plan guidelines have proven to be a constraint to effective management.  One shortcoming is 

that park planning guidelines demand too much information that is irrelevant for managing parks 

(Taylor 1996).  The guidelines emphasize data collection rather than management and problem 

solving, and provide inadequate guidance for scoping analysis and planning.  A second 

shortcoming is the static nature of the detailed guidelines which offers little flexibility to adapt 

planning to the unique conditions of each national park. Management activities and budgets are 

reflective of situations and conditions existing at the time the management plan is written.  Once 

the management plans have been finalized and approved, there are no mechanisms in place to 

amend them to reflect changing ecological or socio economic circumstances.  Consequently, 

plans become the end goal of the planning process rather than the means for effective and 

flexible on going management.   

A third shortcoming of the MoFr national park management plan guidelines concerns human 

and financial resources allocation priorities, which are confined to the existing protected areas.  

There is little strategic analysis to determine if resources required for a given area might be 

better utilized in another location.  In effect, the existing system does not allow PHPA to capture 

the largest potential gain from the available resources.  A fourth shortcoming of the current 

national park planning model is the lack of a  learning based approach ; that is, learning from 

experience about what happens under certain conditions and discovering the underlying causes 

and patterns of certain outcomes.  There are currently neither evaluation nor feedback 

mechanisms in place for decision making.  Without effective learning opportunities, 

management decision making remains ad hoc and reactive, decreasing the likelihood of 

effective long term management.  By contrast, an iterative and learning based management 

process would allow for the design of more rapid and effective decisions in response to similar 

future situations.  

Thus, there is a very great need to develop alternative planning frameworks and decision 

making processes to replace the existing management plan guidelines.  One strong indication of 

this need is the response to park management plans developed and presented to the MoFr by 

NRMP.  The overwhelming response to these documents has been,  But what do we need to 

do?  The plan is too long and complicated to be useful.   While the management plan guidelines 

stipulate that government agencies be consulted in the review and approval process, there 

tends to be little sense of ownership of a park's Twenty Five Year Management Plan by these 

agencies.  Although the plans are prepared through strict adherence to the guidelines, there is 

already mounting evidence that the current system of planning is not adding value to the 

effective protection of Indonesia's national parks and other reserves in the conservation area 

system.  Continued donor involvement in management plan preparation exacerbates the 

problem.  By 1996, twenty four management plans, based on the MoFr guidelines, have been 

completed or are in progress, yet only four have been approved.  Moreover, completion and 

approval of a management plan is not necessarily a good indicator of effective management 

planning.  In short, the current blueprint approach to national park management planning is 

inappropriate for Indonesia's varied and complex national park system.   

The unique features, opportunities, and constraints of each national park, compounded by the 

dynamic nature of Indonesia's development process, requires an adaptive approach to national 

park planning that is responsive to changing local circumstances.  As such, planning should be 

an on going part of national park management.  NRMP experiences in Bunaken and Bukit 

Baka Bukit Raya national parks demonstrate that management planning is ineffective under the 

current set of guidelines.  Rather, management planning must be treated as a flexible and 

adaptive process, constantly reviewed within the integrated context of overall park management 

59