Chapter 5 Coral Reef, Destructive Fishing, and Fishery Sustainability

Transcription

1 Chapter 5 Coral Reef, Destructive Fishing, and Fishery Sustainability 5.1 Status of Reefs Corals are vital as spawning grounds for many species of fish and help prevent coastal erosion. Monitoring the status of reefs over time is an important aspect for management. The living coral cover is a useful indication of the quality of reefs. The diversity of reef fishes is correlated with the condition of reefs as the determined by the percentage cover of living coral (Soekarno 1989). Different qualities of coral reef can be determined by simple criteria of the percentage cover of living coral (Table 29). Table 29 Classification of quality of reef Quality of reef Percentage cover of living coral Very good % Good 51 70% Damaged 26 50% Badly damaged, critical 0 25 % Source: Sukarno and Naamin (1986) in Sultan (2004). The condition of resource system affects the pattern of resource use. Its variety and complexity causes diverging patterns of resource use. By the same token, patterns of resource use influence the condition of resource system, its improvement or deterioration. In this way, resource system is an effect of human activities. Likewise, the condition of coral reef for each area is shown below. This data is taken from secondary sources, from available ecological research results. Taka Bonerate Atoll Taka Bonerate atoll is the biggest atoll in Indonesia. It harbors nearly all types of habitats associated with coral reef, namely reef flats, lagoons outer reef flats and sand cays, sea grass bed, algal bed and soft bottom communities which are the basis of all lagoons occurring between small islands and sand cays (Soekarno 1989). Previous investigation in 1982 and 1989 reported that much of the habitats were degraded, and much of the reef has undergone a certain degree of damage, which is due primarily to direct human conduct e.g., fishing

2 58 using explosive, muroami and over fishing (UNDP/FAO Report 1982 in Soekarno 1989: 68). Data in 1989 shows that the average percent cover of coral colonies along the upper reef slope of the islands of Rajuni Besar, Rajuni Kecil, Tinanja, Tarupa Kecil, Latondu Kecil and Jinato ranged from 40 to 59% (Table 30) (Soekarno 1989). The latest investigation in 2000 showed that the average hard coral cover is 50% (Table 31). After four years of community assistance, the external assistance in these islands has not been certain if the ecological condition of coral reefs was improved (LP3M 2002b). Table 30 Reef substrates cover and number of coral genera at Taka Bonerate Atoll in 1989 Substrate Jinato Latondu Timur Latondu Barat Percent cover Rajuni Rajuni Kecil Besar Tinanja Tarupa Average Sand Rubble Turf algae Coral Soft coral Seagrass/ algae Number coral genera Source: Soekarno (1989). Table 31 Average percent of hard coral cover at Taka Bonerate MNP in 2000 Percent of hard coral cover Location From Manta tows From detailed survey B. Tinanja Ampalasa Latondu Kecil Rajuni Kecil Tinabo Besar Balanda Reef Bongko Reef Bubbe Reef Gama Reef Gantarang Reef No data 49.4 Kumai Reef Rajuni Reef Teros Reef T. Tumbor Average Source: Coremap-ACIL (2000).

3 59 Barrang Caddi and Kapoposang Coral reef condition in Barrang Caddi was only 25% in good condition, while in Kapoposang is 70% (Table 32). Table 32 Coral reef condition in South Sulawesi in 2003 Area of coral reef Percent Percent City / District (Ha) Damaged Good Makassar Barrang Caddi Pangkep 2 210, Kapoposang Selayar 3 No data Source: DKP South Sulawesi (2003). Note: 1 Barrang Caddi lies in Makassar City. 2 Kapoposang lies in Pangkep District. 3 Taka Bonerate atoll lies in Selayar District. The living coral cover in Barrang Caddi is in between 10-50%. Western and Southern part of Barrang Caddi had good coral reef condition, with living coral between 70-80% (Table 33). On the other hand, the coral cover in Kapoposang TMP were in the range of 40-60% and of >60% (Table 34). Table 33 Coral cover in Barrang Caddi in 2005 Percent cover Location Depth Hard Soft Dead Sponge Rubble Sand (m) coral coral coral East South West North Source: PSTK Unhas (2005). Table 34 Type of marine habitat in Kapoposang TMP Type of habitat Area (Ha) Percent Shallow/ turbid waters (max. 5m) Deep sedimentary areas >5m; sedimentary areas >60% Coral formation, deep waters >5m; coral cover >60% 4, Coral formation, shallow waters >5m; coral cover >60% Spare coral formation; coral cover 40-60% 5, Dense reef flat; hard substratum >60% Scattered reef flat; hard substratum 40-60% Shallow sedimentary areas; sand and rubble >60% 2, Seagrass beds Beaches Deep sea 36, Total 50,00 10 Source: MREP Part A, BCEOM South Sulawesi Thematic Map, Pulau Kapoposang, Sheet Sangkarang 01, 1996, scale 1:50,000, in Ministry of Forestry (1998).

4 State of Destructive Fishing The state of destructive fishing in the studied island is examined from the history of its initiation, and its situation that observed during field work in 2004 and Furthermore, taking coral is considered also as destructive practice. History of Destructive Fishing Blast fishing in the provinces of South and Southeast Sulawesi was introduced by the Japanese troops during the war. They involved local resident to dive in order to collect fishes. Subsequent to Japanese occupation, they left behind abundant bombs, which were believed to be stored in Southeast Sulawesi, Papua and Maluku. During the 1960s and 1970s, blast fishermen still used the left-over bombs, but since 1980s they used materials from fertilizers. In Taka Bonerate, the proliferation of destructive fishing has mostly conducted by external fishers originating from, among others, Buton, Bau-bau, Kendari and Masuduk (part of Southeast Sulawesi province), Takalar, Sinjai, Kayuadi, Kayupanda, Bulukumba, Selayar (MCS 2002b, 2003a). As early as the early 1960s, outside fishers were accessing Taka Bonerate, especially residents of Sinjai, Butonese from Southeast Sulawesi, Palue people from Flores, and the Balinese. The Butonese and Palue people from Flores, and the Balinese. The Butonese, Palue people, and the Balinese exploited most all resources, including many protected species, such as green turtles, giant clams, and black corals. Fishers from Sinjai, Madura and Palue are noted for their destructive fishing and lack of respect for traditional fishing management practices (Alder and Christanty 1998). In the mid to late 1970s, owners of large commercial live fish industries from Makassar commenced operations in the area. Since 1985, fishers from other areas such as Flores have increased. Taka Bonerate has been hard hit by the live fish trade seeking popular restaurant fish, and the use of poison fishing have been started (ibid). These traders have a contractual relationship with the buyers abroad (i.e. Singapore, Hong Kong, etc), therefore would do anything to achieve their targets. An observation that made in 1989 shows that the use of explosive and muroami to catch reef fishes are frequently practiced by non-resident fishermen, who come to Taka Bonerate just to fish (Soekarno 1989). Residents have responded to the pressure on their livelihood from outside fishers by taking up

5 61 some high-yielding but destructive practices (Alder and Christanty 1998). In Spermonde Archipelago, poison fishing was introduced by divers from Taiwan and Hong Kong fishing vessels around 1985 (Halim 2002). Destructive Fishing 2004 Each island situated in Taka Bonerate MNP is not free from destructive fishing activities. There is always at least some number of resident fishers who conduct destructive fishing. Rajuni Besar has the slightest community members who conduct destructive fishing, if compared with Rajuni Kecil and Tarupa. In Rajuni Kecil, a small number of fishermen conduct poison fishing and other groups conduct blast fishing. Nevertheless, destructive fishing activities in these islands are limited, compared with Tarupa where such activities are proliferated, and believed that nearly half of the population is using poison or explosives. In Barrang Caddi, half of fishermen are using poison fishing. The rest is using hook and line, gill net, and bottom trap. On the other hand, there was no resident fishermen using blast and poison fishing in Kapoposang, or even when it exists the number is trivial. Barrang Caddi: divergent resource use patterns Fishermen in Barrang Caddi is divided into two big groups; one conduct poison fishing and collect live reef fish, and another use hook and line to catch Skipjack tuna and live reef fish. The rest of fishermen uses gill net and fish bottom trap. The popularity to catch Skipjack tuna and coral grouper in the island have been started since Fishermen prefer to catch exported fishes, such as coral grouper and Skipjack tuna, therefore it is sometimes difficult to find consumption fish in the island. They rather selling the exported fishes than eating them, because of its high price. Fishes consumed daily by the community occasionally bought from Makassar city. Fishermen using poison is distinguished by the routine of their fishing activities, which is different from fishermen using hook and line or other fishing gears. Fishermen normally leave for fishing early in the morning and come back in the afternoon or evening. The former usually reach the island on 3 to 4 p.m., while hook and line fishermen only arrive around 6 to 7 p.m. Fishing grounds of poison fishermen of Barrang Caddi are located in the marine area of Kapoposang TMP and the Bilango reef. These fishing grounds are well known to have wealthy and abundant reefs in Spermonde Archipelago. Fishing grounds of hook and line fishermen in catching Skipjack tuna is in the marine area of Lumulumu and Langkai islands, as well as in the marine area of the Sarappo island to catch coral grouper. From July to March, many hook and line fishermen migrate and fish in the marine area of Nusa Tenggara, a group of islands on the eastern of Bali. The fish harvested in this area is abundant, even only using hook and line gears. Dufing on fishing period that lasts for 3 months, a fisherman can earn Rp 10 to 20 millions. Moreover, punggawa often encourage fishermen to go fish to the coastal area of Kalimantan. Fishermen also fish in the East Kalimantan and the Central Sulawesi.

6 62 In 2004 poison fishing existed in Tarupa and Barrang Caddi, as well as in Rajuni Kecil with lower proportion (Table 35). Bomb fishing existed only in Tarupa (Figure 12). On the other hand, the use of hook fishing had been high in all islands, especially in Rajuni Besar and Kapoposang (Figure 13). Nevertheless, this data must be taken in cautious, because the fishing gears reported by respondents might only show the particular fishing gears utilized during the survey (April-June 2004). Fishers are normally using different types of fishing gears depending on seasonal calendar (see Chapter 4). Nevertheless, the use of illegal fishing, namely poison and bomb, are dynamic depending on various factors, as will be further clarified in the subsequent chapters. Table 35 Fishing gears in each island (2004) Fish gear Tarupa Rajuni Rajuni Barrang Kapoposang Total Kecil Besar Caddi Hook and line ,4% 61,5% 97,2% 66,0% 95,9% 65,9% Net ,1% 35,4% 1,4% 2,1% 1,0% 11,0% Bottom trap % 0% 0% 0,9% 0% 0,4% Dive without poison 27,3% 0% 1,4% 7,7% 3,1% 9,7% Poison ,1% 3,1% 0% 23,3% 0% 12,1% Bomb ,0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0,9% Total ,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Note: Lambda (P < 0.05).

7 63 80 Number of fishers Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Barrang Caddi Poison Bomb Figure 12 Number of fishers using bomb and poison. Total N: 3, Number of fishers Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang Hook Net Bottom trap Dive without poison Poison Bomb Figure 13 Fishing gears of each island. Total N: 3,990. Destructive Fishing 2005 The dynamic of fishing gears in these islands is apparent from the second survey that taken place in Here respondent were asked how do they assess the use bomb fishing in their island (Table 36). The response was that the frequent use of bomb fishing was high in Rajuni Kecil, Rajuni Besar and Tarupa. On the contrary, Barrang Caddi and Kapoposang had high response on never use bomb fishing. For poison fishing, the frequent use was existed in Barrang Caddi, while never was high Kapoposang and Rajuni Besar. In summary, Barrang Caddi had

8 64 higher poison fishing than other islands; while Tarupa, Rajuni Kecil and Rajuni Besar had bomb fishing; and Kapoposang had neither (Figure 14). Table 36 Use of bomb fishing in each island (2005) Bomb Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang Total fishing Frequent ,4% 31,8% 30,8% 5,4% 0% 18,0% Rare ,3% 18,2% 7,7% 2,7% 0% 12,0% Never ,3% 50,0% 61,5% 91,9% 100,0% 70,0% Total ,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Table 37 Use of poison fishing in each island (2005) Poison Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang Total fishing Frequent ,4% 36,4% 23,1% 83,8% 0% 47,0% Rare ,3% 22,7% 7,7% 10,8% 0% 16,0% Never ,3% 40,9% 69,2% 5,4% 100,0% 37,0% Total ,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Frequent bomb fishing Frequent poison fishing 8 40 Number of response Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Number of response Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Figure 14 Frequent poison and bomb fishing by resident fishers. Total N = 100. Taking Coral Another indicator of coral reef destruction is taking coral or coral mining for house building (Table 38, Figure 15). These can detriment coral reef s functional

9 65 use as coastal protection which may result in coastal erosion. The frequent response on taking coral is in Rajuni Besar and Barrang Caddi. Some parts of Barrang Caddi have been experiencing abrasion, so community members occasionally take coral for placing them along the beach near their houses. Table 38 Coral taking in each island (2005) Taking Tarupa Rajuni Rajuni Barrang Kapoposang Total coral Kecil Besar Caddi Frequent % 36,4% 0% 11,8% 0% 12,4% Rare ,6% 18,2% 0% 20,6% 18,2% 16,5% Never ,4% 45,5% 100,0% 67,6% 81,8% 71,1% Total ,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Coral taking Percentage of response 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Never Rare Frequent Figure 15 Coral taking in each island. Total N = 97. Kapoposang Index of Destructive Fishing Comparing the rate of bomb and poison fishers between surveys in 2004 and 2005 is somehow problematic. First, because this issue is taken in caution by fishers, thus data generated might not be fully precise. Second, because the data collection strategies for surveys in 2004 and 2005 were not the same. (See Chapter 3 on data collection method). The situation of destructive fishing (bomb, poison, and taking coral) varied significantly with island (Chi-Square test, p < 0.05) (Table 39).

10 66 Table 39 Means and test of variance of destructive fishing in 2004 and 2005 Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang Total p- value 2004 Bomb or * poison (1) 2005 Bomb (2) * Poison (2) * Taking coral (2) * Note: * p-value is statistically significant. (1) 0 Other than bomb or poison; 1Using bomb or poison. (2) 1 Never; 2 Rare; 3 Frequent. Using the data presented above, the index for poison and bomb fishing is calculated for each year (Table 40). Index for 2004 is taken from the percentage of fishers using bomb or poison fish. Index for 2005 is calculated from the percentage of responses saying frequent use of bomb or poison fishing by resident fishers. Table 40 Index of destructive fishing in 2004 and 2005 Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang 2004 Bomb Poison Bomb Poison Taking coral Source: Household survey (April-June 2004), total N = 854; Resource user survey (July- October 2005) total N = 102. Figure 16 shows that Kapoposang has neither fishers using bomb nor poison fishing. Rajuni Besar in 2004 had no bomb and poison fishing, but proliferated in Increase in bomb and poison fishing also occurred in Tarupa and Rajuni Kecil. However, both data cannot fully be comparable, especially for Barrang Caddi. There was no significant increase of the use poison fishing by fishers in this island. The difference shown in both years is because the different questions were asked. Data in 2004 shows the number of actual fishers using poison fishing, while data in 2005 shows the response of fishers on the frequent use of poison fishing.

11 67 Kapoposang Barrang Caddi Rajuni Besar Rajuni Kecil Tarupa Index Year 2004 Bomb Poison Kapoposang Barrang Caddi Rajuni Besar Rajuni Kecil Tarupa Figure 16 Index of bomb and poison fishing in 2004 and Source: Household survey (April-June 2004), total N = 854; and Resource user survey (July-October 2005), total N = Status of Fishery Sustainability Index Year 2005 Bomb Poison Taking coral The state of fishery sustainability of studied islands is important to notice, while the communities studied are dependent on fishery, especially on reef fishery. Between 54% and 89% of working population are fishermen (see Chapter 4). The result of this assessment may represent a point of reference on the different aspects of each island studied, i.e. economic, ecological, social, and institutional aspects. The different situations of fishery sustainability can further be explained by levels of social capital, collective action and institutions or rulesin-use of the communities in each island. They will be examined on the subsequent chapters.

12 68 Evaluating fishery sustainability can be done in two different approaches. A top down approach is done by employing a defined-score and criteria for the fishery system evaluation. There are three different methods of this approach, i.e., RapFish method, FAO Code of Conduct Compliance, and International Instrument Compliance (Adrianto et al. 2005). Another is a bottom-up approach, that involving stakeholders to evaluate their fishery. This approach assesses local accepted fishery sustainability by examining local sustainability indicators, their importance, [ ] and assess sustainability state indicators using a cognitive approach involving stakeholders in the area studied (ibid: 11). Marine environment is complex and largely uncertain. This uncertainty leads to recognition by scientists that their expertise is not sufficient to understand the ecological process. Thus, knowledge of resource users i.e. fishers is increasingly acknowledged. Their knowledge is generally tacit knowledge that is knowledge that is not (easily) expressed, usually based on skills and experience (Wilson 2005: 3). Likewise, a self-governance on common-pool resource like reef fishery is shaped by fishers perception on (future) resource stock, i.e. coral reefs and fish stock. Resource users tend to take benefits from resources at present time, and care less for the future. It is because [i]ndividuals attribute less value to benefits that they expect to receive in the distant future, and more value to those expected in the immediate future (Ostrom 1990:34). It means that fishers discount future benefits. When users perceive low discount rate, they will likely to manage resource for long-term benefit. Conversely, when it is high, users have normally less consideration on future benefit. This study is used a formal methodology called multi-criteria analysis (MCA). MCA is a general approach that can be used to analyze complex problems involving multi-criteria (Mendoza and Prabhu 2003). The analysis is done into two parts. The first part is to generate a set of sustainability indicators of fisheries. The second part of analysis is to evaluate the sustainability indicators in terms of their importance by ranking each indicator using a 5-point scale. The next analysis examined each indicator by judging their current condition relative to their perceived target or desired condition (Mendoza and Prabhu 2004, Adrianto et al. 2005). At this point, the sustainability indicator score (SIC) is calculated.

13 69 Generation of Indicators The first part of analysis is to generate the set of indicators and assess their importance judged by stakeholders. This study used a set of sustainability indicators that consisted of four variable criteria of sustainability indicators, namely ecological-criterion indicators (5 or 6 indicators, differed in each islands), economic-criterion indicators (5 indicators), social-criterion indicators (4 indicators), and institutional-criterion indicators (3 indicators) (Table 41). These indicators were modified from fisheries sustainability indicators formulated by Pitcher (1999) and Adrianto et al. (2005), which were presented to stakeholders for discussion on their relevance and assessment. They were slightly modified, for example stakeholders added the indicators of market price and of fishing gears in relation with economic sustainability. In sum, most stakeholders did not reject or modify these indicators. Note that one indicator (i.e., tourism) did not fit to Barrang Caddi. Table 41 List of sustainability indicators for the fishery system Criteria No Indicators Operational definition Economy 1 Market price of fish Fish price compared with historical pattern 2 Market of fish Market of fish is mainly local, national, or international. 3 Income from fishing Importance of fisheries sector in local economy 4 Volume of catch Volume of production compared with historical pattern 5 Fishing gears Technology and variation of fishing gears 6 Tourism Contribution of tourism for local economy and employment Ecology 7 Distance to fishing grounds Distance to fishing grounds compared with historical pattern 8 Size of fish caught Size of fish caught compared with historical pattern 9 Number of fishing fleets Number of fishing fleets compared with historical pattern 10 Coral reef ecosystem Living coral reef compared with historical pattern 11 Destructive fishing gears Use of cyanide and bomb to fish Social 12 Fishers community Growth compared with historical pattern growth 13 Environmental knowledge Level of knowledge about environmental issues and the fishery 14 Education level Education level compared to population average 15 Conflict status Level of conflict in fishing i.e., fishing gears, outsider fishers, other sectors Institution 16 Law enforcement Formal law enforcement (monitoring, persecution, punishment) in fishery violation 17 Inclusion or influence of fishers in management Inclusion of fishers in management of fishery or marine national park or marine tourism national park 18 Formal and informal fishing regulations Fishing regulations endorsed by government or fisher community, in terms of restriction in fishing gears and access to fishing grounds Source: Modified from Pitcher (1999), Adrianto et al. (2005), and stakeholder discussions (September-October 2005).

14 70 Weight of Indicators The following results show the importance of indicators which are judged using a 5-point of values by the stakeholders. The results are examined in three parts: average weight; relative weight; and differences on group interests. Average Weight According to stakeholder values, all islands regard economic criteria of sustainability as the most important than other criteria (Figure 17). It can be seen from the average weight value, which is calculated in a range from 4.23 to 3.71, showing extremely important to moderately important. However, indicator of tourism in particular is valued as less important. The next criterion important is institutional criteria, with average weight value from 3.99 to The following is social criteria, which is calculated in a range from 3.58 to The ecology criteria is valued lowest, with average value from 3.40 to Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Average weight 5.00 Economic Ecological Social Institutional Average weight 5.00 Economic Ecological Social Institutional Criteria Criteria Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Average weight 5.00 Economic Ecological Social Institutional Average weight 5.00 Economic Ecological Social Institutional Criteria Criteria Kapoposang Average weight 5.00 Economic Ecological Social Institutional Criteria Figure 17 Estimated average weight for fishery sustainability indicators. Note: 1 less important, 3 moderately important, 5 extremely important, and 2, 4 intermediate value.

15 71 Relative Weight Based on the calculation of relative weights, it can be clearly seen that some indicators are rated higher than others. But the difference is also clear among islands (see Figure 18). For example, under the institutional sustainability criteria, indicator 18 (i.e., formal and informal fishing regulations) is higher than other indicators under the same criteria (institutional sustainability). But it only appears for Tarupa, Rajuni Kecil and Rajuni Besar. On the other hand, Barrang Caddi and Kapoposang are valued law enforcement higher. It can be explained by the fact that law enforcement at the sea in Barrang Caddi and Kapoposang is worse than the rest. Indicator 13 (i.e., environmental knowledge), under the social criteria of sustainability, is valued higher in all islands. An important distinction is the indicator 15 (conflict status) which is valued higher than other indicators in the same criteria, particularly in Rajuni Besar and Kapoposang. This occurs because these communities often faced fishing conflicts, while most of their fishers did not use destructive fishing gears while outside fishers often use them in the same fishing grounds. Economic Criteria Ecological Criteria Relative weight Relative weight Relative weight Market price of fish Fishing community grow th Market of fish Income from fishing Social Criteria Environmental know ledge Indicator Volume of catch Indicator Fishing tools Education level Tourism Conflict status Distance to fishing 4.50 grounds Relative weight Size of fish caught Number of fishing fleets Institutional Criteria Economy Ecology Social Institution average average average average Law Inclusion or Formal and enforcement influence of informal fishing fishers in regulations management Indicator Indicator Coral reef ecosystem Destructive fishing tools Tarupa Rajuni Kecil Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Kapoposang Figure 18 Estimated relative weight for fishery sustainability indicators

16 72 Within the ecological criteria of sustainability, indicators of coral reef ecosystem and destructive fishing gears (indicators 10 and 11) are valued higher in most of islands, except in Barrang Caddi. This value corresponds to the fact that Barrang Caddi has half of fishers using poison fishing, and many of their fishing patrons believe that cyanide fishing is not harmful to coral reefs. Finally, under the economic criteria of sustainability, participants are valued higher on indicators of market fish price and of income from fishing. On the other hand, the indicator of volume of catch is valued less important, because it is market price of fish that gives affect to income, rather than volume. Interestingly, participants in most islands perceive lower value on where fish are marketed (indicator 2), which demonstrates that they have low knowledge on the target market of their fish, but understand that some fish are priced higher than others. However, this situation is not observed in Barrang Caddi, and put higher value on the indicator of market of fish. It clarifies the fact that this island is bordering to Makassar where some export traders are located. Group Interests Furthermore, different stakeholder perceives different value or importance of some indicators. A distinction is shown in the value of indicator destructive fishing gears (indicator 11). Fishers using bomb or poison in Tarupa and fishing patrons in Barrang Caddi perceived this indicator as less important and gave weight of 1 or 2 (see Appendix 6). These islands have the highest incidents and fishers using blast or poison fishing. Figure 19 represents divergent views of each stakeholder group on the importance of each indicator of sustainability. They are based on average weight. Local policy maker regards the institutional criterion of sustainability as the highest value (4.26), and the second is the economic criterion of sustainability (3.92). Fishing trader or patron view the highest value on the economic criterion (4.05), followed by the institutional criterion (3.29). This order of rank is also viewed by fisher group, who valued the economic criterion as the highest (3.96) and followed by the institutional criterion (3.93). From their average weight, the ecological criterion of sustainability is ranked as the last value for the fishing trader or patron group (2.28) and the local policy maker group (3.27), and placed on the third rank by the fisher group (3.29). Apparently, the importance of ecological criterion is the least (i.e means

17 73 less than moderately important) by the fishing trader or patron group compared to other groups. Local Policy Maker Economic 5.00 Trader/ Fishing Patron Economic 5.00 Inst it utional Ecological Inst it utional Ecological Social Fisher Economic 5.00 Social Institutional Ecological Social Figure 19 Indicator importance (average weight) based on group interests. Sustainability Index of Criteria The next part of analysis is to estimate the sustainable state elaborated from the perceived targets or conditions judged by the stakeholders. This analysis is started by judgments of the stakeholders to score the perceived targets of each indicator followed by the calculation of sustainability index of criteria (SIC). The results are presented in Figure 20. Table data is in Appendix 6. It can be seen that the economic criterion of sustainability is the highest among other sustainability criteria in Tarupa, Barrang Caddi and Rajuni Kecil, with SIC 3.70, 3.25 and 2.94 respectively. These three islands have more fishers doing destructive fishing than others. On the other hand, on islands where destructive fishing fishers are limited, the social criterion of sustainability has the highest SIC, i.e. Rajuni Besar (3.11) and Kapoposang (2.93).

18 74 Institutional Tarupa Economic Ecological Institutional Rajuni Kecil Economi c Ecol ogi cal Social Soci al Rajuni Besar Barrang Caddi Economic Economic Institutional Ecological Institutional Ecological Social Social Inst it ut ional Kapoposang Economic Ecological Social Figure 20 Sustainability index of criteria of fishery system. 5.4 Destructive Fishing and Fishery Sustainability Resource system in the study sites is characterized by coral reef ecosystem. Taka Bonerate atoll where Tarupa, Rajuni Kecil and Rajuni Besar islands are located, have the average percent cover of coral colonies 40 to 59% in 1989, and 50% in Coral reef condition in Kapoposang in 2003 has 70% in good condition, while in Barrang Caddi is only 20%. Taka Bonerate and Kapoposang have high biodiversity and wealthy of coral reef habitat, contrary to the coral reef condition in Barrang Caddi. Much of the degraded condition of the reef is due primarily to direct human conduct e.g., fishing using explosive, poison and muorami. During the surveys in 2004 and 2005, it shows that the use of bomb and poison fishing has been proliferated during the period, particularly in Tarupa, Rajuni Kecil and Rajuni Besar. The rate poison fishers in Barrang Caddi largely stay unchanged. Kapoposang remains do not have fishers using bomb or poison fishing. The results from the sustainability index of criteria (SIC) in each island are comparable with the rate of destructive fishers.

19 75 In Tarupa, the economic criteria of sustainability is high, while there were high incidents and resident fishers using destructive gears. Rajuni Kecil has high both the economic and social criteria of sustainability. Rajuni Besar has more balanced on three criteria of sustainability: institutional, social and ecological, but quite low on the economic criteria of sustainability. There were limited fishers using bomb or poison fishing in 2004, even though in 2005 the number was increasing. Barrang Caddi is similar with Tarupa, having high economic criterion of sustainability. But it has low in other criterion of sustainability: institutional, social and ecological. One half of the fishermen in this island has been using poison fishing. Kapoposang has high on social and ecological criterion of sustainability, but low in economic and institutional. In general, islands with low rate of destructive fishing have low on the economic criterion of sustainability, like in Rajuni Besar and Kapoposang islands. On the other hand, islands with high economic criterion of sustainability have high number of fishers using blast or poison fishing, namely in Tarupa, Rajuni Kecil and Barrang Caddi. Sustainability assessment poses another query about sustainable supply of the resources such as fish stock. However, the scope of study does not include fish stock assessment that might be affected by coral reef destruction due to destructive fishing. It is understood that the supply curve in fishery is backward bending. In such a situation, when demand increases on the backward bending part of the supply curve, the quantity supplied decreases. This has been studied by Fauzi (2006) who examines the dynamic behavior of live reef fish for food in two islands situated in South Sulawesi. The results show that when fish price increase, effort and catch will increase rapidly in the long run. However, this increasing trend is short lived because once the stock level has declined while effort continue rising, the harvest level will decline accordingly.