THE NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS OF POOR FISHERS IN WEST SUMATRA.
RICHARD STANFORD
GRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
I declare that this dissertation, entitled: “Matchmaking projects with communities: Analysing whether livelihood improvement initiatives meet the needs and
constraints of poor fishers in West Sumatra” is entirely my own work, assisted by a supervisory committee and has not been submitted in any form for another degree or diploma to any university or other tertiary institution of education. Where this dissertation draws on existing publications, those sources are cited in the text and listed in the references section.
Bogor, May 2014
RICHARD STANFORD. Matchmaking projects with communities: Analysing whether livelihood improvement initiatives meet the needs and constraints of poor fishers in West Sumatra (Proyek-proyek terkait dengan kebutuhan masyarakat nelayan: Apakah kegiatan peningkatan mata pencaharian sesuai dengan kebutuhan nelayan miskin di Sumatra Barat?). Dibimbing oleh JOHN HALUAN, BUDY WIRYAWAN, DIETRIECH BENGEN and RUDI FEBRIAMANSYAH.
Meskipun perekonomian yang tumbuh dengan pesat, namun banyak masyarakat Indonesia yang masih hidup dalam kemiskinan atau rentan untuk masuk kategori miskin. Perikanan merupakan sektor perekonomian yang berkaitan erat dengan kemiskinan dan telah ada sejumlah program-program untuk meningkatkan mata pencaharian di kalangan nelayan. Kekhawatiran akan kegagalan dari program-program itu tetap masih ada sehingga program itu tidak selalu tepat dengan kebutuhan mereka. Menanggapi kekhawatiran ini, penelitian ini dilaksanakan di Provinsi Sumatera Barat dengan melakukan wawancara di 25 desa nelayan, ditambah dengan data sekunder, untuk mengevaluasi 3 hal berikut; 1) kategori nelayan yang miskin dan apa hubungan antara kemiskinan dan perikanan, 2) faktor-faktor yang menolong atau menghambat mata pencaharian mereka dan 3) apakah program peningkatan mata pencaharian mengatasi faktor-faktor ini. Dari hasil analisis, nelayan miskin bertambah banyak jumlahnya, terutama buruh, pemilik perahu kecil dan pedagang. Kemiskinan tidak berkorelasi signifikan dengan ketergantungan pada sektor perikanan tetapi berkorelasi secara signifikan dengan kemiskinan di sektor pertanian. Memang tingkat kemiskinan di sektor perikanan tinggi dibandingkan sektor lain tetapi tingkat kemiskinan itu berkurang ketika sektor ekonomi lain meningkat misalnya layanan dan keuangan. Sebanyak 31 faktor penghambat dan pendorong diidentifikasi dan dikelompokkan menurut enam kategori sumberdaya. Wawancara dengan 151 rumah tangga dari berbagai sektor perikanan di dua komunitas nelayan yang dianalisis menggunakan skala multi-dimensi. Pemilik kapal memiliki sumberdaya buatan (physical capital), sumberdaya keuangan dan sumberdaya manusia lebih tinggi dari buruh tapi tidak ada perbedaan sumberdaya alam, sosial dan kelembagaan. Dukungan kelembagaan di semua sektor lemah. Untuk menjembatani celah antara buruh dan pemilik, program-program pemerintah terfokus pada sumberdaya buatan tanpa menguatkan sumberdaya keuangan dan manusia. Dalam kesimpulan penelitian ini empat rute yang berpotensi menjadi jalan keluar dari kemiskinan untuk nelayan dijelaskan bersama dengan rekomendasi bagaimana program peningkatan mata pencaharian masa depan bisa lebih dapat memenuhi kebutuhan dan kendala dari masyarakat miskin.
Kata kunci: Pengentasan kemiskinan, Diversifikasi Mata Pencaharian, Perikanan skala kecil, Skala Muli-Dimensi (MDS)
RICHARD STANFORD. Matchmaking projects with communities: Analysing whether livelihood improvement initiatives meet the needs and constraints of poor fishers in West Sumatra (Proyek-proyek terkait dengan kebutuhan masyarakat nelayan: Apakah kegiatan peningkatan mata pencaharian sesuai dengan kebutuhan nelayan miskin di Sumatra Barat?). Dibimbing oleh JOHN HALUAN, BUDY WIRYAWAN, DIETRIECH BENGEN and RUDI FEBRIAMANSYAH.
Despite a fast growing economy, many Indonesians still live in poverty or are vulnerable to falling into poverty. Fishing is an economic sector closely associated with poverty and there has been a range of initiatives aimed at improving livelihoods and reducing poverty amongst poor fishers. Concerns remain that these initiatives have failed to target the right people in the right way. In response to this concern, this research based in the province of West Sumatra uses interviews in 25 fishing communities, coupled with secondary data, to evaluate; 1) the sectors of the fishing industry that the poor operate in and what the relationship is between poverty and fishing, 2) the factors that enable or constrain their livelihoods and 3) whether livelihood improvement programs address these factors. The analysis highlights that poor fishers are growing in number and are mainly labourers, small boat owners and small-scale processors/traders. Poverty in fishing is not significantly correlated with fishing dependency but is significantly correlated with poverty in the agricultural sector. Fishing is a poor economic sector, but incidences of poverty are less when other economic sectors, for example the service and financial sector, are strong. Thirty one enabling and constraining factors were identified and grouped according to six asset categories. Interviews with 151 households from a variety of backgrounds in two fishing communities were analysed using multi-dimensional scaling. Vessel owners possess higher physical, financial and human capital than crew members but that there was no difference in the natural, social and institutional fields. Institutional support across all sectors scored poorly. Government programs tend to bridge the gap between crew members and owners by providing physical capital without necessarily addressing the underlying financial and human capital limitations that labourers face. The research concludes with an explanation of the main routes out of poverty for a poor fisher and recommendations and how future livelihood improvement programs can better address the needs and constraints of the poor.
whether livelihood improvement initiatives meet the needs and constraints of poor fishers in West Sumatra (Proyek-proyek terkait dengan kebutuhan masyarakat nelayan: Apakah kegiatan peningkatan mata pencaharian sesuai dengan kebutuhan nelayan miskin di Sumatra Barat?). Dibimbing oleh JOHN HALUAN, BUDY WIRYAWAN, DIETRIECH BENGEN and RUDI FEBRIAMANSYAH.
Meskipun perekonomian yang tumbuh dengan pesat, namun banyak masyarakat Indonesia yang masih hidup dalam kemiskinan atau rentan untuk masuk kategori miskin. Perikanan merupakan sektor perekonomian yang berkaitan erat dengan kemiskinan dan telah ada sejumlah program-program untuk meningkatkan mata pencaharian dan mengurangi kemiskinan di kalangan nelayan. Kekhawatiran tetap ada bahwa program ini telah gagal untuk menargetkan orang yang tepat dengan cara yang benar. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjawab kekhawatiran itu melalui tiga tahap logis.
Pertama (bab 4), dua indeks dibuat yang memetakan ketergantungan perikanan dan kemiskinan di tingkat kabupaten, kecamatan dan kelurahan. Menggunakan data sensus kerja dan kemiskinan di semua sektor ekonomi, kemiskinan nelayan dibandingkan dengan kemiskinan di sektor lain menggunakan matriks korelasi Kendall-Tau untuk menguji apakah perikanan skala kecil benar-benar berkorelasi kemiskinan (fisheries rhymes with poverty) dengan data empiris. Tahap ini mengidentifikasi tren berikut; 1) bahwa jumlah nelayan miskin bertambah banyak dan bahwa mereka sebagian besar adalah buruh bukan pemilik perahu, 2) perikanan bersama dengan pertanian tanaman pangan adalah dua sektor di mana tingkat kemiskinan terbesar, 3) tidak ada hubungan yang signifikan antara tinggi ketergantungan perikanan dan proporsi kemiskinan yang tinggi di antara nelayan, 4) terdapat hubungan yang signifikan antara ketergantungan pertanian dan jumlah persentase kemiskinan di masyarakat pesisir dan 5) ada korelasi terbalik antara kekuatan sektor ekonomi lainnya, misalnya sektor layanan dan keuangan, dan kemiskinan di sektor pertanian. Metodologi ini memiliki aplikasi penting untuk implementasi program tata ruang kelautan secara nasional.
sumberdaya sosial dan kelembagaan. Dukungan kelembagaan memang lemah untuk semua sektor.
Ketiga (bab 7), kompilasi jenis program peningkatan kesejahteraan masyarakat pesisir melalui data sekunder dilakukan dan data tersebut dianalisis dengan menggunakan statistik deskriptif dan tiga studi kasus dipilih yang mengidentifikasikan praktek yang baik dan buruk, terkait isu-isu sosial, ekonomi dan kelembagaan di proyek pengembangan kesejahteraan. Program ditargetkan pada masyarakat miskin pesisir oleh DKP antara 2005-2009 menekankan peningkatan modal fisik melalui penyediaan alat tangkap, mesin dan peralatan pengolahan. Semua intervensi ini dapat bermanfaat bagi pemilik perahu kecil tapi banyak dari mereka tidak akan menguntungkan buruh. Program kontemporer GPEMP memiliki proporsi yang lebih besar dari intervensi di luar sektor perikanan, misalnya peternakan sapi, yang berpotensi membantu buruh, tetapi masih ada bias kuat terhadap intervensi sumberdaya buatan di sektor perikanan. Pendekatan ini yang berusaha menjembatani celah antara buruh dan pemilik dengan pemberian sumberdaya buatan tidak mengatasi keterbatasan sumberdaya keuangan dan manusia yang dihadapi oleh nelayan miskin. Tiga studi kasus menunjukkan bahwa aspek komponen sosial dan manusia dalam penanggulangan kemiskinan juga signifikan. Aspek-aspek koherensi kelompok, transparansi kepemimpinan, advokasi, administrasi, akuntabilitas dan dukungan kelembagaan tanpa henti adalah unsur-unsur kunci untuk menanggulangi kemiskinan di masyarakat pesisir. Sayangnya unsur-unsur itu tidak dapat terlihat, tidak terjadi secara instan, dan hanya memberikan sedikit dokumentasi dengan pemberian jaring atau mesin.
whether livelihood improvement initiatives meet the needs and constraints of poor fishers in West Sumatra (Proyek-proyek terkait dengan kebutuhan masyarakat nelayan: Apakah kegiatan peningkatan mata pencaharian sesuai dengan kebutuhan nelayan miskin di Sumatra Barat?). Dibimbing oleh JOHN HALUAN, BUDY WIRYAWAN, DIETRIECH BENGEN and RUDI FEBRIAMANSYAH.
Despite a fast growing economy, many Indonesians still live in poverty or are vulnerable to falling into poverty. Fishing is an economic sector closely associated with poverty and there has been a range of initiatives aimed at improving livelihoods and reducing poverty amongst poor fishers. Concerns remain that these initiatives have failed to target the right people in the right way. This research attempts to address that concern and proceeds through three logical stages.
Firstly in chapter 4, two indices are developed that map fishing dependency and poverty at multiple spatial scales. Using census data of employment and poverty across all economic sectors, fishing poverty is compared with poverty in other sectors using a Kendall-Tau correlation matrix to examine if ‘fishery truly rhymes with poverty’ using empirical data. This stage identified the following trends; 1) that the number of poor fishers is increasing and that they are predominantly labourers rather than boat owners, 2) fishing together with crop farming are the two sectors in which incidences of poverty are greatest, 3) there is no significant correlation between high fishing dependency and high proportions of poverty amongst fishers, 4) there is a significant correlation between agricultural dependence and total percentage poverty in coastal communities and 5) there are inverse correlations between the strength of other economic sectors and poverty in the agricultural sector. This methodology has important applications for the ongoing implementation of the national marine spatial planning program.
Secondly in chapter 5, an analysis of interviews in twenty-five fishing communities in West Sumatra identified thirty one enabling and constraining factors, which were grouped according to six asset categories; natural, human, social, financial, physical and institutional. In chapter 6, forty three attributes were developed to score households on a scale of bad to good for each of these factors. Two fishing communities were selected on the basis of a cluster analysis, Sungai Pinang, a small, isolated community with a high dependency on traditional methods, and Ampang Pulai, a port with larger vessels and good connectivity to markets. Interviews conducted with 151 households from these communities were analysed using multi-dimensional scaling. These households incorporated both owners and crew from four sectors of the fishing industry, bagan, payang, sampan
and pukat tepi, as well as a fifth ‘other’ group of coastal residents. Vessel owners possess higher physical, financial and human capital than crew members but there was no difference in the natural, social and institutional fields. Institutional support across all sectors scored poorly.
Empowerment programs targeted at the coastal poor by the DKP between 2005-2009 emphasized improving physical capital through providing fishing gear, machines and processing equipment. All of these initiatives could be valuable for small-boat owners but many of them would not benefit labourers. The contemporary program GPEMP had a greater proportion of non-fishing alternative livelihoods that could potentially help labourers, but still demonstrated an ongoing bias towards physical capital interventions in the fishing sector. This approach of bridging the gap between crew members and owners by providing physical capital fails to address the underlying financial and human capital limitations that poor fisher face. The three case studies demonstrate that aspects of leadership, trust, advocacy, administration, accountability and ongoing institutional support are key elements of successful livelihood improvement in coastal communities.
Penguji Ujian Tertutup : Prof. Dr. Ir. Ari Purbayanto, M.Sc Dr. Ir. Sugeng H. Wisudo, M.Si
Title of Dissertation : Matchmaking Projects with Communities: Analysing whether Livelihood Improvement Initiatives Meet the Needs and Constraints of Poor Fishers in West Sumatra Name : Richard James Stanford
NIM : C462108012
Approved by Supervisory Committee
Prof. Dr. Ir. John Haluan M.Sc Dr. Ir. Budy Wiryawan M.Sc
Head of committee Member of committee
Prof. Dr. Ir. Dietriech G. Bengen DEA Prof. Dr. Ir. Rudi Febriamansyah, M.Sc.
Member of committee Member of committee
Authorized by
Major for Fisheries Systems and Modelling, The Dean of Graduate School Chairman
Prof. Dr. Ir. Mulyono S. Baskoro, M.Sc. Dr. Ir. Dahrul Syah, M.Sc, Agr
© Copyright Bogor Agricultural University, 2014
This copyright protected by law
Any unauthorized quotation of part or all of this dissertation without referencing the author and institution is prohibited. Reproduction of this material is only permitted for research and education purposes and must not undermine the rights of Bogor Agricultural University.
INITIATIVES MEET THE NEEDS AND CONSTRAINTS OF POOR FISHERS IN WEST SUMATRA
RICHARD STANFORD
Dissertation
As one of the requirements of the PhD program in the
Major for Fisheries Systems and Modelling
GRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2014
If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
Psalm (Zabur) 139: 9-10
Thanks be to God and to Jesus Christ (Isa al Masih) because, even during these years when we have lived on the 'far side of the sea', He has guided us, held us and been with us always just as He promised He would be. Truly He is faithful and kind.
The author would like to take this opportunity to express his gratitude to:
1. The supervisory committee headed by Prof. Dr. Ir. John Haluan M.Sc and including Dr. Ir. Budy Wiryawan M.Sc, Prof. Dr. Ir. Dietriech G. Bengen DEA and Prof. Dr. Ir. Rudi Febriamansyah, M.Sc. Thank you for your patience and guidance during these years.
2. Community leaders, fishers and their families in the many coastal communities of West Sumatra who have been so hospitable in welcoming, feeding and teaching the author about their livelihoods.
3. Staff at several government departments in West Sumatra including the provincial and regional offices of the Department of Fisheries, Planning and Development Department (BAPPEDA) and the Centre for Statistics (BPS). 4. Administrative staff at both Bogor Agricultural University and the University
of Andalas as they smoothed the process of studying for a PhD outside of my home country.
5. Dr. Victor P. H Nikijuluw, Dr. Luky Adrianto, Dr. Alfian Zein, Dr. Arlius, Dr. Bob Pomeroy and Dr. Connor Bailey for providing constructive feedback at the early stages of forming this research.
The author was born in Bristol, England on the 20th August 1979 as the third of four children to Robert and Judith Stanford. He married Zoe Stanford in 2003 and has been blessed with two children, Jude and Jemima Stanford.
During 1997-2000 he studied for a BSc (Hons.) in Oceanography and Marine Biology at the University of Southampton, England. From 2000-2002 he took his MSc in Natural Resource Management with a specialization in Fisheries at the University of British Columbia, Canada.
Returning to the UK in 2002, the author worked as an Environmental Scientist with the Associated British Ports research department. Between 2003 and 2007 the author worked as a Marine Policy Officer for the conservation organisation Devon Wildlife Trust on a variety of stakeholder initiatives related to sustainable fisheries and marine protected areas.
In 2008 the author moved to Indonesia where, together with his family, he has enjoyed living on Java, Sulawesi and Sumatra and researching fishing communities amongst the Bajau and Minangkabau peoples. The author has been active in fisheries, poverty and conservation conferences and seminars in Indonesia. He is passionate about supporting small-scale fishing families to overcome poverty and live sustainably.
Parts of this dissertation have already been published as follows:
Stanford RJ, Wiryawan B, Bengen D, Febriamansyah R, Haluan J. 2012. Identification of poor fishing-dependent communities in mainland West Sumatra. Buletin PSP 20(1): 15-34.
Stanford RJ, Wiryawan B, Bengen D, Febriamansyah R, Haluan J. 2013. Exploring fisheries dependency and its relationship to poverty: A case study of West Sumatra, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 84:140-152.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ... v
LIST OF FIGURES ... vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ... vii
1 INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Research Problem ... 4
1.3 Research Aim and Objectives ... 12
1.4 Research framework ... 13
1.5 Research Contribution... 15
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 17
2.1 Poverty and Small-scale Fisheries ... 17
2.1.1 Causes of Poverty... 17
2.1.2 Wealth and Welfare Approaches to Fisheries Management ... 18
2.1.3 Trade-offs in Fisheries Policy ... 19
2.2 Co-management and Community Based Resource Management ... 20
2.2.1 Why Co-management? ... 20
2.2.2 Components of Co-management ... 22
2.2.3 Co-management in Indonesia ... 24
2.2.4 Reviews of Coastal CBRM Programs and Projects ... 26
2.3 Livelihoods and Diversification ... 28
2.3.1 Livelihoods Overview ... 28
2.3.2 Diversification and Alternative Livelihoods... 32
2.3.3 Behaviour of Fishers ... 33
2.3.4 Aquaculture – Farming the Reef ... 34
2.4 Critical Success Factors in Coastal Initiatives ... 37
2.4.1 Analyses of Factors Controlling Project Success ... 37
2.4.3 Future Priorities for Coastal Management Initiatives ... 41
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 43
3.1 Overview of Proposed Research ... 43
3.2 Location and Place of Research ... 45
3.3 Data Collection ... 45
3.3.1 Objective 1: Provincial-wide review of fisheries dependence and poverty. ... 45
3.3.2 Objective 2: Livelihoods and poverty analysis ... 46
3.3.3 Objective 3: Evaluation of existing livelihoods interventions. ... 47
3.4 Data Analysis ... 48
3.4.1 Objective 1: Provincial Review ... 48
3.4.2 Objective 2: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ... 48
3.4.3 Objective 3: Project Evaluation ... 49
4 FISHING DEPENDENCY AND POVERTY IN WEST SUMATRA ... 50
4.1 Introduction ... 50
4.2 Method ... 52
4.2.1 Collation of Secondary Data ... 53
4.2.2 Verification ... 53
4.2.3 Analysis ... 54
4.2.4 Interviews... 57
4.3 Results and Discussion... 58
4.3.1 Fisheries in West Sumatra overview ... 58
4.3.2 Where are the fishing dependent areas in West Sumatra? ... 61
4.3.3 What is the relationship between Fisheries dependence and poverty? ... 64
4.3.4 How is poverty in the fisheries sector related to poverty in other economic sectors? ... 66
4.4 Conclusion ... 71
5 DETERMINING ENABLING AND CONSTRAINING FACTORS IN THE LIVELIHOODS OF POOR FISHERS IN WEST SUMATRA ... 73
5.1 Introduction ... 73
5.3 Results and Discussion... 76
5.3.1 Who are the fishing poor? ... 76
5.3.2 Enabling and constraining factors ... 78
5.4 Conclusion ... 88
6 EVALUATING LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE OF FISHING HOUSEHOLDS IN WEST SUMATRA ... 89
6.1 Introduction ... 89
6.2 Method ... 90
6.3 Results and Discussion... 93
6.3.1 Bagan ... 93
6.3.2 Payang... 103
6.3.4 Beach seine (pukat tepi) ... 115
6.3.5 Miscellaneous group ... 121
6.3.6 Comparison between all sectors ... 127
6.3.7 Comparison Between Villages. ... 130
6.4 Conclusion ... 134
7 LIVELIHOOD INTERVENTIONS CONDUCTED IN FISHING COMMUNITIES IN WEST SUMATRA ... 137
7.1 Introduction ... 137
7.2 Method ... 139
7.2.1 Identifying existing livelihood improvement interventions ... 139
7.2.2 Case studies:... 140
7.3 Results and Discussion... 141
7.3.1 Livelihood interventions in fishing communities in West Sumatra ... 141
7.3.2 Case studies:... 147
7.4 Conclusion ... 157
8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 159
8.1 A new way ahead ... 159
8.1.2 Natural capital ... 163
8.1.3 Human capital ... 164
8.1.4 Financial capital ... 167
8.1.5 Physical capital ... 168
8.1.6 Institutional capital ... 170
8.2 Pathways out of poverty ... 172
9 REFERENCES ... 177
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Factors influencing coastal community project success ... 40
3.1 Location and time of proposed research ... 45
4.1 Relationships between poverty and dependency across all economic sectors ... 69
5.1 Natural enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 82
5.2 Human enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 83
5.3 Physical enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 84
5.4 Financial enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 85
5.5 Social enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 86
5.6 Institutional enabling/inhibiting livelihood factors ... 87
7.1 Livelihood interventions conducted by the Provincial DKP ... 143
7.2 Livelihood interventions conducted by the program GPEMP... 146
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 The problems and solutions for small-scale fishing communities ... 6
1.2 Proposed research framework ... 14
2.1 The sustainable livelihoods framework ... 28
2.2 Three approaches to livelihood diversification ... 32
3.1 Research framework ... 44
4.1 Catch value and poverty for each district ... 60
4.2 Fishing dependent sub-districts in West Sumatra... 62
4.3 Fishing dependency and poverty amongst fishers in West Sumatra ... 64
5.1 Interview locations ... 75
5.2 Sectors of the fishing industry the poor operate in ... 77
6.1 Bagan scores from MDS analysis ... 94
6.2 Leverage for the bagan sector ... 102
6.3 Payang scores from MDS analysis ... 104
6.4 Leverage for the payang sector ... 108
6.5 Sampan scores from MDS analysis ... 110
6.6 Leverage by the sampan sector ... 114
6.7 Beach seine scores from MDS analysis ... 117
6.8 Leverage by the beach seine sector ... 120
6.9 'Other' scores from MDS analysis ... 122
6.10 Leverage by the 'other' seine sector ... 126
6.11 Mean livelihood resilience scores for all fishing sectors ... 127
6.12 Comparison between Sungai Pinang and Ampang Pulai ... 131
LIST OF APPENDICES
1 Clustering methodology used to select research locations ... 193
2 Survey used in the field... 200
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Planning and Development Agency)
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (Centre for Statistics) CBRM Community Based Resource Management
DKP Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan (Fisheries and Marine Agency)
GPEMP Gerakan Pensejahteraan Ekonomi Masyarakat Pesisir (Movement for Improving the Welfare of Coastal Communities)
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IDT Inpres Desa Tertinggal (Isolated Villages Program) KUB Kelompok Usaha Bersama (Self-help group)
KUK Kredit Usaha Kecil
MCRMP Marine and Coastal Resources Management Project
MDS Multi-Dimensional Scaling
MSP Marine Spatial Planning
PNPM Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (National Community Empowerment Program)
P4K Program Pembinaan dan Peningkatan Petani dan Nelayan Kecil (Guidance and Impovement Program for Farmers and Small Fishers) RTM Rumah Tangga Miskin (Poor households)
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
95 % of the world’s fishers are small-scale operators and more than 90 % of these are found in developing countries (FAO, 2007). In Indonesia approximately 2.2 million people are employed directly as fishers, the majority of them using hook and line gear, whose average family gross income is Rp. 400,000 (US $40) per month (Nikijuluw, 2002; FAO, 2009). Governments throughout SE Asia are aware of the plight of these families and there have been concerted efforts to help them (Bailey and Pomeroy, 1996; Seilert, 2002; Satria and Matsuda, 2004). Traditionally, this help has been in the form of capital investment (i.e. motorisation, larger boats/nets) that increased catching efficiency and enabled offshore stocks to be targeted (Bailey, 1993; Dey et al., 2008). Smith (1979) observed, some 30 years previously, that this policy could only be a short term solution and one that generally benefited the wealthier commercial fishers with existing capital equipment. Bailey and Pomeroy (1996) go further, arguing that these programmes may have inadvertently increased fishing effort in coastal areas and reduced occupational diversity forcing fishers down a blind alley. Catching more fish more efficiently, may result in increased export revenue but it rarely results in employment opportunities and better welfare for the majority of small-scale fishers (Bailey and Jentoft, 1990; Kusnadi, 2002). Collier et al. (1977 cited in Smith, 1979) give a striking example of this from the north coast of Java. In 1974 a motorised boat using traditional gear and employing 22 crew members caught the same volume of fish as 41 sailboats employing 287 people. This process of mechanisation has been repeated throughout Indonesia with the newer vessels being deployed alongside increasing numbers of traditional small-scale fishers. Heazle and Butcher (2007) report that in 1960 1,500 of the 170,000 fishing boats in Indonesia had any kind of motor but by 2002, 5300 out of a total of 550,000 vessels could be described as of industrial scale. They argue that while still desirable enough to attract foreign vessels, “many Indonesian fish stocks have
been severely depleted”.
(1990) argue that the real hope for fishing communities lies not within the fisheries economy but in improving economic opportunities outside of the fishery. The Indonesian government also recognises this need with fisheries Law 31/2004 focused on alternative livelihoods and income generation (Christie et al., 2005). These alternative livelihoods1 may be marine based such as harvesting seaweed, mariculture of finfish/shellfish and eco-tourism, or one of many unrelated opportunities such as chicken and duck breeding (Anon, 2005). In response to the 2004 Asian tsunami, Pauly (2005) argues that fishing boats should not be rebuilt
but fishers taught to “repair bikes, sewing machines and water pumps”. The
primary aim of these alternative livelihoods is to provide a means of income outside of the fishery but they are also typically intended to take pressure off fishing stocks, move fishers away from destructive fishing practises and reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities by increasing economic diversity (Sievanen et al., 2005).
As an archipelago nation Indonesia has enormous aquatic resources and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries’ (KKP) vision is for Indonesian fisheries and aquaculture to be competitive and sustainable, for the welfare of society KKP (2014). While revenue increases can be made through increased capture efficiency as well as post-capture technology and processing, the KKP clearly sees an increase in productivity through aquaculture as driving the mission
statement of “improving the welfare of marine and fisheries societies” (Anon,
2009). Indeed, with an expansive coastal zone Indonesia has tremendous potential for marine and freshwater based aquaculture but one crucial aspect of realising this potential is marine spatial planning (MSP). Following pilot projects in North Sulawesi and Kalimantan there is currently a process of mandatory MSP
1Generally “alternative livelihoods” implies a switch from one full
-time occupation such as
fishing to another, such as farming. “Supplementary livelihoods” implies that a person will
application throughout Indonesia in response to UU 20072. The aim is for each region (Kabupaten) to produce a geographic information system (GIS) map showing which activities are permissible and suitable in different parts of their jurisdiction. For a number of possible activities, including different forms of aquaculture and tourism, matrices of suitability have been developed (D. Bengen, pers. comm., 2010.) which can be used by marine spatial planners to identify the plausibility of these activities. These maps will clarify and streamline the MSP process and reduce conflict from competing activities. However the maps are only the first step in unlocking the potential of these regions. They will indicate which activities are possible and permissible but further work is necessary to ascertain firstly, how physically and technically this potential can be realised and secondly, how to ensure that the benefits accrue to entire communities and not a selected elite that already possess access to knowledge, financial capital and markets.
In reality, most regional fisheries managers as well as the fishers themselves already know which alternative livelihoods could be developed in particular locations. Many of the ideal locations for aquaculture and tourism have previously been snapped up by private investors but many more exist that with targeted investment and empowerment of local communities have the potential to improve the welfare of these communities. Such an example exists in Bali where the Gondol Research Institute for Mariculture was the catalyst for a burgeoning industry of backyard hatcheries (see literature review below and Siar et al., 2002).
In West Sumatra (West Sumatra) many fishers still live below the poverty line (Zen et al., 2002) and the traditional priority in West Sumatra for small-scale fishers has been to increase productivity from capture fisheries by the provision of boats, nets and machines. In personal communication with the author a number of small-scale fishers in West Sumatra have expressed gratitude for the grants they received to purchase machines for their boats but grave concerns about the future of capture fisheries in the face of competition from larger vessels and declining
stocks. Desniarti’s (2007) analysis of pelagic fisheries in West Sumatra adds
2
weight to their concerns by demonstrating the overcapacity that already exists in the fishery. In response to this, there have been livelihood diversification initiatives originating from private investors and the government including mangrove crab ranching, shrimp, grouper and seaweed farming. At the time of writing small-scale catfish farming using tarpaulin constructed ponds is being implemented in some coastal communities and milkfish aquaculture as a source of bait for the tuna fishery has started within the last year.
1.2 Research Problem
Small-scale fisheries have the potential to generate significant profits, prove resilient to shocks and crises, provide employment, alleviate poverty and meaningfully contribute to food security for millions of people (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Andrew et al., 2007; FAO, 2003; Kent, 1997; Thorpe et al., 2006). Yet, they are often referred to in tandem with poverty (Cunningham, 1993; Macfadyen and Corcoran, 2002). The factors contributing to a low standard of living amongst communities dependent on small-scale fisheries, were clarified by Smith (1979), and are summarised in Figure 1.1A and described below.
Limited fisheries resources is comprised of two components. The first is
simply “too many fishers chasing too few fish make too little income” (Sumaila,
Lack of market power also incorporates two aspects. Firstly, small-scale fishers, unlike farmers, are unable to store their harvest and wait until the price is good. In tropical climates where the catch is often landed at many different points along the beach fishers are racing against the clock to sell the catch before it starts to rot. Depending on the location this can provide conditions for middlemen to prosper. It is important to emphasise that these middlemen have a valuable role in providing loans, financial security for the families of fishers while they are at sea and a guarantee that they will buy the fish. They may even own the boat and fishing gear and have provided the fuel to enable the fisherman to go to sea.
However, as Smith (1979) points out “traditional fishers are poor; middlemen, on the other hand, generally are not”. The kind of relationship between fishers and
middlemen can be exploitative and serve to preserve the status quo for poor fishing families (Elfindri, 2002). This is especially the case where cultural norms and the lack of education and information about the price and market alternatives leave fishers with few options besides the middleman.
Figure 1.1: The problem facing small-scale fishing communities (panel A) and the possible solutions (panel B). Modified from Smith (1979).
Limited natural resources
Inadequate vessel &
gear
Lack of alternative
income Lack of
market power Inflation &
wider
economy LOW
STANDARD OF LIVING
B A
Increase revenue from fishing through: Catch more
Higher price Lower costs
Supplement income from a new source
or
Restrict effort or subsidize industry
Improve marketing and postharvest technology Upgrade
vessels and gear
Inflation and wider economic changes do not only affect fishing communities but all rural communities. They need not necessary be negative changes with the possibility that an increasingly wealthy proportion of the wider population combined with a shortage of wild stocks increases the price of the catch and the revenue obtained by fishers. However, the geographical isolation of fishing communities can mean that consumer goods originating from the larger urban centres are more costly in the fishing communities and that the price of fish has not kept pace with the wider retail price index. Furthermore, increasing fuel costs can swiftly cripple the fishing industry.
Related to the wider economy above is the lack of viable alternatives. Because of its low capital investment costs fishing is an attractive proposition for the landless poor. Consequently it has had an important role in absorbing the surplus labour of the landless poor and unemployed (Béné et al., 2010). Pursuing a strategy of maximizing economic rent, that is of having fewer, highly efficient
fishing vessels, is possible in tropical fisheries but is working against the ‘natural’
trend, that is, of the jobless seeking employment in the fishery. In order for this policy to be successful the wider economy needs to be strong enough to absorb the surplus labour that would be generated. Although coastal communities vary in their dependence on fishing typically a great deal of occupational multiplicity already exists. Fishers may own some chickens or goats, plant rice or have a member of the family working in another business locally or further afield (Bailey, 1993). These simple alternatives have low capital costs and are
complementary to the fishers’ way of life. However, many alternatives such as
fish farming require capital costs beyond the reach of small-scale fishers who are not willing to risk their already vulnerable income from capture in a potentially risky aquaculture venture.
These five problems identified by Smith (1979) are not independent of each other but closely interrelated. For example, the lack of viable alternatives may be connected to an absence of financial capital which could stem from the
fishers’ dependence on the middleman. This dependence on fishing as the primary
Coastal communities are wider than the fisheries sector alone and the degree of fisheries dependence is highly context specific. In places where small-scale fishing contributes a small proportion of individual or community income,
Smith’s (1979) analysis will need to be broadened to incorporate other aspects of
the rural economy.
These five problems do not account for every possible reason why
small-scale fishers continue to be poor. Smith’s (1979) review takes one slice of the
economy, that of small-scale fishing, and focuses on the main reasons that this economic sector does not enable fishers to escape poverty. Underpinning these five factors are aspects of governance, equity, education, cultural values such as attitudes to work, social relations, cooperation, natural disasters, vulnerability and exclusion amongst others (Béné, 2003, Islam, 2003, Jentoft et al., 2010). This is
crucial because Smith’s (1979) solutions (explained below and shown in Figure
1.1B) focus on the income generating aspects of poverty alleviation. Clearly increasing revenue for poor fishing-dependent households may be an important aspect of a development program but these underlying factors may hamper the increase in standard of living even though household incomes have increased. The obvious example of this is where the additional income is spent on gambling or
alcohol consumption rather than benefiting the wider family. Finally, Smith’s
(1979) work reflected the prevailing perception at the time that poverty is lack of income and low consumption. An understanding of poverty has since evolved that incorporates human rights and qualitative aspects such as feelings of powerlessness, humility and insecurity (Allison and Horemans, 2006).
In spite of these limitations, Smith (1979) made a convincing case for alternative livelihoods even while policy makers continued to target efficiency solutions that served to magnify overcapacity in the industry. The arguments that Smith (1979) made in response to the problems and solutions available to small-scale fisheries are still valid today. He argued that for fishermen to increase revenue means catching more fish, achieving a higher price or lowering costs through the following three ways (Figure 1.1B):
social conflict between the haves and have-nots as well as overcapacity and decreasing revenue in the long term.
(2) Restricting effort or subsidizing the fishing industry. Restriction of effort through traditional fisheries management measures such as closed areas/seasons and mesh size restrictions are effective in theory but often difficult to enforce in the widely dispersed small-scale sector. Subsidizing the industry through fuel subsidies or loans below market rates distorts the market and can lead to overcapacity.
(3) Improving marketing and post-harvest technology. This can include reduction of waste or the provision of marketing infrastructures, such as transport, ice and cold storage, or landing areas. Unless effort is capped any gains can be lost in the long term by new entrants being attracted to the fishery resulting in overcapacity. Post-harvest processing can enable the fishers to gain a higher price.
Cunningham’s (1993) simple economic model reinforces Smith’s (1979)
argument by demonstrating that a short-term surplus in the fishery leads to overcapacity if labour is sufficiently mobile and returns from fishing are higher than other jobs. Smith (1979) reasoned that the only method that increases revenue over the long term is the development of alternative livelihoods (Figure 1.1B). Small-scale fisheries are stuck between a rock (limited stocks) and a hard place (high numbers of inefficient fishers). He argued that there is no solution within the fisheries sector that can reduce effort while simultaneously offering employment to fishers. This is the theoretical basis for the development of alternative livelihoods as a means to increase the standard of living of fishing dependent communities.
Ellis, 2001; IMM et al., 2005; Pomeroy et al., 2009; Béné et al., 2010)3. In Indonesia the fisheries sector is not fulfilling its pro-poor potential and livelihood diversification is recognised as a resilient long term strategy to combat poverty in small scale fisheries (Yafiz et al., 2009) with Suyanto (2004) arguing, “fishing households that develop diverse livelihoods are always stronger and can overcome economic pressures”. While there is a strong justification for livelihood diversification as a means of improving fishers’ livelihoods, it is important to note that small-scale fisheries need more than just the development of alternative livelihoods. Attempts to limit effort through marine protected areas and gear restrictions are important steps to ensure that the ecosystem base is maintained and able to support a profitable and thriving fishing industry (Pomeroy et al., 2009). Similarly, efforts to increase revenue through processing are needed to enable remaining fishers to be as profitable as possible. Moreover, simply opening up new sources of income does not mean that the standard of living for the poor will automatically improve. Diversifying income sources is one aspect of poverty alleviation that must examine the processes and institutions that made people poor in the first place (Béné, 2003).
The theoretical need for alternative livelihood development is strongly established with Crawford (2007) writing, “livelihood initiatives are an important element of almost all Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) Programs implemented in developing countries around the world.” However, in Indonesia these livelihood improvement initiatives do not always prove sustainable or produce benefits for the most needy. Purwanto (2007) identifies nine programs, including Inpres Desa Tertinggal (IDT), Kredit Usaha Kecil (KUK), Program Pembinaan dan Peningkatan Petani dan Nelayan Kecil (P4K) that are specifically aimed at empowering households and communities to overcome poverty and asks
the question “despite all this effort, why have these programs not worked?”. One reason is that differences in policy and implementation between government agencies have meant that poverty alleviation efforts have lacked coherence
3
1. Strengthen existing technology and human capacity of coastal residents. 2. Develop supplementary fisheries and aquaculture based livelihoods. 3. Develop the processing and ‘down-stream’ aspects of fisheries.
4. Develop supplementary livelihoods outside of fisheries and aquaculture.
These aims are essentially the sames routes that Smith (1979) identified (Figure 1.1B). However there is still a concern that a ‘gap’ exists between program design and program implementation. The author has spoken with a number of representatives from provincial and local government agencies including the Fisheries and Oceans Agency (DKP) and the Planning and Development Agency (BAPPEDA) who have suggested a variety of reasons why initiatives have succeeded or failed, including technical inadequacies in the design of equipment, cultural resistance to adopting new methods, laziness, lack of ongoing extension and support, absence of a market for the alternative products produced and poor infrastructure. Yet to date, there has been no rigorous scientific analysis of whether interventions are doing the right things in the right way and this research is a response to that question.
1.3 Research Aim and Objectives
Based on the background and problem outlined above the aim of this research is:
To analyse whether livelihood improvement initiatives address the needs and constraints of poor fisher households in selected coastal communities in West Sumatra.
This aim was achieved through the following objectives:
to examine the relationships between poverty in fisheries and poverty in other economic sectors.
Objective 2: Livelihoods and poverty analysis. To determine the household livelihood context of selected representative coastal communities in West Sumatra and to quantify the key enabling and constraining factors in livelihood development and poverty alleviation in fishing communities.
Objective 3: Evaluation of existing livelihood interventions. To evaluate the suitability of previous livelihood projects in West Sumatra with the needs and constraints of the poor. Livelihood diversification initiatives are costly in time, finances and in confidence. A failing project may leave coastal communities without a second chance to source financial capital or the motivation to try again. Hence there needs to be good justification for choosing one type of project over another and ensuring that the process of implementation leads to successful uptake by the community. Objective 3 seeks to learn lessons from the implementation of previous projects and analyse whether they are what the poorest households dependent on fisheries really needed.
1.4 Research framework
and also work part time on a rubber plantation. The global price of rubber is outside of the control of any local intervention, however projects could be developed that lower transportation costs and keep the rubber competitively priced. Similarly, in the absence of subsidies changes in the global oil price can be passed on to small scale fishers making going out to sea uneconomical. However, a project can be implemented to look at the feasibility for fishers who own land to grow their own biofuels and become self-sufficient. The successful outcome of such a project would decrease their vulnerability to global price hikes.
The aim of this research is to understand the links between the different components of the livelihood strategy and to identify those links that particularly prevent poor fisher households emerging from a state of poverty. Having identified the crucial links in the chain, the next stage is to examine whether livelihood interventions are addressing those key links in the chain. The hypothesis for this research is; livelihood improvement initiatives in at least some coastal communities in West Sumatra do not meet the needs and constraints of poor fisher households.
1.5 Research Contribution
The novelty of this research is in the methodological and practical applications that it brings. It is firmly established in the literature that fisheries and poverty relate to wider systems economically, ecologically and socially (see for example Charles, 2001; Berkes et al., 2001; Béné, 2003, Kusnadi, 2004). In both disciplines, authors are calling for a move away from individual measures, such as species specific stock assessments or infant mortality, towards tools that capture and quantify the complexity in these systems. Doing so presents many conceptual and methodological challenges, not least in a huge, developing country such as Indonesia where the research budget is stretched. The research tools described and developed in this dissertation are a response to these challenges and enable policy makers and practitioners to:
Incorporate social and economic data into the Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process using readily available statistics and by including poverty statistics in MSP to ensure the process involves the needs of the poor.
Conceptually understand that poverty alleviation is multi-faceted and to have 1) a checklist of the key factors that inhibit and enable livelihoods and 2) a quantitative methodology for measuring throse factors. This method, while tuned to West Sumatra will be highly applicable to examine livelihood resilience in other coastal communities.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Poverty and Small-scale Fisheries
2.1.1 Causes of Poverty
Globally, small scale fisheries “can generate significant profits, prove
resilient to shocks and crises, and make meaningful contributions to food security
and poverty alleviation” (FAO, 2003). But the question of why fishing
communities are poor and how best to manage these fisheries continues to be
debated. Béné’s (2003) review of the relationship between poverty and small -scale fisheries identifies two contrasting paradigms on the causes of poverty.
Firstly, there is the endemic poverty paradigm that “they are poor because they are
fishers” and whatever they do they will continue to remain poor. Within this
school of thought there are two main theories in the literature concerning the roots of endemic poverty. The first is the endogenous origin theory (Copes, 1989) based on the premise that fisheries are an open access and common pool resource. Originating from Gordon (1954) and Hardin (1968) the logic of this argument is that an open access, common pool resource allows more people to enter the fishery, leading to overexploitation and eventually impoverishment of the fishing community. The second theory, the exogenous origin of poverty argument, is that the causes of poverty originate in the weakness of the wider economy coupled with the mobility of labour. Cunningham (1993) showed that a short-term economic surplus in the fishery provides an incentive for labour to move from lower paid jobs in other economic sectors into the fishery. This resulted in a wage equilibrium over the long term between fisheries incomes and that of the wider economy. The other paradigm in the literature is that small-scale fisheries, as an open access resource, offer a last resort for the landless poor. The poor are
attracted to become fishers and “they are fishers because they are poor”. Béné
vulnerability to shocks and political powerlessness”. He uses the example of Bangladesh where a successful introduction of fingerlings increased the wild stock. But the poor stayed poor because their access was limited by socio-institutional mechanisms of economic exclusion and class exploitation. Indeed, for fishers themselves, concern about the sustainability of the natural resource
may rank far below other ‘basic’ concerns such as food insecurity and disease
(Mills et al., 2009, Roy, 1993). Béné’s (2003) review is a call to investigate the problem of poverty in fishing communities from a sectoral and multi-dimensional perspective that is wider than bio-economics alone.
2.1.2 Wealth and Welfare Approaches to Fisheries Management
Tackling a different paradigm, Béné et al. (2010) outline both the prevailing wealth-based approach and the welfare model of fisheries management. The wealth-based model seeks to maximise economic rent from the sea as efficiently as possible and then to redistribute the profit through taxation or levies to stimulate economic growth in other sectors. Conversely, the welfare model argues that the main contribution of small-scale fisheries is their capacity to soak up surplus labour. Béné et al. (2010) argue that poverty must be understood to include aspects of marginalisation and vulnerability (as proposed by Allison and
Horemans, 2006) rather than just economic rent. Undoubtedly the ‘tragedy of the commons’ can lead to overexploitation of the resource. With such a threat,
reducing the capacity of the fleet to a level that can efficiently harvest the resource and granting exclusive rights has been shown to work in developed countries such as Norway and New Zealand. However, Béné et al. (2010) maintain that there are simply not the institutions and managerial capacity in developing countries to ensure that the stock is extracted in a sustainable way and that the economic rent is redistributed in a pro-poor way. Furthermore, they contend that it is the wider economies of developing countries that need to grow in order to absorb the excess labour that would be created in pursuing an economic rent strategy. In a review of
management measures (such as closed areas, seasons and gear restrictions) have an important place in reducing the continual erosion of the resource base but
“solutions involve targeting not just the individual fisher but the whole household
and its broader economic livelihood strategies. To be effective, solutions must address the underlying issues of poverty, household food security, employment,
income, and livelihoods both inside and outside the fishing community” (Pomeroy
et al., 2009). Alternative livelihoods are needed in advance of pursuing a policy of economic efficiency.
2.1.3 Trade-offs in Fisheries Policy
Smith (1979) showed that following a policy of catching more fish more efficiently was to head down a dead end. Bailey (1993) argues that investment in capital often fails in the long term because many tropical stocks of fish are located close to shore so larger vessels are able to out-compete traditional fishers. Sooner or later increases in catching capacity surpass Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and harvesting of the resource decreases. Regardless of whether fishing effort has already surpassed MSY or not policymakers face a series of decisions about how fish are harvested. Several papers explore the distribution of fish and the trade-offs facing policy makers. Bailey and Jentoft (1990) argue that projects are frequently justified on the basis of mutually antagonistic goals. Policy makers
want to increase exports, employment and the level of fisher’s incomes. Each of
these goals are worthwhile but there are normally trade-offs between them. Bailey and Jentoft (1990) give the example of a trawler catching the same volume of fish and using five crew compared to fifty small-scale fishers. The owner of the trawler will see large profits but it is likely there will be a direct negative impact on the catches of traditional fishers, or an indirect negative impact, when the trawler dumps large volumes of fish on the market and decreases the price. Finegold (2009) identifies this same trade-off between economic efficiency and employment with regard to where the fish is landed and sold. The traditional way of landing the catch and selling to small traders is threatened by centralisation of landing sites.
term implications of their policies for traditional fishers. The industrialisation of the fishery off Kerala, India, during the 1970s is a helpful example of this. Modern trawlers overexploited the resource meaning small-scale fishers experienced a 50 % reduction in productivity between 1974 and 1982, a decline of real per capita income from 850 to 420 rupees and per capita consumption of locally available fish also fell from 19 kilograms in 1971-2 to 9 kilograms in 1981-82 (Kurien, 1993). Kent (1997) agrees that such policy tradeoffs have implications for food security for the poor. He contends that exports move fish away from the poor (because they cannot compete with the prices being paid) and that the foreign revenue generated does not always trickle down to reach the poor. An export policy may result in foreign exchange for businessmen and central government through taxation but policy makers need to recognise that unless this money is consciously targeted at improving the welfare of traditional coastal communities they may be left out in the cold. One of the clear messages from these policy papers is that policy makers must be clear about their goals and if their basic goal is to improve the standard of living for coastal communities the focus should be broadened to include components such as food security, sanitation, education, lack of market access, infrastructure and encouraging occupational diversity rather than specialisation (Pomeroy et al. 2009, Bailey and Pomeroy, 1996, Allison and Ellis, 2001).
2.2 Co-management and Community Based Resource Management
2.2.1 Why Co-management?
there was increasing awareness of the problem of overexploitation, leading to serial depletion of fish stocks and conflict between user groups. Centralised fisheries management, a legacy from the colonial and neo-colonial era, had proved ineffective and out of touch with the concerns of many fishing communities. Focused primarily on the biological state of the resource, this top down management failed to consider the social, economic, institutional and political aspects of fisheries management, failed to involve resource users in the process and built up barriers between those who use the resource and those who police the resource. Towards the end of the 20th Century there were renewed calls for sustainable management of ocean resources with a key component of these petitions being that resource users must become more involved in the decision making and management of the resource on which they depended.
As a result the research literature has increasingly focused on various forms of partnership where management responsibility is shared between governments and fishing communities. These are broadly referred to as
co-management and can be viewed as a “set of institutional and organisational
arrangements (rights and rules), which define the cooperation among the fisheries
administration and relevant fishing communities” (Raakjaer Nielsen et al., 2004). Community based resource management (CBRM) is the people centred and community focused aspect of co-management. Co-management more generally includes national and regional aspects, the partnership agreement between stakeholders and the government and the legal basis that underpins this partnership.
The two main drivers of co-management are democracy (involvement of citizens in decision making that affects their future) and efficacy (involvement of stakeholders to improve compliance and reduce enforcement costs). There is a continuum of co-management from complete community control at one end of the spectrum, to the community being informed about decisions already made by the government at the other, and many stages in between (see Sen and Raakjaer Nielsen, 1996). The different forms of co-management are determined by how much emphasis is placed on democracy or efficacy.
At one extreme (Raakjaer Nielsen et al., 2004), Instrumental
implementation phase only. Governments have been wary of power-sharing, preferring instead to retain the ability to set management objectives and determine what knowledge to include in the decision-making process. Predominantly for reasons of efficacy rather than democracy, stakeholders are involved at the end of
the process to ensure that the government’s objectives (rather than government
plus local people’s objectives) are implemented as efficiently as possible. One of
the risks of this form of co-management is that it builds false expectations of true empowerment and participation in the decision making process and fails to deliver on these expectations.
At the other extreme, Empowering fisheries co-management does indeed deliver in regard to those expectations of empowerment and involvement. It is a bold move by the government to relinquish control and to empower communities to influence their own future by setting management objectives and identifying the knowledge base for decision-making.
2.2.2 Components of Co-management
According to Raakjaer Nielsen et al. (2004), empowering fisheries co-management requires the following:
1. Re-evaluating the logic for management and a change in the knowledge base for management.
2. Restructuring of the institutions and organisations that support management. 3. Change in attitude from both governments and fishing communities towards
their roles in management.
4. Willingness from both sides to move in this direction.
5. Capacity building both within government and the fishing communities. This list may be rather uncomfortable reading for a government accustomed to setting its own agenda as it highlights that the outcome is not clear at the beginning of the process. Raakjaer Nielsen et al. (2004) emphasise that
there will be a lot of “muddling through” but that it promises to improve
forum or structure for action on participation, rule making, conflict management, power sharing, leadership, dialogue, decision-making, negotiation, knowledge generation and sharing, learning, and development among resource users,
stakeholders and government (p202).” Raakjaer Nielsen et al. (2004), Johannes
(1998) and Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
(NRTEE, 1998) all make special reference to the need for traditional ecological knowledge to be included in the decision making process. Not only does this involve the community and use types of information that they can readily understand (as opposed to complex bio-economic models) but it can also help to cut through the constant problem that resource managers face of making decisions about complicated ecosystems without full scientific data.
Berkes et al. (2001) state that co-management offers the potential for a more open, transparent process that can save money, make maximum use of traditional ecological knowledge, can increase compliance and give a powerful incentive to view the resource as a long term asset worth looking after. However, they caution that true power sharing may not be the ideal route in every context. Some communities may have had a long history of dependence on the government and may lack the leadership, social organisation and community institutions to take on the new responsibilities. Actions by a certain user group may undermine the process and co-management may result in shifts in power bases that are unacceptable to certain interests.
Whatever the context, one crucial aspect of co-management is capacity building. If collective action is to successfully manage a common property resource, there needs to be cooperation and trust within and among local communities (Jentoft, 2000). Self-governance and civil organisation does not come easily in all communities, making capacity building all the more important. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defines capacity building
as the “sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels — nationally, regionally, and internationally — so that they can better progress toward sustainable
process “through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives
over time”(UNDP, 2009). According to the UNDP, capacity development is more
than communities receiving technical assistance, skills and knowledge and is concerned with values and mindsets being changed over the long term. Whatever terminology is used, increasing capacity in coastal communities is a major priority for most CBRM programs but capacity and institution building can take years. A case study of Orion in the Philippines shows that the process of community organizing, capacity development, establishing community based management, implementing community based management and developing non-fishing livelihood alternatives took 10 years, which is consistent with studies in St. Lucia and Bangladesh (Berkes et al., 2001).
Raakjaer Nielsen et al. (2004) and White and Courteney (2002) add the caveat that some of the issues facing fishing communities are local (e.g. bombing of reef habitats and lack of infrastructure) and some global (e.g. predatory foreign vessels, decline of migratory stocks and global warming). Co-management needs to be wider than the local scale to tackle global problems.
2.2.3 Co-management in Indonesia
one that only they can fulfil, is the provision of a strong legal basis and legitimacy
for the institutions that will control and manage the resource. Pomeroy’s (1995)
analysis of community based institutions in SE Asia argues for the need for government policy that provides an authority framework and legal rights for co-management but he also recognises that revitalisation of institutions will in many areas, actually mean creating new ones.
