The Effect of Transfer of Conservation Authority towards Marine

Protected Areas in Sumatra Utara Province-Indonesia

Hamzah Lubis

Mayang Sari Yeanny

Environmental Lecturer at the Medan Institute of Technology, Chair of the S2 / S3 Alumni of Natural Resources and

Environmental Management at the Universitas Sumatera Utara

Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Sumatera Utara,

Keywords: Conservation, Marine Protected Areas, Limited Protection Areas, Sumatera Utara

Abstract: The study was carried out descriptively, data collection with questionnaire, followed by observation and in-

depth interviews with the head of Department of Marine and Fisheries, head of Environmental Services

Department, head of District/City and Province Department of Culture and Tourism and the head of MPA

which managed by the community in Sumatera Utara.The results of the study indicated that the Sumatera

Utara Provincial Government was not ready to accept the transfer of conservation management authority

from districts / cities in Sumatera Utara. MPA that has been determined were; (1) MPA Sawo-Lahewa in

Nias Utara District in 2017 and (2) Limited Protected Area of Toli Shad in LabuhanBatu from 2016 to 2018

have not been managed. Thus, the 3 MPAs in Tapanuli Tengah, Nias Selatan and SerdangBedagai which

were previously managed by the District Government have not been managed by the Sumatra Utara

Provincial Government and are still in the backup stage. The MPA proposal currently being carried out by

Madina District Government, Batubara District Gov. and Sibolga City Gov. as well as the proposal of Batak

Fish (Neolissochilussumatranus) Limited Protection Area, Dara Shellfish in Asahan District and Turtle and

Sea Cucumber in Asahan District had not been followed up by the Provincial Government. Similar to the

data collection, coaching and mentoring of private MPAs managed by the community had not been well

implemented by the Provincial Government.

1 INTRODUCTION

Law No. 32/2004 concerning Regional

Administration authorizes District / City

Governments to manage the sea as wide as 4 miles

from the coastline. Therefore, the District / City

Government managed the Regional Marine

Protected Areas (RMPA) and fostered conservation

areas managed by the community in the form of

Marine Protected Areas (MPA).With the issuance of

Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government, the

District / City Government did not have the

authority to manage the oceans, including

conservation management.

Article 27 of Law No.23 of 2014 describes the

transfer of authority from district / city to the

Provincial Government. Provincial authority to

manage natural resources in the sea at a maximum of

12 (twelve) nautical miles measured from the

coastline towards the high seas and / or towards

island waters. Such authorities include: (a).

exploration, exploitation, conservation, and

management of marine assets outside oil and gas;

(b). administrative arrangements; (c). spatial

arrangement; (d). participate in maintaining security

at sea; and (e). participate in maintaining state

sovereignty.

This research was conducted to obtain the effect

of the transfer of authority on the management of

MPA in Sumatera Utara, where before 2004 MPA

management was carried out by the District / City

Government and there was no MPA that was

managed by the Provincial Government. Therefore,

this paper discussed the problems that occur due to

the political policy.

Marine Protection Area (MPA) based on

Government Regulation Number 60 of 2007

concerning Conservation of Fish Resources, as a

protected water area, managed with a zoning system,

to realize sustainable management of fish resources

and the environment. The definition of fish refers to

Law No. 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries, is all

158

Lubis, H. and Sari Yeanny, M.

The Effect of Transfer of Conservation Authority towards Marine Protected Areas in Sumatra Utara Province-Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0009899500002480

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Development (ICNRSD 2018), pages 158-163

ISBN: 978-989-758-543-2

types of organisms that all or part of their life cycle

are in the aquatic environment.

MPA according to the United Nations

conservation agency (International Union

Conservation Nature-IUCN) is a clear geographical

space, recognized and managed effectively, to

reflect the sustainability of natural resources

including cultural values within them (Briggs et al,

2018). Agbeja (2017) detailed the protection in the

sea, for fauna, flora, history and cultural

improvement. MPA is as an effective management

model for the sustainability of marine resources

(Setyawati, 2014).

The results of the MPA study showed that the

fish marked in MPA move in and out of the MPA,

so that fishermen can catch fish abundantly outside

the MPA (Clements et al, 2012). MPA can stop

fishing and modify fishing models in other parts of

the MPA (Machumu et al, 2013). Likewise the

determination of core zoning (closed areas without

fish catching throughout the year), has proven

effective in increasing the amount of fish biomass

(Ban et al, 2015), increasing biodiversity (Ban et al,

2015), (Charles et all, 2016), (Waltter , 2017), (Islam

et all, 2017) therefore there has been an increase in

the number and extent of MPAs in the last three

decades (Ban et al, 2015).

The derivative impacts of MPA, it will restore

fish resources (Pascall, 2011), (Charles et all, 2016),

increase economic (Pascal, 2011), (Charles et all,

2016), (Ban et all, 2015), (Machumu et all , 2013),

(Waltter, 2017), enhancing alternative livelihoods

for local communities (Machumu et al, 2013),

increasing social, cultural, development of

ecotourism services (Pascal, 2011) and models for

addressing habitat degradation and decreasing stock

of fish ( Machumu et all, 2013). On a macro scale

the MPA is beneficial for reducing the adverse

effects of natural resource destruction (Machum et

al, 2013), maintaining a global, regional, national

and local environment (Heinonen, 2013).

MPA also functions as an Integrated Coastal

Management (ICM) implementation program for

planning, management, land use, permit and marine

zoning systems, conflict resolution of natural

resources (Briggs et al, 2018), marine and coastal

management, increased productivity and fish stocks

and ecosystem recovery (Islam et all, 2017), increase

resilience to over-exploitation and uncertainty, and

prevent the collapse of aquatic resources (Sumaila et

al, 2012). Because in its management, the

government must involve the community (Waltter,

2017), by designing active participation of coastal

communities, fishermen and other marine users in

designing and implementing MPA (Charles et all,

2016).

Globally there are approximately 5,000 MPAs,

covering an area of 2.85 million km2 or 0.8% of the

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%),

the United Kingdom (21.9%), the 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

MPA (Wilheml et al, 2014).

The global MPA area data is compared with the

2008 global sea area of 0.9% (Wilhemlet all, 2014),

in 2011 the MPA covering 1.3% of the sea area and

3.2% of the Exclusive Economic Zone (Leenhardt et

all, 2014), or MPA of 1.6% (Jentoft et all, 2012).

The MPA area is still small compared to the land

conservation area of 11.6% of the 17.3 million km2

of the world's land (Machumu et al, 2013). Most

MPAs are near shore and shallow waters (Wilhemlet

all, 2014).

The target of the IUCN MPA expansion area is

based on the 2010 Convention on Biological

Diversity is as much as > 10% in 2020. But the

MPA expansion is very slow at only 1.3% of the sea

area and 3.2% of the EEZ, so based on the 2015

Sustainable Development Goal, the MPA is still

targeting > 10% by 2020. The MPA target set at the

IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 is 30% in

2030 (Briggs et al, 2018).

Nationally, Indonesia's sea area is 5.8 million

km2, which consists of 2.95 million km2 of island

waters, 0.30 million km2 of territorial sea, and 2.55

million km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone and

17,504 small islands (Setyawati, 2014 ) Indonesia's

MPA in 2012 covered 15.7 million ha (0.27%) of

Indonesia's sea area. The Indonesian government has

set MPA area in 2020 to reach 20 million ha

(0.34%). In comparison, the percentage of Finland's

MPA area is 46,000 km² (10%) of the national sea

area (Heinonen, 2013).

2 RESEARCH METHODS

This research was conducted in early 2018 in

Sumatera Utara Province. Respondents of the study

were institutions of the Department of Marine and

Fisheries, the Environmental Services Department

and District / City Tourism Department, the

Department of Marine and Fisheries, the

Environmental Services Department and Department

The Effect of Transfer of Conservation Authority towards Marine Protected Areas in Sumatra Utara Province-Indonesia

159

of Culture and Tourism of the Province of Sumatera

Utara and also the manager of MPA with

community-management in Sumatera Utara.Data

collection methods used questionnaires, interviews,

observation and in-depth discussion. Data analysis

was done descriptively.

3 RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION

3.1 MPA in Sumatera Utara

Sumatera Utara Province has 17 coastal districts /

cities from 33 city districts, 8 districts / cities are on

the East Coast and 9 districts / cities are on the West

Coast of Sumatra Utara. Demographically, the

coastal population inhabits 85 coastal sub-districts

with 539 coastal villages. The area of Sumatera

Utara is 72981 km2, consisting of land area of

32384.62 km2 and sea area of 40596.38 km2

(55.63%), with a coastline area of 1299.5 km and

has 192 small islands (DKP-SU, 2016).

The Provincial Government of Sumatra Utara

has 6 (six) MPA locations, consisting of 4 (four)

locations of Regional Marine Protected Areas

(RMPA), and marine protected areas (MPA)

managed by the community. The area of the RMPA

in Sumatera Utara is 167483.35 ha, which is

managed by the district government. The four

RMPAs are: (1) RMPA ofTapanuli Tengah District

covering an area of 81243.00 ha for protection of

sustainable fisheries and marine tourism of coral

reefs with the Decree of the District Head of

Tapanuli District Number.1421/DKP/Th.2007. (2)

RMPA of Nias District covering an area of 29000.00

ha for protection of sustainable fisheries, marine

tourism of coral reefs and mangroves with the

Decree of the District Head of Nias

Number.050/139/K/2007. (3) RMPA of Nias Selatan

District covering an area of 56000.00 ha for the

protection of coral reefs and marine biota with the

Decree of the District Head of Nias Selatan

Number.523/371/K/DKP/2008. (4) RMPA of

SerdangBedagai District covering 1240.35 ha for the

protection of coral reefs and sea turtles with the

Decree of the District Head of SerdangBedagai

Number.97/523/2008. Within the RMPA area there

is also Marine Protected Areas (MPA) at the village

level as much as 17 locations.

After the enactment of Law No. 23 of 2014, the

Sumatera Utara Provincial Government has 2 (two)

MPAs that have had a determination from the

government.First, the MPA of Sawo-Lahewa

Aquatic Tourism Park and the Surrounding Waters,

Nias Utara, with the Decree of the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia

Number 54/KEPMEN-KP/2017 dated December 22,

2017 covering an area of 29230.85 ha.This Marine

Tourism Park (MTP) originated from Nias Regional

Marine Protected Area which originally covered

29000 ha, which increased to 29230.85 ha.Second

MPA, Limited Protection Area of Terubuk Fish

(Tenualosailisha) in Barumun River, LabuhanBatu

District, based on the Decree of the Minister of

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of

Indonesia Number 34/KEPMEN-KP/2016 dated

August 2, 2016.

The Governor of Sumatera Utara through the

Decree of the Governor of Sumatera Utara Number

188.44/629/KPTS/2017 dated November 21, 2017,

has reserved the Regional Marine Protected Area

(RMPA) covering an area of 138483.40 ha

contained in(1).Tapanuli Tengah District; 81243 ha,

(2). Nias Selatan District; 56000 Ha,and

(3).SerdangBedagai District; 1240.40 ha.The area of

the MPA and the planned allocation of RMPA in

Sumatera Utara in the Sumatera Utara Coastal and

Small Islands Zoning Plans (RZWP3K) are

presented in table-1.

Table 1: Area of Sumatera Utara Province MPA

District /

City

MPA’s

Name

Area (ha) Legal Basis

Nias Utara MTP.Sawo

Lahewa

29.230,85 Kepmenkp-RI No

54/ KEPMEN-

KP/2017 dated 22

Decembe

2017.

MPA

P.Wunga

12.915,93 Space allocation

RZWP3

-SU

MPA

Kec.Alasa

1.332,68 Space allocation

RZWP3

-SU

Labuhan

Batu

LPATerubu

k Fish

7.210,41 Kepmenkp

No.54/KEPMEN-

KP/2017

Nias

Selatan

RMPA Nias

Selatan

56.000,00 Gov. decree No.

188.44/629/KPTS/

2017 dated 21

Novembe

2017

RMPA

P.Simuk

8.146,5 Space allocation

RZWP3

-SU

RMPA

P.Batu

Timu

44.293,62 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

RMPALahu

sa and

Toma

District

17.947,91 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Tapanuli

Tengah

RMPA

Tapanuli

Tengah

81.243,00 Gov. decree No.

188.44/629/KPTS/

2017 dated 21

Novembe

2017

RMPA

Sorkam

Bara

1.763,71 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

ICNRSD 2018 - International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Development

160

District

Serdang

Bedagai

RMPA

Serdang

Bedagai

3.786,02 Gov. decree No.

188.44/629/KPTS/

2017 dated 21

November 2017/

Space allocation

RZWP3

-SU

Nias RMPA

Kec.Bawo

Lato

4.986,84 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

RMPA Gido

and

Idanogawo

District

4.502,56 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Nias Barat RMPA

Sirombu

Dist.

27.409,80 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Langkat RMPA

Secanggang

District

1.809,66 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Batubara RMPA

Tj.Tiram

District

3.804,86 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Mandailing

Natal

RMPA

Mandailing

Natal

1.405,99 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Tapanuli

Selatan

RMPA

Muara

Bt.Toru

District

7.724,46 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

RMPA

Tapanuli

Selatan

7.724,46 Space allocation

RZWP3K-SU

Total 323.238,90 Determination,

reserve, allocation

3.2 Authority Transfer Issue

Based on the research data, the transfer of MPA

management authority from the District / City

Government to the Sumatera Utara Provincial

government caused the Provincial Government's

burden to increase. This transfer of authority raised

the problem of marine conservation management in

Sumatera Utara Province, including:

(1) There is no MPA institution and management

The Nias District Government since 2007 has set an

MPA of 29000.00 ha, for the protection of

sustainable fisheries, marine tourism of coral reefs

and mangroves. In 2008, there was a division of

Nias District into Nias District and Nias Utara

District. Most MPA areas that have been established

are in Nias Utara District, so there is no management

of MPA anymore. When MPA management was

transferred to the Province, the Sumatera Utara

Provincial Government reserved an MPA of

29230.85 ha. Based on the Decree of the Minister of

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of

Indonesia Number 54 / KEPMEN-KP / 2017 dated

December 22, 2017 stipulates MPA Sawo-Lahewa,

Nias Utara as a Marine Tourism Park.

The MPA's function is to protect, conserve,

utilize fisheries potential and important ecosystems

such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses and

important species such as sea turtles, dolphins, marta

rays, napoleon, lola, dugong, clams, sharks, whales,

sea bamboo, bahar roots, goat's head, triton trumpet,

sea cucumber, and hollow nautilus. MPA serves to

support the development of water tourism. This

MPA is managed with 5 zoning, in the form of

MPA-1 covering 2485.34 ha, MPA-2 covering

12562.50 ha, MPA-3 covering 7371.09 ha, MPA-4

covering 3948.80 ha and MPA-5 covering 2863, 12

ha.

In the decree stipulating the Sawo-Lahewa MPA,

it was stated that the management was handed over

to the Sumatera Utara Provincial Government.

Although the Central Government has determined it

as MPA Sawo-Lahewa since 2017, the Provincial

Government has not established institutional,

management, and budgeting activities. Thus, since

the establishment of the MPA in 2007, from 2008 to

2018, there was no MPA management at all. MPA

areas such as no man's land, no conservation

functions are carried out. Conditions like this, cause

a decrease in coral reef cover, an increase in the

degradation of the marine environment and a decline

in the economic and social community around the

MPA.

(2) There is no new MPA determination

The District Government of Tapanuli Tengah since

2007 has managed an MPA of 81243.00 ha, The

Nias Selatan District Government has managed

MPA since 2008 covering an area of 56,000.00 ha

and the SerdangBedagai District Government has

managed MPA since 2008 covering an area of

1240.35 ha. Management has been stalled since

2014 because the conservation authority was taken

over by the province.The administrative activities

carried out by the Sumatera Utara Provincial

Government in the form of MPA reserves covering

an area of 138483.40 ha with the Sumatera Utara

Governor Decree Number 188.44/629/KPTS/2017

dated November 21, 2017.

The Sumatera Utara Provincial

Government, which has received the responsibility

for MPA management since 2014, has not been able

to manage the MPA because there is no stipulation.

Therefore, there is no MPA management in the

districts of Tapanuli Tengah, Nias Selatan and

SerdangBedagai since 2014. With conditions

without management, an open access area, it can be

The Effect of Transfer of Conservation Authority towards Marine Protected Areas in Sumatra Utara Province-Indonesia

161

ascertained that there has been a decline in coral reef

cover, environmental damage and a decline in the

economic and social conditions of the community

around the MPA.

(3) The MPA proposal was abandoned

The transfer of authority to manage MPA from the

District Government to the Provincial Government

based on Law No. 23 of 2014 caused the proposal to

establish MPAs become abandoned in various

districts / cities in Sumatera Utara Province. The

research results from the field, Batubara District,

Sibolga City and Mandailing Natal District have

prepared new MPA proposal documents. With the

transfer of this authority, the District / City

Government is not authorized to proposing the

MPA. Therefore, Sumatera Utara Provincial

Government should follow up on preparing the MPA

proposal document. However, until 2018, the file of

the proposed district / city MPA has no follow-up

from the Provincial Government.

(4) The abandonment of the proposed Limited

Protection Area

The Sumatera Utara Provincial Government has a

Terubuk Fish (Tenualosailisha) Limited Protection

Area, in LabuhanBatu based on Decree of the

minister of maritime affairs and fisheries No.

34/KEPMEN-KP/2016 dated August 2,

2016.Although it has been established since 2016,

until 2018 there is no institution, management,

funding, and conservation activities in the field. In

addition, the District / City Government have also

compiled a proposal for a limited protection area for

Batak Fish and KerangAnakDara in Asahan District,

protection of Sea Turtles and Oysters in Tapanuli

Tengah District and others. Because the authority of

the conservation proposal has been transferred from

the District / City Government to the Provincial

Government, Sumatera Utara Provincial

Government should continue to propose a limited

protected area for fish species. The results of the

study showed that the proposed limited protection

area has not been continued by the Sumatera Utara

Provincial Government.

(5) There is no private MPA coaching

The transfer of the authority of conservation

management from the District / City Government to

the Provincial Government led to the formation of

private conservation institutions managed by small-

scale communities such as "the animal loses its

mother". District / city governments do not want to

take care of because it was not their main tasks and

functions anymore while the Provincial Government

does not have data, relations, development budget

and the distance between the provincial capital and

conservation locations in rural area which was far

enough. Because there is no funding assistance and

coaching, the private MPA has stagnated

management. The conservation management

community group expects guidance, placement of

extension workers / instructor and funding

assistance.

4 CONCLUSION

The Sumatera Utara Provincial Government through

the Department of Marine and Fisheries is not ready

to accept the delegation of the authority in the field

of conservation from the District / city Government

in accordance with Law No 23 of 2014 concerning

Local Government. The transfer of authority does

not make MPA management better, the MPA

happens to be increasingly neglected. Negative

impact of the transfer of conservation authority from

District / City Government to Sumatera Utara

Province, in the form of:

a. The Sumatera Utara Provincial Government is

obliged to manage MPAs that have been

determined by the Central Government: (1)

Sawo-Lahewa Nias Utara MPA in 2017

(established in 2007) and (2) Terubuk Fish

Limited Protection Area in Labuhan Batu

District 2016. But until 2018 it has not been

managed, there is no institution, supervision

management model, budgeting, and

conservation implementation in the

conservation area.

b. Sumatera Utara Provincial Government has

reserved 3 new MPAs in 2017 but because the

Central Government has not yet been legalized

it, the Tapanuli Tengah MPA (established in

2007), Nias Selatan (2008) and SerdangBedagai

(2008) cannot be managed by the Sumatera

Utara Provincial Government.

c. Sumatera Utara Provincial Government has not

followed up on the MPA's proposal and the

proposed Limited Protection Area which has

been delayed due to the transfer of management

authority from the District / City Government to

the Provincial Government.

d. Sumatera Utara Provincial Government has not

recorded private MPAs managed by the

community, as well as no guidance, assistance

and funding assistance.

ICNRSD 2018 - International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Development

162

REFERENCES

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 6th 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 17

, 2013. IUCN

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p

_isn=77116

https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/law-no-272007-

regarding-the-management-of-coastal-area-and-isles-

lex-faoc107226

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

Undang-undang Nomor 32 tahun 2004 Tentang

Pemerintah Daerah = Law No. 32/2004 concerning

Regional Administration

Undang-Undang Nomor 27 tahun 2007 Tentang

Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil

=Law No. 27/2007 regarding the Management of

Coastal Area and Isles

Waltter,N. 2017. Marine Protected Area Management in

the Finnish Gulf of Bothnia Connections

BetweenUunderwater Nature, Human Activityand

Management. Faculty of Business and Science

University Centre of the WestfjordsMaster 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)

The Effect of Transfer of Conservation Authority towards Marine Protected Areas in Sumatra Utara Province-Indonesia

163