High-Level Dialogue and Technical Staff Discussion on Integrated Coastal and Marine Management in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

This Experience Note documents a High-Level Dialogue and Technical Staff Discussion on Integrated Coastal and Marine Management held in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. The event convened national, provincial, and district governments, conservation authorities, academia, and development partners to address governance fragmentation in coastal and marine ecosystems, particularly in the Togean Islands Archipelago and surrounding waters of Tomini Bay. The discussions focused on strengthening policy coherence, improving marine conservation effectiveness, and developing a 2025–2028 integrated management roadmap anchored in ecological connectivity, inclusive governance, and sustainable development.

𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘚𝘌𝘈𝘕 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 (𝘈𝘚𝘌𝘈𝘕 𝘌𝘕𝘔𝘈𝘗𝘚) is a regional initiative designed to enhance the management of networks of marine protected areas and marine corridors across key Large Marine Ecosystems in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand. By utilising integrated coastal management, marine spatial planning, and ecosystem approach to fisheries management, the project aims to enhance marine biodiversity conservation and support sustainable fisheries. With a science-based approach, it promotes connectivity between MPAs, strengthens governance, and builds capacity through partnerships with local communities, governments, and the private sector while ensuring the active participation of indigenous peoples, women, and youth in conservation efforts. The project also focuses on knowledge sharing to scale best practices and secure sustainable financing for long-term conservation. ASEAN ENMAPS is implemented by the United Nations Development Programme through the funding of the Global Environment Facility, with the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity as the executing agency. 

Experience Summary

The dialogue brought together approximately 45 multi-level stakeholders to align perspectives on coastal and marine governance challenges and opportunities. Key discussions centered on ecological connectivity, fragmented spatial planning systems, overlapping institutional mandates, and socio-economic pressures affecting marine ecosystems.

The engagement resulted in strong consensus on the need for Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) as a unifying framework. A four-pillar Integrated Management Roadmap (2025–2028) was developed for the Togean Islands, covering policy integration, sustainable resource management, capacity building and community empowerment, and enforcement and monitoring.

Context and Challenges

Coastal and marine ecosystems in Central Sulawesi are ecologically interconnected across administrative boundaries, yet governance systems remain sectoral and fragmented. Key challenges include:

• Misalignment between ecological connectivity and administrative jurisdictions
• Overlapping spatial planning instruments (land and sea)
• Weak coordination across national, provincial, and district institutions
• Illegal, unregulated, and destructive fishing practices
• Coastal pollution and ecosystem degradation
• Limited ecological and socio-economic data for planning
• Insufficient integration of community voices, including women, Indigenous Peoples, and youth
• Gaps in sustainable financing and long-term coordination mechanisms

These challenges are particularly evident in the Togean Islands, where conservation priorities intersect with local livelihoods, tourism development, and fisheries dependence.

Approach and Methods

The dialogue adopted a structured, multi-roundtable and participatory approach combining policy dialogue and technical planning sessions.

Key methods included:

• High-Level Plenary Sessions featuring opening statements from national and regional leaders
• Thematic Presentations on ecological connectivity, marine governance, and conservation frameworks
• Structured Roundtable Dialogues, facilitated across five thematic rounds:
  • Sustainable fisheries and conservation governance
  • Key issues and institutional challenges
  • Economic development and climate resilience
  • Mainstreaming conservation into development planning
  • Coordination mechanisms and network development
• Technical Staff Workshop, focusing on operational roadmap development
• Consensus-building process, including synthesis sessions and commitment statements

The process emphasized evidence-based dialogue, cross-sectoral exchange, and integration of scientific, policy, and local knowledge systems.

Key Results and Insights

The dialogue generated strong consensus that coastal and marine ecosystems must be governed as interconnected ecological systems rather than fragmented administrative units, reflecting the reality of ecological connectivity across the seascape. Participants also recognized that conservation areas function as critical economic infrastructure, serving both as fishery replenishment systems or “fish banks” and as coastal protection buffers that enhance resilience against environmental and climate-related risks. There was broad agreement that Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) represents the most suitable framework for harmonizing sectoral policies, institutional mandates, and spatial planning processes across governance levels.

A key outcome of the process was the development of a 2025–2028 Integrated Management Roadmap structured around four pillars: policy and institutional integration, sustainable resource management through a ridge-to-reef approach, capacity building and community empowerment, and strengthened enforcement and monitoring systems. In addition, participants identified a critical need for a formal enabling coordination platform that can effectively link institutions, financing mechanisms, data systems, and implementation processes. The discussions also reinforced the importance of integrating GEDSI principles, climate resilience, and blue economy approaches as core elements of future marine and coastal governance frameworks.

What Worked Well

The process benefited from strong participation from multi-level governance actors, with representation ranging from national agencies to provincial, district, and community levels. This broad engagement ensured that diverse perspectives were reflected in the discussions and contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of coastal and marine governance challenges. Effective facilitation played a key role in enabling structured and inclusive dialogue across complex and interrelated themes, allowing participants to engage meaningfully despite institutional and technical differences.

Another important factor was the integration of science-based evidence, particularly ecological connectivity studies, into policy discussions, which helped ground deliberations in empirical findings and strengthened the relevance of proposed approaches. The dialogue also fostered open exchange between government institutions, academia, and local stakeholders, creating a collaborative environment conducive to trust-building and shared learning. Despite differences in institutional mandates and priorities, there was clear convergence on shared principles, particularly on the need for integrated, ecosystem-based management and improved coordination. These conditions ultimately enabled the successful translation of dialogue outcomes into a practical and structured Integrated Management Roadmap, providing a clear pathway for follow-up action.

Challenges and Limitations

The process was constrained by persistent fragmentation of mandates across institutions and governance levels, which continues to hinder coordinated action in coastal and marine management. This is compounded by the limited availability of disaggregated ecological and socio-economic data, which restricts evidence-based planning and monitoring. Ongoing uncertainty in spatial boundaries and jurisdictional authority, particularly in conservation areas such as the Togean Islands, further complicates effective governance and enforcement.

In addition, structural gaps in sustainable financing mechanisms remain a significant barrier to long-term implementation of integrated management initiatives. Institutional capacity at sub-national levels is also limited, particularly in relation to integrated planning, coordination, and enforcement functions. There is also a risk that coordination efforts may remain informal and ad hoc in the absence of a formalized, adequately resourced coordination mechanism to sustain collaboration and ensure continuity of actions.

Lessons Learned

The experience reaffirmed that ecological connectivity must serve as the foundation of marine governance, rather than being treated as an afterthought in spatial planning processes. Effective conservation outcomes depend on the simultaneous alignment of policies, institutional arrangements, and local realities, ensuring that governance frameworks are both technically sound and practically applicable. The process also highlighted that inclusive governance—particularly the meaningful involvement of local communities, women, Indigenous Peoples, and youth—is essential for both legitimacy and long-term effectiveness of marine and coastal management efforts.

It further became evident that dialogue alone is insufficient without clear operational follow-through mechanisms that translate agreements into sustained action. Similarly, technical roadmaps must be supported by appropriate institutional arrangements and sustainable financing systems to ensure implementation. Overall, the discussions reinforced that conservation is most effective when framed not as a regulatory burden, but as a long-term investment in both economic prosperity and ecological resilience.

The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) dialogue model demonstrated in this experience offers strong potential for replication in other multi-jurisdictional marine seascapes where ecological systems extend beyond administrative boundaries. The structured roundtable approach has proven effective in bridging the science–policy–community interface and can be adapted for use in other conservation landscapes requiring cross-sectoral coordination and stakeholder integration. Similarly, the four-pillar Integrated Management Roadmap provides a scalable and practical framework that can be applied to other Marine Protected Area networks across Indonesia and the wider ASEAN region.

However, successful scaling requires the early establishment of formal and well-resourced coordination platforms to ensure that integrated management efforts are sustained beyond dialogue processes. Strong alignment with national development planning frameworks, such as the RPJPN, RPJMN, and IBSAP, further enhances policy coherence, institutional uptake, and long-term sustainability. In addition, embedding GEDSI principles from the outset is essential to strengthen equity, inclusivity, and the overall effectiveness of governance outcomes across different contexts.

This experience is highly relevant to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as it addresses the management of ecologically connected marine systems that extend beyond administrative and national boundaries. The seascapes discussed are influenced by ocean currents, species migration, and shared ecosystems, making them inherently transboundary and aligned with GEF’s International Waters focus. The dialogue highlights Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) as a practical framework for addressing transboundary challenges such as biodiversity loss, unsustainable fisheries, pollution, and climate impacts.

It also emphasizes the importance of policy harmonization, institutional coordination, and multi-stakeholder engagement—key priorities in GEF-supported initiatives. The development of a shared roadmap and the call for a formal coordination mechanism support long-term cooperation and sustainable governance. By promoting Marine Protected Area networks based on ecological connectivity, the experience contributes to sustaining shared marine resources across borders.

Finally, the integration of climate resilience, blue economy principles, and GEDSI ensures that transboundary management is inclusive, adaptive, and sustainable, offering a replicable model for other GEF-supported marine regions.