The preceding discussion establishes that there is a missing link between adat regulations and national regulations, between the legal framework of customary law and that of national law, with regard to the protection and management of conservation areas. However, it also reveals the potential points of convergence between the two perspectives and indicates the need for new models and legal avenues to create effective and equitable ‘localised’ management of protected areas. The proposed model would be ‘localised’ in that it would take into consideration the aspirations of local people for improving their welfare and taking part in the management of a protected area. It would integrate existing local adat institutions and regulations on sustainable use of natural resources as part of regional conservation efforts. There is not necessarily a contradiction between the efforts to conserve a forest area and local forms of exploitation. This is particularly true for areas like the Kayan Mentarang conservation area, with a history of sustainable use of natural resources (under stable conditions), low population density, little agricultural pioneering or illegal hunting, and where risks of over-exploitation are more likely to originate from outside the area.

The new forestry law explicitly states the criteria by which the government can recognise the legal existence of adat communities. These criteria include: the relative sustainability in the use of natural resources; the presence of strong social cohesion and traditional institutions; high reliance of communities on the exploitation of natural resources; and a tradition of conservation measures. In the case of a conservation area that is claimed by adat communities, like the Kayan Mentarang National Park, an additional criterion for the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of adat claims would need to be considered. This criterion would be the level of dependence of the local people on the objectives and success of the project. The communities living in and around the Kayan Mentarang area are not only adat communities with functioning traditional institutions, customary territories, and a long history of occupation and use of the area. They are also economically dependent on the extraction of valuable forest resources from the park area and the conservation of its forest status. For example, the support for the protected area is highest among those communities who are most economically dependent on forest resources, so long as local communities are allowed to continue sustainable extraction. There is a strong correlation between the economic value of the forest (in the form of non-timber forest products) and support for the establishment of a National Park (which is the main objective of the project).

Some preliminary recommendations can thus be made in support of localised conservation agendas:

It is recommended that customary councils or lembaga adat be recognised as managers of the hutan adat, which is part of the National Park area. Lembaga adat are active and established institutions with a strong basis of tradition and legitimacy at local level. They, and the communities they represent, ‘have the same interest in securing access and use of natural resources and the ecosystem’, which is one of the criteria discussed in the internal draft of guidelines to regulate community forest concessions in conservation areas. Moreover, the tradition of the customary councils in the area of the National Park indicates that they possess a strong commitment to protecting the environment and practising sustainable use. They also have knowledge and experience in the management of natural resources, which are additional requirements mentioned in the draft (Government of Indonesia 1999).

It is important to develop and enforce an adat-based management of the park by training and supporting local institutions. The opportunity for capacity building would strengthen local management and legitimise the role of local people, not just as simple users but also as managers of (their) natural resources in the park area. The process would take time and it would have to be adjusted to suit the ability and time constraints of the communities.

Developing an adat-based management of the park would also indirectly strengthen and reinforce a new social role for the customary councils at a time of extreme challenges and difficulties for adat. The example of the exploitation of gaharu in Apo Kayan is in many ways typical of the exploitation of natural resources in the interior of Kalimantan. Since the early 1990s, outside collectors, sponsored by Chinese and Arab traders based in the towns of the lowlands, have come in increasing numbers in search of gaharu and gallstones. Their mode of exploitation is drastically different from local practices. Being outsiders and belonging to different ethnic groups, they do not always acknowledge or respect local adat regulations and rights. They tend to cut indiscriminately infected and non-infected trees, and use chemicals and other means to poison salt springs where langur monkeys come to drink. They also spend extended periods of time in the forest where they establish semi-permanent camps. This mode of exploitation has increased the chances of over-exploitation of natural resources and has also exposed the limits of the local adat authority. For example, the customary councils often deliberate on the need to prevent outside collectors from accessing their land, and the options of confiscating the collectors’ supplies and belongings. They denounce the situation but sometimes lack the necessary legal authority and internal consensus to impose their will. Enforcement of, and compliance with, regulations is an index of the strength of local adat. When traditional authority begins to lose its prestige and is eroded by competing normative systems, the effectiveness of the local management system is also inevitably weakened and may collapse (Eghenter 2005).

The WWF Kayan Mentarang Project has compiled and proposed a preliminary conservation agreement between the communities and the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation for the management of the park based on local adat regulations. Its conceptual and practical justification draws upon the considerations of the local economic and social situation: the need to recognise and secure the exclusive and permanent usufruct rights of communities in the area of the park; the relevance of customary regulations where these stress conservation and sustainable use; the importance of allowing local enforcement and the imposition of customary fines for most infractions; the introduction of tools such as quotas and seasonal harvesting, or other measures of animal-population management, when and if conditions require. The conservation agreement has already been discussed in local meetings with the communities and the feedback was positive. The communities felt that their concerns were being addressed and that they could support plans for a National Park based on recognition of their adat claims and customary law (Eghenter 1999).

Participants in the 1999 workshop suggested that a management plan with a clear zonation system and division into core zone, wilderness zone, and traditional-use zone would help acknowledge, integrate, and accommodate the conservation functions of the protected area and the aspirations of local people. However, this recommendation alone might not be enough to achieve these objectives. Zonation should be established in ways that best suit local conditions. In this regard, not all kinds of zones might be appropriate in a given protected area, but only those most relevant for maintaining functions of biodiversity protection and securing the economic needs of local people. For example, in the Kayan Mentarang National Park, the entire area is claimed by adat and most of it has been exploited in the course of history. In these circumstances, the establishment of a large traditional use zone or ‘adat use zone’ might represent a priority, while a core zone would only be determined following an assessment of local land-use patterns and trends, and on the basis of wide local consensus.

Another important consideration is that a zonation system imposes a sort of permanent micro-partition within the conservation area according to ecological, biological, research, and other functional criteria. This approach, unless it is the result of a consultation process and linked to local standards of land use, can raise suspicion among local people. For example, during participatory planning meetings for the Kayan Mentarang National Park, community representatives objected to the proposal to divide their territory into different zones, each with its own separate set of regulations and prohibitions. Moreover, they indirectly questioned the meaning of a permanent division into zones by asking, ‘once a zone has been established, can we change it?’ or, ‘can we access a core zone once we have exhausted all resources in the other zones?’

In the recommended ‘localised’ management model, the day-to-day management of the park would be the full responsibility of the inter-adat institution — a coordinating institution formed by elected members from each of the customary councils in and around the conservation area. The creation of this institution would guarantee easier coordination between the various adat units and better overall management and use of the entire area of the park. In the case of the Kayan Mentarang National Park, this institution would be the Forum Musyawarah Masyarakat Adat that was formally established in 2000.

In regard to the ideal role of central and regional governments in the management of National Parks, Yusuf (2000: 49) suggests that the central government only act to facilitate, advise, and provide guidelines. In 2000, the forum members made a recommendation to the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation with regard to recognising their role as managers of the park. Subsequently, it was proposed that a collaborative form of management be established. The proposed Dewan Penentu Kebijakan (Policy Board) was to include representatives and conservation experts of the ministry, representatives of the forum or the indigenous people of the park area, and representatives of the local government. In April 2002, the policy board was formally recognised by a ministerial decree for the collaborative management of the Kayan Mentarang National Park. The operating principles of the board emphasise the importance of coordination, competence, shared responsibilities, and equal partnership among all stakeholders.

The adat-based management model of conservation areas could have important social, economic, and ecological advantages. With the involvement and acknowledgment of local people as managers of the park, there would be reduced initial costs for activities like building, monitoring, boundary marking, and law enforcement. The implementation of this kind of management would entail a smaller opportunity cost for local people and avoid significant social costs. Local residents would be granted exclusive rights to use the forest sustainably and sell forest products. The legitimation of adat would guarantee a degree of tenure security to local communities. Moreover, their presence on the management board as equal partners could enhance their sense of responsibility and accountability in the management of the forest.