Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Maritime Studies

Dirhamsyah --- "Traditional fisheries management of flyingfish on the west coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia" [2008] MarStudies 22; (2008) 161 Maritime Studies 2

• Traditional fisheries management of flyingfish on the west coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Area and method of study
• Area of study
• Methodology
• Traditional flyingfish fisheries
• Species diversity in Macassar Straits
• Fishing ground and fishing effort in time
• Fishing equipment
• Fish capture production
• Total flyingfish fishery household
• Traditional institutional arrangements for marine resource management
• Ponggawa-Sawi on flyingfish fisheries management in West Sulawesi
• Solutions and their policy implications
• Conclusion
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ENDNOTES

Traditional fisheries management of flyingfish on the west coast of Sulawesi, Indonesia

Dirhamsyah^[1]

Abstract

Flyingfish is an important commercial species in several areas of eastern Indonesia. They have been utilised for generations by local communities that live in the west and south coast of Sulawesi. It is estimated that more than 3,825 families, or about 19,125 people, of the District of Majene in West Sulawesi depend on flyingfish in the Macassar Strait. However, inappropriate management has resulted in inconsistent capture and production rates of flyingfish. The inconsistency in production is the first indication of unsustainable fishing practices and overfishing. This is also an indicator of the threat for the potential extinction of the species. There is a pressing need for a comprehensive study on sustainable fisheries management to address the overfishing problem of flyingfish in Macassar Straits because it is such an important economic asset to the local communities. The study would need to include all normal development aspects for the fishery: biological, social, cultural, economic, legal and institutional.

This paper analyses the institutional framework of traditional management of flyingfish, particularly ponggawa-sawi relationships in District of Majene of West Sulawesi Province. It is based on a study conducted between February to October 2007 in the village of Mosso. This paper concludes with a recommendation for the implementation of Community-Based Management (CBM) and co-management in order to address the problem of overfishing and to facilitate the development of sustainable fisheries management of flyingfish in this area.

Keywords: flyingfish, flyingfish roe, traditional fisheries management, ponggawa-sawi, Macassar Straits

Introduction

Flyingfish is an important commercial species in some areas of Indonesia, particularly in Maluku, West, South and North Sulawesi provinces. Flyingfish (exocoetidae) is a small pelagic fish with a unique feature of large pectoral fins that enable it to appear to fly over the sea surface. Fifty-three species of this fish exist in tropical and sub-tropical waters of the world, and 18 of them are found in Indonesian waters.^[2] Flyingfish have been fished in Indonesia for several decades. They can be fished throughout the year.

In Indonesia, flyingfish is consumed in three forms. These are fresh, dry and smoked fish, and the actual fish roe. The fresh form is popular in the local communities, while dried and smoked fish is marketed to the highland cities in Sulawesi and Kalimantan, such as Tana Toraja, Enrekang and Samarinda.^[3] Although, in terms of volume, the export market has not been significant, flyingfish roe has been exported to some Asian and European countries, such as Japan, Korea and Lithuania. The decrease of caviar production in Russia and middle Asian countries has increased the demand for flyingfish roe in the international market.

High flyingfish roe prices in international market have resulted in the excessive capture of flyingfish roe with corresponding decreases in the population of this species. This has been dramatically indicated by the decrease in the catch per unit effort and the total export volume of flyingfish roe.^[4] A recent study of flyingfish discovered that the size of flyingfish in Macassar Strait and Flores Sea is smaller than in other locations.^[5] This may be due to overfishing in that area.^[6]

The local fishers of Macassar Straits and Flores Sea have benefited from all parts of this species, from the roe to its meat. There is concern that flyingfish may become an endangered species if more rigorous fisheries management measures are not adopted.

Although flyingfish is a pelagic fish, it is not classified as a highly migratory pelagic species, like tuna. Therefore, an overfished area of flyingfish most probably will not be refilled by flyingfish from other areas.^[7] Excessive fishing and the segregation characteristic of the flyingfish population pose a risk to the species. Tambunan has reported that the overfishing of flyingfish in several area of Indonesia such as Riau, Central Java and Gorontalo, has caused the extinction of flyingfish in these areas.^[8]

Integrated fisheries management is required to address the overfishing of flyingfish in the Macassar Strait, particularly in the waters of West Sulawesi province. There is an urgent need for a study of the dynamic biology and ecology of the marine fish resources in the west Sulawesi, including the flyingfish fishery, to support the appropriate model in order to address the overfishing problem. This paper describes the flyingfish fishery in west Sulawesi, Indonesia including biology and socio-economic aspects. It also analyses the institutional framework of traditional management of ponggawa-sawi in the District of Majene of West Sulawesi Province.

Area and method of study

Area of study

The village of Mosso is located on the eastern side of Macassar Strait. In administrative terms, the village is under the authority of the sub-district of Sendana of the District Government of Majene, Province of West Sulawesi. The District of Majene is dominated by four seasonal monsoons. The north and south monsoons prevail during the months of December to February and June to August respectively. The west and east monsoons prevail during the months of September to November and March to May respectively. The west and east monsoons are characterised by calm waters and dry season.

Methodology

Data for the study were collected using a combination of document analysis and semi-structured questionnaires. Interviews were conducted with villagers, including fishers, traders, community leaders, and the village chief. Interviews with some government officials were also conducted to obtain information about fisheries policies and regulations in the local district government. Direct observation was also conducted in order to understand the livelihood aspects and the relationship between coastal communities and marine and coastal resources. Issues that were examined included species diversity, fishing ground and time used for fishing, fishing gear, fish capture and production and total fishery households involved in flyingfish fisheries management.

Traditional flyingfish fisheries

Before attempting to analyse the traditional institutional arrangements for marine resource management in West Sulawesi Province, it is useful to discuss the current status of flyingfish fisheries management in Majene. The fishery is a traditional, small-scale fishery. Small-scale fisheries are defined as labour intensive fisheries using relatively small, mostly family owned, crafts, and little capital. They typically equate with artisanal fisheries.^[9] The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also defines the artisanal fisheries as traditional fisheries involving fishing households, using relatively small amounts of capital and small fishing vessels which make short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption.^[10] The flyingfish fisheries in Majene fit this category of artisanal fisheries.

Species diversity in Macassar Straits

Flyingfish in Indonesian are called Ikan Terbang. They live in deep and clear water. Eleven species of flyingfish have been recorded in Macassar Strait. Generally, all the species in that area are of a similar size, with range of 16-18 cm.^[11] Hirundichthys oxycephalus is the dominant species in the area. This species comprises about 75-80 per cent of the landings for every fishing season and it produces high quality roe.

Fishing ground and fishing effort in time

Flyingfish spawn on the water surface above the continental shelf. The current research of biological aspects of flyingfish in Macassar Straits indicates that February-September is the spawning period of flyingfish in that area. May-June is the peak spawning season.^[12] The fishing season is usually less than six months per year, generally between February and June. Fishing ceases by the end of July, when the peak spawning occurs. Different from the capture of flyingfish, the capture of flyingfish roe starts in May, when the flyingfish start to spawn. It will be finished in August-September, when the flyingfish finish spawning.^[13]

Flyingfish live in clear water and avoid muddy waters.^[14] Except for the western part of Macassar Straits, where it is bordered by Borneo Island, flyingfish can be found in all areas of the Strait. There are two fishing areas in West Sulawesi Province. These include the districts of Majene and Mamuju. Today, however, the decrease of total landings has caused the fishermen of Mamuju to change their targeted fishing from flyingfish to other commercial pelagic fishes such as tuna and shark.

Fishing operations for flyingfish are carried out 10-15 nautical miles from shore, using traditional wooden boats called perahu sandeq which are powered by five horse power (hp) engines or outboard engines. It is estimated that more than 25 per cent of the total number of fishing boats in the district of Majene are seasonally used for this fishery. Like other traditional communities in India,^[15] the fishing for flyingfish in West Sulawesi Province is usually conducted by day trips. Fishing craft leave early in the morning and return to the fishing village in the late afternoon. As the perahu sandeq do not carry ice, the fish are landed in fresh form, and are often in poor quality only suitable for processing as dried fish after salting and smoking. If the quality of the fish is good when they are landed, they are marketed fresh. Generally, the fish production is used for domestic consumption. Usually, the fish capture should be sold to the ponggawa (the main trader; discussed below) with the price that is determined by the ponggawa. The ponggawa’s price is always lower than the market price and this further increases his profit margin.

The system and season of fishing operations for flyingfish is influenced by the location of the fishing grounds and the landing station. Fish is usually landed in private ports. The flyingfish landed in district of Majene is usually in the village of Mosso. Different from the capturing of flyingfish, the flyingfish roe is usually captured by larger boats powered by an engine of 10-20 hp.

Fishing equipment

The equipment used for capturing flyingfish is quite similar to other equipment that are commonly used for other pelagic species. Usually fishermen use drift gillnets, which are very effective. This equipment has been used in most eastern areas of Indonesia. Usually the fishermen use nets which are about 1.5 metres wide and about 675-875 metres long. Nets are made with polyamide and have a mesh size of approximately 3.2 cm.

Traditional gear is also used by local fishermen for capturing flyingfish roe. This instrument is called bale-bale. It is a floating trap of bamboo or wood that is covered by coconut leaf as a nest that can encourage the fish to place its roe. The coconut leafs are tied to bamboo or wood and are about 1-1.5 metres wide and about 2.5-3 metres long (see Figure 1). The capture of flyingfish roe using bale-bale is very simple. Bale-bale is released to the sea and tied to the boat and then left for about 15-20 hours or until the bale-bale is filled by the roe. If the bale-bale is already filled by roe, then it is pulled back to the boat for harvesting. This technique originally follows the spawning pattern of flyingfish, where it will spawn on materials or objects that float at sea. However, the decreased production of flyingfish roe has resulted in fewer returns from this fishery^[16][17]

Figure 1 Fishing gear for capturing flyingfish and its roe

Gillnets1	Bale-bale	Bale-bale at the sea2

Fish capture production

Data analysis of fish landings in the Majene district reveals fluctuations in capture production of flyingfish in the period 2002-2007^[18] (see Figure 2). Although there was a dramatic increase in production in 2007, the period of 2002-2006 showed a rapid decline. The production in 2002-2006 decreased more than 50 per cent (455.21 to 225.52 tons). This data indicates that the maximum sustainable yield of flyingfish had also decreased significantly. Several scholars argued that the decrease in production was due to overfishing.^[19] Musick argued that the quantitative level of decrease of sustainable potential could be categorised as an indicator that the species was under the threat of extinction.^[20]

Total flyingfish fishery household

With a total coastline of more than 125 km and 926 km² of fishing area, the Majene community depends on marine resources for their livelihoods and fisheries activities involve a significant number of households. According to 2005 statistical data, more than 7,400 households in Majene include fishers, some of these being ocean-fishermen in the capture commercial fisheries, and coastal pond-fishermen (aquaculture fisheries) as per Table 1. Ninety-seven per cent of all the fishermen of Majene are involved in capture fisheries.^[21]

It is difficult to calculate how many fishermen of the district rely solely on the utilisation of flyingfish because it is a part time, seasonal fishery, whereby the fish for flyingfish when they are available and then switch to other pelagic fish in Macassar Straits. However, the sub-districts of Sendana and Banggae are the settlements where most of the fishers focus on flyingfish. It is estimated that 3,825 households, or about 19,125 residents, of Sendana and Banggae depend on the utilisation and management of flyingfish as their major source of livelihood, or more than 50 per cent of the total fishers in the district of Majene.

Women in Majene also play an important role in the flyingfish fishery through their involvement in fish processing (salting and smoking), distribution, wholesale and retail marketing.

Traditional institutional arrangements for marine resource management

Institutional arrangements are important for successful fisheries. Institutions are created by the government or communities in order to allocate scarce resources and to resolve conflicts among resource users.

Sorensen and McCreary describe institutional arrangements as ‘the composite of laws, customs, and organisations established by society to allocate scarce resources and competing values.’^[22] Institutions can be divided into two types: formal and informal. Formal fisheries institutions are formed through a combination of legislation, administrative arrangements and court decisions. Informal institutions, on the other hand, may be norms of oral tradition and traditional beliefs that exist in many rural and coastal traditional communities.^[23]

Figure 2 Total Flyingfish Capture District of Majene of 2002-2007

Source: Nurani (2007)

Traditional institutional arrangements are informal by nature and can range from indigenous, with their origins clearly going back many generations, to contemporary or more ‘modern’ forms.^[24]

In terms of orientation, traditional resource management arrangements can have one of two different emphases: environmental management or economic aspects.^[25] Both types have existed in Indonesia for several decades. For example, Sasi in Maluku,^[26] Mane’e in Minahasa, North Sulawesi^[27] and Panglima Laot in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam^[28] are examples of traditional resource management oriented to environmental management. There are two traditional management systems that focus on economics. These are Masnait – Tanase in North Maluku^[29] and Ponggawa-Sawi in Sulawesi.^[30] The traditional institution orientation is based on the social system, the level of dependence of local communities on the resources and the dynamics of the local economic situation.^[31] For instance, the Ponggawa-Sawi relationship in Sulawesi is created from the dynamic of coastal community economics. The following section analyses the institution of Ponggawa-Sawi in order to identify options to achieve integrated fisheries management.

Ponggawa-Sawi on flyingfish fisheries management in West Sulawesi

Ponggawa-Sawi is the traditional institutional management system used in coastal communities along the west and east coast of Sulawesi. This system, which originally stemmed from working relationships between businessmen and labour, has three elements: (i) the capital provider (Ponggawa); (ii) the boat owner (Juragan) and (iii) the boat crews or labour (Sawi).^[32]

Ponggawa is the capital provider who is usually also a businessman or trader. Juragan is the leader of the capture unit operation, with full responsibility for this phase of the operation. Sawi are the people who work as labourers under the Juragan in the capture operation. The latter have rights to receive earnings from the profits of the full production operation in accordance with a prior agreement of both the ponggawa and the sawi.

Generally, the ponggawa-sawi system is the working relationship between fishermen and the capital investor due to the parties’ mutual interdependence. The type of working group and total numbers in the group is closely related to the total and type of the equipment used. For example, the operation of beach seines is usually by two to six persons and a boat raft (bagan) is operated by five persons.

The development of economics and banking systems has driven a change of relationship between ponggawa and sawi. Today, there are three types of working relationships between ponggawa and sawi. The first type is a simple relationship, where only ponggawa and several sawi exist as a group for a working operation. In this type the ponggawa has two functions. He functions as a capital provider and also acts as the juragan which has responsible for capture operation. This system usually occurs in the operation of boat raft (bagan). The cooperation between ponggawa and sawi is tied by economic relationships. This type can be found in the operation of the payang net.

Table 1. Fishery household (RTP) of District of Majene in 2005

The third type is like type one or two, where the ponggawa also acts as the capital provider, but in the implementation, the relationship is somewhat different. The pattern of relationship in this type is influenced by government and bank intervention, where the ponggawa can be a businessman, or banker, or community group.^[33] The extension of credit or capital to the juragan and the sawi can be in cash, instruments such as fishing gear, or boats. Unlike the other operations, the production revenue sharing system in this case is not that normally adopted in the traditional institutional arrangement. The joint agreement adopted in this system makes it the duty of the juragan and the sawi to sell all fish caught to the capital provider at the market price. Examples of this system include the relationships between salt fish traders from Macassar and East Kalimantan and fishermen on coast of Majene.^[34]

A common feature of many working agreements between the ponggawa and sawi is the familial or informal relationships. The ponggawa-sawi system has been in practice for several generations. Although some revenue is received by the fishermen, it cannot be denied that the ponggawa-sawi relationship has caused a strong dependence of fishermen to the ponggawa.

The economic welfare of local fishermen has not yet improved, even though the prices of flyingfish and its roe increased in national and international markets. This relationship gives more benefits to the ponggawa rather than sawi or fishermen. The share of revenue between ponggawa and sawi is not balanced. Originally, the calculation of share of revenue is quite simple. The net revenue is divided into eight parts. Three parts are for nullification or depreciation costs of boat, engine and gear, two parts for boat captain and the last of three parts go to the sawi or crews. However, the fishermen’s income is only a few US dollars per trip or fishing operation. Table 2 shows an example of detailed calculation of production shares per trip of the fishing of flyingfish during an average season in August 2007.

The costs for depreciation are the responsibility of the boat owner. If the boat owner also acts as the captain, five parts, or 62.5 per cent, of net revenue will belong to him. The crews or sawi received just three parts or 37.5 per cent of the net revenue. The total crew of each fishing boat averages 4-5 persons. This means that the sawi or fishermen each receive an income of Rp. 33,000 – 41,250 (US$ 3.6 – 4.5) per person per fishing trip, see table 2. This does not enable the economic condition of fishers’ households to improve in accordance with the increase in the price of flyingfish.

This condition is one of the factors that has caused artisanal fishers to switch from their traditional fishing methods to destructive fishing to supplement their livelihood. They illegally use small mesh nets to catch small or juvenile fish, thus further pressuring the fish stocks in the area. Therefore, the ponggawa-sawi relationship contributes to overfishing, unsustainable fisheries development of flyingfish in Macassar Straits and also increases the incidents of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing at the artisanal level.

Table 2. Detailed calculation of distribution shares of fish caught production per trip in August 2007

It is difficult to change the system of the ponggawa-sawi relationship because it is part of Sulawesian culture. The artisanal fishers of the western and southern coast of Sulawesi are bound strongly by this traditional management arrangement. Many programs and projects have been carried out by the government, such as Usaha Kredit Menengah (Medium Credits Enterprises). This government credit scheme seeks to assist small to medium scale companies in Indonesia. However, this program also cannot find the ideal format to merge and change the role of this traditional institution to achieve the objectives of economic improvement in the community, and to maintain the sustainability of the marine resource base.^[35] The absence of an acceptable social mechanism to merge with the traditional arrangement in the micro economic institutional system created by government has made this initiative unsuccessful. In the ponggawa-sawi relationship, the social binding arrangement is often more important than the economic motives, even if it is disadvantageous to the resource.^[36] The cultural importance of this traditional social binding arrangement is supported by Jentoft, who argues that most coastal communities favour the traditional or informal institutional arrangements rather than formal institutional arrangements because of the social binding that exists in traditional institutions.^[37]

Solutions and their policy implications

The overfishing of flyingfish in Macassar Straits is a critical problem that should be addressed by the national and local government through an integrated approach. There are several fishery management approaches that have been implemented by coastal States around the world to address overfishing, including seasonal closures, open and closed areas, the imitating of total catch effort and quota systems. Restocking and sea ranching through mariculture are alternative strategies to address overfishing, but they require intensive capital, specialised knowledge and technology.

Apart from the biological and ecological aspects of marine fisheries management, the integrated approach must also address socio-cultural aspects of local communities. Social and cultural understanding of coastal communities is also a key element in planning and managing coastal and marine resources. No matter how appropriate and sound the technical and scientific approach is, it cannot be implemented if there are not appropriate links with social and community values to ensure that any changes are accepted by the community. The success of fisheries management is also determined by the socio-cultural aspects, and failure to accommodate them will result in non-acceptance and failure of proposed strategies.

Community-Based Management (CBM) or Collaborative Management is an option that can be adopted by the national and local governments to address this problem. The CBM and co-management concepts are approaches to enhance community participation in marine environmental programs. These approaches were introduced to many regions in the world in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The primary objective was to encourage and empower the local community to be involved in the management of their environment through the design and development of relevant and acceptable programs.

There are several approaches in CBM. However, there is no standard for implementing CBM, particularly for community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) in the marine and coastal areas.^[38] The application will depend on each situation, socio-cultural aspects, and the political atmosphere in the sites. The concept of CBM has been implemented in Indonesia with different names, such as CBM,^[39] CBCRM,^[40] and community-based fisheries management (CBFM).^[41] Although not all the implementation initiatives of CBM have been a success, several initiatives are considered to be successful programs.^[42] This concept is a form of decentralisation of fisheries and other marine resources management authority and responsibility.^[43]

In order to develop CBFM or co-management of flyingfish in Majene using the ponggawa-sawi, at least three activities should be adopted by the national and local governments. The first is a community awareness activity to develop community understanding of the importance of managing the flyingfish for their livelihood and for their next generations. The community awareness should be targeted to all fisheries stakeholders, and include fishermen, ponggawa, sawi, fish traders, and local government officials. Lessons from several community empowerment programs indicate that implementation programs may fail because they have not involved one or more of the key stakeholders who can influence change – the ponggawa. The ponggawa is one of the key fishery stakeholders, who by his personal and financial influence can force the artisanal fishers to switch their traditional fishing methods to destructive fishing. Where illegal fishing activities are identified by law enforcement officers, sanctions are imposed on the sawi; not the ponggawa. An official fish landing site at Bulukumba, South Sulawesi has been closed because all the catch was collected by the one ponggawa.^[44]

However, the ponggawa is also an asset who can be used by government to change the mindset of the community towards sustainable practices. The involvement of ponggawa in fisheries management and other community activities may be critical to the success of the fisheries management programs in coastal areas. It is necessary for the government to involve ponggawa in all community programs and activities. Through intensive awareness and strong law enforcement, the ponggawa can be persuaded to use non-destructive fishing methods. The key to positive involvement of the ponggawa, however, is the ability to demonstrate that his positive involvement in responsible and sustainable fisheries management will show a benefit to his operation either directly, indirectly and in an acceptable time frame. It means there is a need for an appreciation or incentive and the realisation of a disincentive for non-participation, for example, monitoring, controlling and surveillance (MCS) and deterrent enforcement actions.

The second key step is to develop a district flyingfish fisheries management plan to address the problem of overfishing and bring the fishery back to sustainable levels through community acceptance of responsible fishing methods. This activity would be expected to create an appropriate institutional arrangement that can manage the flyingfish fisheries in Majene. Although flyingfish live along the Macassar Straits, which includes more than eight districts of west and south Sulawesi provinces, it does not mean that the flyingfish fisheries management should be established in all districts. As mentioned above, Majene is the only district which conducts fishing for flyingfish. However, a flyingfish fisheries management plan for Majene might be a model for other districts.

To achieve expected outcomes in community based fisheries management or collaborative fisheries management activities, it is important to encourage a high level of community participation in the planning and implementation processes. It is necessary to invite the community to discuss and decide the appropriate number of fishing boats and mesh net size. They are also encouraged to develop local fishermen organisations in order to strength the bargaining position of fishermen in the negotiation of price and production shares with ponggawa and other stakeholders.

However, there are some aspects of management that should remain the responsibility of the local government of Majene. These include the development of Peraturan Daerah (local government regulations) and the enforcement of them. Without formal regulation from the competent agency, the agreement and decisions that are created by the community and other stakeholders are ineffectual. Furthermore, formal regulation will be ineffective if it cannot be enforced.

The community inputs to the management planning and the development of appropriate regulations can also be encouraged to self-monitor community compliance with the management plan. Peer pressure from local fishermen organisations and the use of traditional cultural strategies can create an environment of voluntary compliance. Such peer pressure and traditional methods to encourage compliance can thus reduce costs of deterrent enforcement strategies such as patrols and court actions. However, these latter actions will be necessary to demonstrate the resolve of the community and government to implement the plan and its supporting legal instruments with respect to controlling IUU activities.

The third key step is the implementation of Alternative Income Generation or Supplemental Income Generation activity. The main objective of this activity is to improve the economic situation of the fisher community households. This activity is focused on the improvement of harvest and post harvest processing. The traditional method of post harvest processing, such as salting and smoking has caused lower quality of the product. This has resulted in decreasing prices of final landed products. This activity can be initiated by a Non Government Organisations or local government. Women are often the appropriate target group for this activity, because almost all flyingfish processing in Majene is conducted by women. However, capacity enhancement through training is required before the implementation of the program. This activity would address fish handling and value added potential from the time of harvest, for example, icing and covering the catch, to the landing, timely processing and storage or direct transport to markets to increase the prices and marketability of the final products, and reduce waste.

Conclusion

CBM and co-management are the preferred option for fisheries management because they involve the fishers most affected, thus fostering the idea of making them responsible for their futures. Nevertheless, it will not be a simple task to develop the institutional arrangements for flyingfish fisheries management because this fishery is firmly based on traditional management practices like Ponggawa-Sawi. This is a challenge for local government to invite the community, ponggawa and other stakeholders to become fully involved in all fisheries management activities. Through enhanced awareness of the importance of coastal and marine resources for their livelihood, and effective input into management planning and the regulatory processes, combined with a stronger and more committed law enforcement capacity, the ponggawa may be persuaded to see the long term benefits of their involvement and role in this management arrangement. This is a challenge for local government to encourage the community to establish a district flyingfish fisheries management community group in Majene. The consequence of not taking such steps in a timely manner may result in the extinction of the flyingfish fishery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author extends his grateful thanks to the LIPI Competitive Program on Census of Marine Life, which has provided funds for this research. Gratitude is also extended to the BAPPEDA and the Fisheries Office of Regional Government of District of Majene for their kindness and assistance in providing project documents for this research. The author also acknowledges the contribution of his closest friends, Mr Peter Flewwelling, Professor Asikin Djamali, Professor Hari Susanto, and Dr Sutinah who provided invaluable assistance.

ENDNOTES

^[1] Research Centre for Oceanography, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jalan Pasir Putih I, Ancol Timur, Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. Email: dirham2161@yahoo.com.

^[2] Hutomo, M., Burhanuddin and S. Martosewojo, Flyingfish resources (1985) (Trans by author, 2008) pp. 10 [trans of: Sumberdaya ikan terbang but no written English translation is currently available].

^[3] As an interesting aside, it is noted that the tourism market for flying fish fillet sandwiches has not yet been exploited in Indonesia as it has been in the Caribbean basin area: see Caricom Fisheries website <http://www.caricom-fisheries.com/member/dominica. asp> at 8 August 2008.

^[4] Baso, A., Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources of Flyingfish in Makassar Strait and Flores Sea: An Analysis of Bio-technique and Social Economic (PhD Thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin, 2004) 320pp. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Perikanan Ikan Terbang (Cypselurus spp) Berkelanjutan di Selat Makassar dan Laut Flores: Suatu Kajian Bio-Teknis-Sosial Ekonomi but no English written translation is currently available].

^[5] Ali, S.A, and N. Nessa, Science status of flyingfish in Indonesia Lokakarya Nasional Perikanan Ikan Terbang, Macassar 20-21 September 2005, pp. 18-19. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Status Ilmu Pengetahuan Ikan Terbang di Indonesia but no written English translation is currently available].

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Tambunan, P., Some Information of Flyingfish in Indonesia. Lokakarya Nasional Perikanan Ikan Terbang, Macassar 20-21 September 2005, p. 5. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Beberapa Informasi Tentang Ikan Terbang di Indonesia but no written English translation is currently available].

^[9] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Governance-Capture Fisheries: Governance of Small-Scale Fisheries. FAO Glossary: see FAO website: <http://www.fao.org> at 5 November 2007.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Syahailatua, A., A. Djamali, P. Makatipu, and S.A. Ali, Measures structure and diversity of flyingfish in East Indonesian Waters: A preliminary study. Seminar Nasional Hasil-Hasil Penelitian Perikanan 2005. Fakultas Perikanan Universitas Gajah Mada, Jogjakarta 30 Juli 2005, p. 55. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Diversitas dan struktur ukuran ikan terbang di Perairan Indonesia Timur; Suatu studi pendahuluan but no written English translation is currently available].

^[12] Ali and Nessa, above n 4, 13.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Tambunan, above n 7, 1.

^[15] Pajot, O., and C.R. Prabhakaradu, Flyingfish Fishing on the Coromandel Coast, 1988-1991 (1993) Bay 2.

^[16] Adopted from Sudirman and A. Mallawa, Technique of fish caught Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, 2004. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Teknik Penangkapan Ikan but no written English translation is currently available].

^[17] Courtesy from Syahailatua, above n 10, 57.

^[18] Nurani, S., Income analysis, MSY and MEY on flyingfish resource (Exocoitidae) in District of Majene (Bachelor Thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin, 2007) 73 pp. (Trans by author, 2008) [trans of: Analisis Pendapatan, MSY dan MEY pada Sumberdaya Ikan Terbang (Exocoitidae) di Kabupaten Majene but no written English translation is currently available].

^[19] Dwiponggo, A.T., Sujastami, and S. Nurhakim, Analysis of potency and exploitation level of flyingfish fishery in South of Sulawesi (1983) Scientific Report 25, Pusat Riset Perikanan Tangkap (Research Centre for Capture Fisheries) 1-12 (Trans by author, 2008) [trans of: Pengkajian potensi dan tingkat pengusahaan perikanan torani di Perairan Sulawesi Selatan but no written English translation is currently available]; Ali and Nessa, above n 4, 18-22; Syahailatua, above n 10, 57.

^[20] Musick, J.A. ‘Endangered marine fishes: Criteria and identification of North American stocks at risk’ (1998) 23 Fisheries 28.

^[21] Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan – Pemerintah Kabupaten Majene, Strategic Plan of Regional Task Force of 2006-2011 (2006) p. 10 (Trans by author, 2008) [trans of: Rencana Strategis Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah / RENSTRA – SKPF, Tahun 2006-2011 but no written English translation is currently available].

^[22] Sorensen, J.C. and S.T. McCreary, Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments (2^nd ed, 1990), 1.

^[23] Ostrom, Navigating the Institutional Landscape: Introduction and Overview (1990) cited in Torell, M. and A.M. Salamanca (eds.) Institutional Issues and Perspective in the Management of Fisheries and Coastal Resources in South East Asia (2001) 2.

^[24] Manchur, W., Zurbrigg, A. and Reichratch, S., Coastal Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Social Science Resources Kit: A Guide for Researchers (2003) Environment and Natural Resource Management <http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-3221-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> at 5 November 2007.

^[25] Yusran, N.I., Model of institutional fisheries development of flyingfish: an alternative decision support system Lokakarya Nasional Perikanan Ikan Terbang, Macassar 20-21 September 2005 pp. 29-30 (Trans by author, 2008) [trans of: Model Pengembangan Kelembagaan Perikanan Ikan Terbang: Decision Support System Sebagai Pilihan but no written English translation is currently available].

^[26] Purwaka, T.H. and Sunoto, ‘Coastal Resources Management in Indonesia: Legal and Institutional Aspect’, in Torell, M. and Salamanca, A.M. (eds.) Institutional Issues and Perspective in the Management of Fisheries and Coastal Resources in South East Asia (2001) 81; Zerner, C., ‘Tracking Sasi: The Transformation of a Central Mollucan Reef Management Institution in Indonesia’, in White, A.T., Hale, L.Z., Renard, Y and Cortesi, L., Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs. (1998) 19; Novaczek, I., Sopacua, J., and Harkes, I., ‘Fisheries Management in Central Maluku, Indonesia, 1997-1998’ (2001) 25 Maritime Policy 239.

^[27] Mantjoro, E., ‘Management of Traditional Common Fishing Grounds: The Experience of the Para Community, Indonesia’ (1996) 24 Coastal Management 229.

^[28] Basuki, R and V.P.H. Nikijuluw, Co-management: coastal fisheries, traditional community and government in Indonesia. Konvensi Nasional: Pembangunan Benua Maritim Indonesia dalam Rangka Mengaktualisasikan Wawasan Nusantara. Makassar, 18 – 19 December, 1996 (Trans by author, 2008) [trans. of: Ko-Manajemen Perikanan Pantai, Masyarakat Adat dan Pemerintah di Indonesia but no written English translation is currently available]; Dirhamsyah and A. Samad Genisa, ‘Community Fisheries Resources Management: A Case Study in the West Coast of Aceh’ [2007] MarStudies 23; (2007) 155 Maritime Studies 17.

^[29] Yusran, above n 24.

^[30] Sallatang, A., Punggawa: The Local Leader in a Rural Community in South Sulawesi (1983) (Regional Development Research Institute, Hasanuddin University); Yusran, M., The Ponggawa-Sawi Relationship in Co-Management: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Coastal Resources Management in South Sulawesi (PhD Thesis, Dalhousie University, 2002).

^[31] Costa-Pierce, 1997 as cited by Yusran, 2005, above n 23.

^[32] Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan – Pemerintah Kabupaten Majene, above n 20, 34-35.

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Ibid.

^[35] Yusran, above n 24.

^[36] Ibid.

^[37] Jentoft, S. ‘The Community: A missing link of fisheries management’ (2000) 24 Marine Policy 53.

^[38] Pomeroy, R.S. and Carlos, M.B. ‘Community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines: a review and evaluation of programs and projects, 1984-1994’ (1997) 21 Maritime Policy 445.

^[39] Dirhamsyah. ‘The Indonesian Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program: Lessons Learned in Community – Based Reef Management at Senayang and Lingga Islands, Riau’ (2006) 9 Journal of Coastal Development 85.

^[40] Crawford, B.R., Dutton, I.M., Rotinsulu, C, and Hale, I.Z., Community-based Coastal Resources Management in Indonesia: Examples and Initial Lessons from North Sulawesi. International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS), Townville, November 1998, pp. 299-309.

^[41] Satria, A. and Matsuda, Y. ‘Decentralization of Fisheries Management in Indonesia’ (2004) 28 Marine Policy 361.

^[42] For examples: Community-based reef management in Senayang and Lingga Islands, Riau that carried out by COREMAP has been considered as a success program by IUCN (Dirhamsyah, above n 38.); The program of CBCRM that was conducted in North Sulawesi has also been considered as a success program of community development program in that area (Crawford, et al, above n 39).

^[43] Satria and Matsuda, above n 40.

^[44] Llewellyn, G. Review of existing law and policies relating to migratory marine species: conservation and commercial and coastal fisheries. Reef Base <http://www.reefbase.org> at 3 April 2007.