota berada di Pantai Barat Sumatera Utara. Secara demografi, penduduk pesisir mendiami 85 kecamatan pesisir dengan 539 desa pesisir. Luas Sumatera Utara 72.981 km², terdiri dari daratan  32.384,62 km²  dan lautan  40. 596,38 km² (55,63 %),  dengan panjang pantai  1.299,5 km dan memiliki  192 pulau-pulau kecil (DKP-SU,2016). Dari luas laut tersebut telah ditetapkan menjadi MPA Taman Wisata Perairan  Sawo-Lahewa  Nias Utara  seluas 29.230,85 ha (0,72%) dengan Keputusan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia Nomor 54/ KEPMEN-KP/2017  tertanggal 22 Desember 2017.  Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera telah mencadangkan 3 (tiga) MPA  seluas 138.483,40 Ha (3,41%) berdasarkan Keputusan Gubernur Sumatera Utara Nomor 188.44/629/KPTS/2017 tertanggal 21 November 2017.

Pengalihan Kewenangan Konservasi

Undang Undang  No.23 tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintah Daerah Pasal 27 dan  lampiran huruf “y” pembagian urusan bidang kelautan dan perikanan,  mencabut kewenangan pengelolaan perikanan dan kelautan Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota dan mengalihkannya ke Pemerintahan Provinsi. Kewenangan Pemerintah Provinsi untuk mengelola sumber daya  alam di laut meliputi eksplorasi, eksploitasi, konservasi, dan pengelolaan  kekayaan laut sampai dengan 12 mill. Dengan demikian, sejak tahun 2014 Pemerintah Kabupaten/kota tidak berhak lagi mengelola atau membina MPA.

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mendapatkan pengaruh pengalihan kewenangan pada pengelolaan MPA di Sumatera Utara, dimana sebelum tahun 2004 pengelolaan MPA dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota serta tidak ada MPA yang dikelolola oleh Pemerintah Provinsi. Penelitian dilakukan pada 4 (empat) MPA di Kabupaten Serdang Bedagai, Kabupaten Tapanuli Tengah, Kabupaten Nias Utara, Kabupaten Nias Selatan dan MPA swasta yang dikelola masyarakat. Metoda pengumpulan data dengan observasi, kuisoner dan wawancara mendalam. Hasil penelitian disajikan secara deskriptif.

Permasalaham Pengalihan Kewenangan

            Berdasarkan data hasil penelitian, pengalihan kewenangan pengelolaan MPA dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara, menyebabkan beban Pemerintah Provinsi bertambah. Pengalihan kewenangan ini menimbulkan permasalahan pengelolaan konservasi laut di Provinsi Sumatera Utara, diantaranya adalah:

1.    Belum ada kelembagaan dan manajemen MPA

Pemerintah Kabupaten Nias sejak tahun 2007 telah menetapkan MPA  seluas 29.000,00 ha, untuk perlindungan perikanan berkelanjutan, wisata bahari terumbu karang dan mangrove. Pada tahun 2008, terjadi pemekaran Kabupaten Nias menjadi Kabupaten Nias dan Kabupaten Nias Utara. Sebagian besar area MPA yang telah ditetapkan berada di Kabupaten Nias Utara, sehingga tidak lagi ada pengelolaan MPA. Ketika pengelolaan MPA dialihkan  ke Provinsi, Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara mencadangkan MPA seluas  29.230,85 ha.  Berdasarkan Keputusan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia Nomor 54/KEPMEN-KP/2017  tertanggal 22 Desember 2017  menetapkan MPA Sawo-Lahewa, Nias Utara sebagai Taman Wisata Perairan.

Fungsi MPA untuk melindungi, melestarikan, memanfaatkan potensi perikanan dan ekosistem  penting seperti terumbu karang, mangrove dan lamun serta spesies penting seperti penyu, lumba-lumba, pari marta, napoleon, lola, dugong, kima, hiu, paus, bambu laut, akar bahar, kepala kambing, triton terompet, teripang, dan nautilus berongga. MPA berfungsi  untuk mendukung upaya pengembangan wisata perairan.  MPA ini dikelola dengan 5 zonasi, berupa MPA-1 seluas 2.485,34 ha, MPA -2 seluas 12.562,50 ha, MPA -3 seluas 7.371,09 ha, MPA -4 seluas 3.948,80 ha dan  MPA -5 seluas 2.863,12 ha.

Dalam surat keputusan penetapan MPA Sawo-Lahewa, disebutkan bahwa pengelolaannya diserahkan kepada Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Kendati Pemerintah Pusat telah menetapkan sebagai MPA Sawo-Lahewa sejak tahun 2017, namun Pemerintah Provinsi belum menetapkan kelembagaan, manajemen pengelolaan, dan penganggaran kegiatan. Dengan demikian, sejak  penetapan MPA tahun 2007, maka sejak tahun 2008 sampai tahun 2018, tidak ada pengelolaan MPA sama sekali. Arean  MPA  seperti wilayah tidak bertuan, tidak ada fungsi-fungsi konservasi yang dilakukan. Kondisi seperti ini, menyebabkan penurunan tutupan terumbu karang, meningkatnya degradasi lingkungan laut dan penurunan ekonomi dan sosial masyarakat sekitar MPA.

2. Belum ada penetapan  MPA aru

Pemerintah Kabupaten Tapanuli Tengah sejak tahun 2007 telah mengelola MPA  seluas 81.243,00 ha,  Pemerintah  Kabupaten Nias Selatan telah mengelola MPA sejak tahun 2008 seluas 56.000,00 ha dan Pemerintah Kabupaten Serdang Bedagai telah mengelola MPA sejak tahun 2008 seluas1.240,35 ha. Pengelolaan terhenti sejak tahun 2014 karena kewenangan konservasi diambil alih provinsi. Kegiatan adiministratif yang dilakukan Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara berupa pencadangan MPA seluas 138.483,40 ha dengan Keputusan Gubernur Sumatera Utara Nomor 188.44/629/KPTS/2017 tertanggal 21 November 2017.

Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara yang menerima tanggungjawab pengelolaan MPA sejak tahun 2014, belum dapat mengelola MPA tersebut karena belum adan penetapannya. Oleh karena itu, tidak ada pengelolaan MPA   di Kabupaten Tapanuli Tengah, Nias Selatan dan Serdang Bedagai sejak tahun 2014. Dengan kondisi tanpa pengelolaan, wilayah open akses, maka dapat dipastikan telah terjadi penurunan tutupan terumbu karang, kerusakan lingkungan dan penurunan ekonomi dan soial masyarakat sekitar MPA.

3.    Terbengkalai usulan MPA

            Pengalihan kewenangan pengelolaan MPA dari Pemerintah Kabupaten ke Pemerintah Provinsi berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 23 tahun 2014, menyebabkan terbengkalainya usulan pendirian MPA pada berbagai kabupaten/kota di Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Hasil penelitian di lapangan, Kabupaten Batubara,  Kota Sibolga dan Kabupaten Mandailing Natal telah menyiapkan dokumen usulan MPA baru. Dengan pengalihan kewenangan ini, Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota tidak berkewanangan untuk mengusulkan MPA. Oleh karena itu, Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara semestinya menindaklanjuti menyiapkan dokumen pengusulan MPA. Namun sampai tahun 2018, berkas usulan MPA kabupaten/Kota tidak ada tindak lanjut dari Pemerintah Provinsi.

4.Terbengkalai usulan Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas

          Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara telah memiliki Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas Ikan Terubuk (Tenualosa ilisha), di Labuhan Batu berdasarkan SK Kepmenkp Nomor 34/KEPMEN-KP/2016 tertanggal 2 Agustus 2016. Kendati telah ditetapkan sejak tahun 2016, namun sampai tahun 2018 belum ada kelembagaan, manajemen pengelolaan, pendanaan dan kegiatan konservasi di lapangan. Selain itu, Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota telah pula menyusun usulan kawasan perlindungan terbatas untuk Ikan Batak dan Kerang Anak Dara di Kabupaten Asahan, perlindungan Penyu  dan Tiram di Kabupaten Tapanuli Tengah dan lainnya. Karena kewenangan usulan konservasi telah dialihkan dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke Pemerintah Provinsi, maka seyogianya Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara melanjutkan usulan kawasan perlindungan terbatas jenis ikan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, usulan kawasan perlindungan terbatas yang tertunda ini belum dilanjutkan Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara.

5.    Tidak ada pembinaan MPA swasta

   Peralihan kewengan pengelolaan konservasi dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke Pemerintah Provinsi menyebabkan pembinaan lembaga konservasi swasta yang dikelola masyarakat  dengan luasan kecil seperti  “anak binatang kehilangan induknya”. Pemerintah kabupaten/kota tidak mau mengurus karena tidak menjadi tugas pokok dan fungsinya lagi sedangkan Pemerintah Provinsi belum memiliki data, relasi, anggaran pembinaan serta jauhnya jarak antara ibu kota provinsi dengan lokasi konservasi di pelosok pedesaan. Karena tidak adanya pembinaan dn bantuan pendanaan maka MPA swasta mengalami stagnasi pengelolaan. Kelompok masyarakat pengelola konservasi mengharapkan adanya pembinaan, penempatan penyuluh dan bantuan pendanaan.

Kesimpulan

1.    Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara melalui Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan belum siap menerima pelimpahan kewenangan bidang konservasi dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/kota sesuai  Undang-Undang Nomor 23 tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah. Peralihan kewenangan tidak membuat pengelolaan MPA semakin baik, yang terjadi MPA semakin tidak terurus.

2. Dampak negatif  peralihan kewenangan konservasi dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke Provinsi Sumatera Utara, berupa:

    (1). Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara berkewajiban mengelola MPA yang telah ditetapkan Pemerintah Pusat: (1) MPA Sawo-Lahewa Nias Utara tahun 2017 (didirikan 2007) dan (2) Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas Ikan Terubuk tahun 2016 di Kabupaten Labuhan Batu. Namun sampai tahun 2018 belum  dikelola, belum ada kelembagaan, model majemen pengelolaan, anggaran dan pelaksanaan konservasi pada kawasan konservasi tersebut.

    (2). Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara baru tahun 2017 mencadangkan 3 MPA baru namun karena belum ditetapkan Pemerintah Pusat maka MPA Tapanuli Tengah (berdiri 2007), Nias Selatan (2008) dan Serdang Bedagai (2008) tidak dapat dikelola oleh Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara.

(3) Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara  belum menindaklanjuti usulan MPA dan usulan Kawasan Perlindungan Terbatas yang tertunda karena pengalihan kewenangan pengelolaan dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota ke Pemerintah Provinsi.

    (4). Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Utara belum mendapata MPA swasta yang dikelola masyarakat, demikian juga belum dilakukan pembinaan, pendampingan dan bantuan pendanaan.  

Daftar Pustakan

Anonim. 2017. Kondisi Terumbu Karang Indonesia Mengkhawatirkan. Republika.Online. . 07 June 2017 23:03 WIB. https://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/17/06/07/or6px4361-kondisi-terumbu-karang-indonesia-mengkhawatirkan

Agbeja.Y.E.2017. Marine protected area: Prospective Tool For Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management in Nigeria. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. Vol. 9(6), pp. 158-166, June 2017

Ban.N.C, Louisa S. Evans, Mateja Nenadovic  and Michael Schoon. 2015. Interplay of Multiple Goods, Ecosystem Services, and Property Rights in Large Social-Ecological Marine Protected Areas. Ecology and Society 20(4): 2

Briggs.J, Stacy K. Baez, Terry Dawson, Bronwen Golder, Bethan C. O'Leary, Jerome Petit, Callum M. Roberts, Alex Rogers, dan Angelo Villagomez.2018. Recommendations to IUCN to Improve Marine Protected Area Classification and Reporting. February 6 th  2018. Submitted by: The Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project

Clements.C,  Victor Bonito , Rikki Grober-Dunsmore,  Milika Sobey.2012. Effects of Small, Fijian Community-Based Marine Protected Areas on Exploited Reef Fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol.449: 233-243,2012.

Charles.A, Lena Westlund, Devin M Bartley, Warrick J Fletcher, Serge Garica, Hugh Govan and Jessica Sanders. 2016. Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas: insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation : Marine and   Freshwater  Ecosystems. 26 (Suppl. 2): 165–184 (2016)

DKP-SU.2016. Statistik Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil Provinsi Sumatera Utara 2016. Medan. Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan Provinsi Sumatera Utara

                                                   

Heinonen,M.2013. Applying IUCN Protrcted Area Management Categories in Finland. Final version approved by the National IUCN Committee of Finland, June 17th, 2013.IUCN

Islam.G.M , Shzee Yew Tai  , Mohd Noh Kusairi  , Shuib Ahmad , Farhana Mohd Noh Aswani , Muhamad Khair Afham Muhamad Senan  , Ali Ahmad. 2017.  Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia .Ocean & Coastal Management  (2017) 34-42

Jentoft.S, Jose J. Pascual-Fernandez,  Raquel De la Cruz Modino, Manuel Gonzalez-Ramallal , Ratana Chuenpagdee. 2012. What Stakeholders Think About Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies from. Springer Science + Business Media, Hum Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10745-012-9459-6, Februari 2012

Leenhardt.P,  Bertrand Cazalet, Bernard Salvat, Joachim Claudet, François Feral.2014. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: Conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management- XXX (2013) 1-7

Machumu,M.E  and Amararatne Yakupitiyage.2013.  Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Managing the Drivers of Ecosystem Change: A Case of Mnazi Bay Marine Park, Tanzania.  Jurnal Ambio. 2013 Apr; 42(3): 369–380.

Pascal.N.2011. Cost-benefi t analysis of community-based marine protected areas: Five case studies in Vanuatu. SPC Fisheries Newsletter - January/April 2011

Setyawati.2014.Managing Marine Protected Areas in  Indonesia. Jurnal  Marine  Biological  Associated of  India, 56 (1), 13-18, January-June 2014

Sumaila.U.S, Sylvie Guenette, Jackie Alder, David Pollard dan Ratana Chuenpagdee.2012. Marine Protected Area: Guiding Principles and Benefits. WWF

Waltter,N.2017. Marine Protected Area Management in the  Finnish Gulf of Bothnia Connections BetweenUunderwater Nature, Human Activity and Management. Faculty of Business and Science  University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management  Ísafjörður, May 2017

Wilhelm.T.A, Charles R.C,Sheppard; Annel S.Sheppard, Carlos F Gaymer, John Parks, Daniel Wagner and Naia Lewis.2014. Large marine protected areas – advantages and challenges of going big.2014. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater  Ecosystems. 24 (Suppl. 2): 24–30 (2014)

*Makalah pada International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Developmen (ICNRSD) held  at Grand Inna Hotel, Medan, Indonesia on Agustus 2 ^nd-3^nd, 2018