Victor P.H. Nikijuluw
The Indonesian government believes that its coastal fisheries are presently being overexploited,
and is striving to formulate resource management approaches to cope with this problem. The indigenous
fisheries resource management of the Maluku Islands is considered one of the best schemes. This article
outlines this management approach, the challenges it faces, and its future prospects.
The main objective of fisheries resource management aimed at sustainable development is to optimize the current utilization of resources without reducing the maximum benefit to future generations. To meet this objective, various modern management approaches have been implemented. The most common of these are closed season, restrictions on fishing gear, closed areas, the regulation of mesh size, a total ban on certain equipment, licensing, and monetary measures such as fees and taxes (Rettig, 1991; Copes, 1991; Sardjono, 1980).
The above management approaches are based on in-depth studies of the existing biological, socio-political and economic conditions. They are formally enforced by local or national governments, and therefore both guidelines and sanctions are clearly laid down. Furthermore, all the schemes are scientifically developed, implemented, monitored and updated.
In the Maluku Islands similar fisheries management measures have been employed for over a hundred years. Consisting of about 900 islands with more than 1000 coastal villages, the Maluku Islands make up one of Indonesia's 27 provinces. The two most common practices, sasi and petuanang, are based on indigenous environmental knowledge and awareness. For example, the people of the islands have a special type of fishing gear which they use in the bay. By observing changes in nature--such as wind, waves and temperature--they can predict that on the following day there will be no fish in the bay. They can then switch to equipment which is suitable for fishing outside the bay. Both Sasi and petuanang are linked to religious customs; for example, the pastor and other religious leaders take an active part in sasi ceremonies. The islanders pass on their knowledge of these management measures from one generation to the next.
Villagers are not interested in the government programmes for fisheries management--such as licenses--in which they are expected to participate. For this reason, the indigenous fisheries management practices are in the nature of a closed system, in which people are largely unaware of the fisheries resource management approaches being used outside the village. However, it must be said that these indigenous approaches have proved successful in maintaining the exploitation of resources at a sustainable level, promoting village growth, and guaranteeing equitable catch distribution among villagers. As a result, there is always enough fish to meet the needs of everyone in the village.
Sasi
The practice of sasi, as implemented in the Maluku Islands, entails a closed season and a
number of closed areas. At certain times villagers are not allowed to fish in the waters bordering their
village; this is generally taken to mean the area which can be seen with the naked eye from land. The
sasi, which usually lasts about two months, is enforced before festivals such as Christmas
Day, the New Year, and investiture days for village leaders. This ensures that there will be plenty of fish
available during the festivals.
In Haruku village, the sasi is based on biological considerations. Villagers have always known that a certain estuary near their village is a spawning ground for certain types of fish. The estuary is also a place where small fish hide from their predators. They, in particular the ikan lompa (Decapterus sp.), stay in the estuary during the day, go out to sea at night and return in the morning.
In Haruku village, the sasi is effective throughout the whole year, except for one day. On that day, which is determined by the village leaders on the basis of the size of the fish, villagers are allowed to catch as many fish as they want in the estuary. The village leaders monitor fishing to see that everyone gets his share, and just before sunset they announce the closure of fishing. This single day of fishing yields enough to meet the needs of all the village households for several months. The fish are processed in the traditional manner, by drying or smoking. The rest of the year, people survive on fish taken from the sea.
Petuanang
Another traditional approach to fisheries resource management is petuanang, which governs
the right to fish in certain areas; it often covers bays, lagoons, submerged atolls, and underwater reefs. As
in the case of sasi, the area is considered to extend as far as one can see from the land. As a
rule, the petuanang may not be entered by people from other villages. However, if they are
permitted entry, the gear they use must be of the same size and type as that employed by the local people.
In addition, they are obliged to pay a monetary fee (ngase) for a permit. The
ngase is paid to the village leader, who uses it for village development, such as roads and
schools.
In the coastal villages of Maluku Islands, many households engage in farming as well. These people-- known as subsistence fishers--fish whenever they can take time off from their farm activities. The ngase does not apply to them, but only to the villagers who intend to sell their catch at the market. On Saparua Island, for instance, the ngase consists of ca. 10% of the catch which is given to village administrators, for the benefit of the village development fund. In addition, people are obliged to share their catch with the village leaders and with their neighbours; the rest of the catch can then be marketed. There are no exact rules governing how much of the catch must be shared. This usually depends on the size of the catch, but as a rule it consists of one day's consumption--two kilo--for each leader and each neighbour.
The village leaders determine the kind of gear permitted in the petuanang. Blast fishing (bom ikan) and dynamite fishing are strictly prohibited as such practices kill small fish and damage the structure of the reef, and thus diminish fisheries resources. These practices not only have a devastating effect on the ecosystem, they also threaten the lives of fishermen, as the risk for mutilation is very high.
Up until 1980, activity in the petuanang was confined to hunting finfish and collecting shellfish (Andamari et al, 1991). As the trade in fisheries products developed, people were encouraged to catch as many fish as possible, leading to a depletion of resources. Shellfish and sedentary species such as sea-cucumber and clams are now protected by special provisions. For instance, in Nolloth village on Saparua Island, the sasi also covers the trochus (Trochus niloticus), and villagers have been forbidden by their leaders to collect this shell inside the petuanang when the sasi is closed. Instead, they are encouraged to find young shells outside the petuanang; these can then be raised in the petuanang, and the shells harvested when the sasi is open.
Why the system works
The sasi and petuanang apparently work so well because they are community-
based and there is no direct interference on the part of the government. All the villagers are responsible
for maintaining the system, and this task is considered part of their social obligations. The management of
the system as a whole is the responsibility of the formal leaders, while decision-making and supervision
are the concern of the informal leaders.**1
Each village on the Maluku Islands is a collection of clans, and each clan has its own special task. In the enforcement of the sasi, for instance, one clan provides messengers (marinyo), who spread the news throughout the whole village, another functions as an informal police force (kewang), while yet another is responsible for the opening and closing rites of the sasi. Although everyone has her or his special task, control and surveillance are carried out by all clans. For instance, although one particular clan functions as kewang, this does not mean that a member of another clan who discovers some violation is not responsible for informing the village leaders.
The system also governs rewards and sanctions. Violators are sentenced by the village leaders, and punishment may be anything from public shaming, doing community work, denial of the right to fish, or a fine, to the most severe penalty: permanent banishment from the village.
Prospects and challenges
At present the government of Indonesia is giving more attention to the management of its fisheries
resources, which have been so heavily exploited in some parts of the country (Bailey et al, 1987;
Martosubroto et al, 1989). This new interest is reflected in the government's sixth five-year development
programme (1994-1998), in which the management of resources is one of the main development
objectives within the fisheries sector.
Among the possible measures to achieve this objective are formal management approaches, such as licensing, fishing belts, the regulation of mesh size, restrictions on fishing gear, and the abolition of trawl fishery. The total ban on trawl fishery has been realized (Sardjono, 1980), and represents a major success in the field of fisheries resource management in Indonesia. Thus far, the other formal management approaches have proved ineffective. The government of Indonesia is now searching for more precise and efficient management approaches; it is particularly interested in the inshore waters, as these are more heavily exploited than the offshore waters.
The indigenous fisheries resource management of Maluku Islands is considered one of the best approaches. Studies are presently being conducted--for example, by the Research Institute for Marine Fisheries--to gain a better understanding of this management system, and to look into possibilities to apply similar systems in other parts of the country.
Although the Maluku system is commonly viewed as the best option, there are signs that it is gradually dying out. For one thing, the migration of the villagers is reducing the number of people who belong to the system. New clans come to live in the village who do not understand this inherited system. Nor are the immigrants themselves directly involved in the system, as they are not native to the village. At the same time, there is a tendency for young men in the prime of life to leave in search for a 'better' life. There are also signs that young people who have left to further their education have become accustomed to modern ways and are reluctant to participate in this indigenous resource management system. (see also Ulluwishewa , 1993)
Trade, together with government efforts to promote exports, has also had an impact, forcing villages to shorten the sasi period, to allow for more frequent fishing and harvesting. As a consequence, fisheries resources now appear to be heavily exploited. In some villages, the rights to the petuanang are rented out to private entrepreneurs, which means that the community has lost its control over these resources. Such decisions are generally taken by the formal leaders, whom villagers are obliged to obey. The formal leaders are the executives at village level. On the one hand, they are of village origin and therefore pledged to protect the system, while on the other hand, they are expected to implement development programmes introduced by the central government. In most cases they opt for the latter course.
There is also competition from industrial fisheries. Using advanced equipment, they often enter the petuanang and catch large quantities of fish within a short time. The villagers tend to accept the situation, as they are politically weak and unable to take countermeasures. (Wahyono et al, 1993; Naamin and Badrudin, 1993).
In the light of all the above challenges, it is time for the government to take action, if this system of indigenous resource management system is to be maintained. It is generally agreed that indigenous knowledge, technology, and heritage cannot survive in this changing environment unless the government has the political will to protect them.
A comprehensive study should be carried out to establish the similarities between the systems employed in the various villages. On the basis of these similarities, it should be possible to devise a broader scheme of indigenous fisheries resource management, one that will enable villagers engaged in small-scale fishery to move freely from one petuanang to another, while at the same time discouraging encroachment by industrial fishermen.
The possibility of combining this indigenous resource management system with so-called modern management approaches should be carefully examined (FAO, 1993; ICLARM, 1992). It may prove possible to find some intermediate form which is more appropriate to today's changing environment. Perhaps the inter-clan relationships on which the indigenous system is based can be replaced by a scheme similar to those found in rural organizations such as cooperatives.
Finally, it must be kept in mind that there are about three million small-scale fishermen in Indonesia. They are now facing serious problems of resource management, and it is important that due attention be given to their indigenous systems.
Dr Ir V.P.H. Nikijuluw
Socio-economic division
Research Institute for Marine Fisheries
(BALITKANLUT)
Jln. Muara Baru Ujung
Jakarta 14440
Indonesia
Tel: +62-21-6602044
Fax: +62-21-6612137
References
Andamari, R., Subagiyo and S.H. Talaohu (1991) 'Harvesting trochus niloticus in
Nolloth village, Saparua island through sasi system', Jurnal Penelitiam Perikanan
Laut (80)31-36.
Bailey, C., A. Dwiponggo and F. Marahudin (1987) 'Indonesian marine capture fisheries', ICLARM Studies and reviews 10.
Copes, P. (1991). 'Fisheries Management in Canada', pp. 339-440 in T. Yamamoto and K. Short (eds) International perspective on fisheries management. Proceedings of the JIFRS-IIFET- Zengroyen symposium on 'Fisheries management' held at the National Research Institute of Fisheries Science in Tokyo (Japan).
FAO (1993) 'Experiences in community based management: Discussion guide', FAO Fisheries Report 2(474):552-555.
ICLARM (1992) ICLARM's strategy for international research on living aquatic resource management. Makati, Metro Manila: ICLARM.
Martosubroto, P., N. Naamin and B.B. Malik (1989) Potency and distribution of marine fisheries resources in Indonesian waters. Jakarta: Directorat General of Fisheries.
Naamin, N. and M. Badrudin (1993) 'The role of coastal village communities and fishermen's organizations in the management of coastal resources in Indonesia', FAO Fisheries Report 2(474):490-457.
Rettig, R.B. (1991) 'Recent changes in fisheries management in developed countries', pp. 359-398 in T. Yamamoto and K. Short (eds) International perspective on fisheries management. Proceedings of the JIFRS-IIFET-Zengroyen symposium on 'Fisheries management' held at the National Research Institute of Fisheries Science in Tokyo (Japan).
Sardjono, I. (1980) 'Trawlers banned in Indonesia', ICLARM Newsletter 3(4):3.
Ulluwishewa, R. (1993) 'Indigenous knowledge, national IK resource centres and sustainable development', Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1(3):11-13.
Wahyono, U., K.C. Chong, Suseno and R. Pahlavi (1993) 'Traditional community based fisheries management practices in Indonesia', FAO Fisheries Report 1(474):243-263.
Endnotes
**1 In the villages there are three kind of leaders who play a significant role in the
decision making process. The formal leaders are the head of the village and his staff; the informal
authorities are the traditional leaders and religious leaders.