Dinas Perikanan CRIFI · knowledge about the co-management of natural resources. Depending on their...

Selection Criteria andCo-management Guidelines forRiver Fishery Harvest Reserves

DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research StrategyFisheries Management Science Programme

April 2000

CRIFIDinas Perikanan

Selection Criteria and Co-Management Guidelines for River Fishery Harvest Reserves Page 1

Selection Criteria and Co-Management Guidelinesfor River Fishery Harvest Reserves

April 2000

Preparation of this document

These guidelines were developed under project R7043 of the UK Department For International Development’sFisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP). The project was undertaken by collaborating staff ofCRIFI; the provincial Dinas Perikanan offices in Jambi, South Sumatra and West Kalimantan; and MRAG,London. The guidelines are based on investigations of both government-managed and community-managedreserves in the above three Indonesian provinces. They also draw on the general co-management literature, andon the experiences of previous DFID projects undertaken in Indonesia and other Asian countries since 1992. This related experience has been written up in greater detail in FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 384/1:Management Guidelines for Asian floodplain river fisheries, Part 1: A spatial, hierarchical and integratedstrategy for adaptive co-management, published in 1999.

An interdisciplinary team of project collaborators and associates developed these guidelines. The followingpeople made significant contributions towards the project and these guidelines: (from MRAG:) Daniel Hoggarth,Mark Aeron-Thomas, Vicki Cowan, Ashley Halls, Caroline Garaway, Robin Welcomme and Ian Payne; (fromCRIFI:) Fatuchri Sukadi, Fuad Cholik, Novenny Wahyudi, Achmad Sarnita, Sonny Koeshendrajana, Ondara,Samuel, Agus Djoko Utomo; (from the Indonesian Directorate General for Fisheries:) Purwanto; (from DinasPerikan Jambi:) Ali Supardan, Herman Suherman; (from Dinas Perikanan South Sumatra:) Soeyoso, RooslanSaleh, Asmara; (from Dinas Perikanan West Kalimantan:) H. Iswahjudi, Suasa Dilapanga; (from BathUniversity Centre for Development Studies:) Allister McGregor; (from Bangladesh Centre for AdvancedStudies:) Saleemul Huq; and Philip Townsley. Thanks are also due to the members of the 17 fishingcommunities in Jambi, South Sumatra and West Kalimantan that were studied by project R7043.

Collaborators

Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd47 Princes Gate, London, SW7 2QA, United KingdomContact: Dr Daniel D. Hoggarth, email: [email protected]

Central Research Institute for Fisheries, Indonesia (CRIFI)Jalan K.S. Tubun, PO Box 6650, Slipi, Jakarta 11410A, IndonesiaContact: Dr Fatuchri Sukadi, email: [email protected]

Indonesian Provincial Fisheries Services (Dinas Perikanan)Jalan MT. Haryono No. 9, Jambi, Jambi 36129Jalan Kapten A. Rivai II, Palembang, South SumatraJalan Sutan Syahrir No. 16., PO Box 1016, Pontianak 78116A

Selection Criteria and Co-Management Guidelines for River Fishery Harvest Reserves

Selection Criteria and Co-Management Guidelinesfor River Fishery Harvest Reserves

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Guiding principles................................................................................................................... 41.2 What is a harvest reserve? .................................................................................................... 41.3 Why use harvest reserves? ................................................................................................... 61.4 What is co-management? ...................................................................................................... 61.5 Legal and cultural basis for co-management in Indonesia .................................................... 71.6 What is adaptive management? ............................................................................................ 71.7 Structure of the guidelines ..................................................................................................... 8

2 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CO-MANAGEMENT OF RIVER FISHERIES.............................. 9

2.1 Where should co-management systems be developed? ...................................................... 92.2 Institutional strategy (who should manage and how?) ........................................................ 102.3 Technical strategy (which management tools should be used?)......................................... 132.4 Adaptive strategy (monitoring and improving the fishery) ................................................... 14

3 SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HARVEST RESERVES .................................. 17

3.1 Which water-bodies should be selected as reserves? ........................................................ 173.2 How should harvest reserves be managed? ....................................................................... 18

4 SUMMARY OF KEY STEPS FOR CO-MANAGEMENT OF RIVER FISHERIES ...................... 20

4.1 Choosing village co-management units ............................................................................... 204.2 Building the skills required for co-management................................................................... 214.3 Activities in each village co-management unit ..................................................................... 224.4 Catchment management and coordination.......................................................................... 24


Executive Summary

These guidelines provide advice on the selection and co-management of harvest reserves for sustainablecommunity benefits in floodplain river fisheries. They arebased on the output of a 1997-2000 United KingdomDFID-funded project based in Indonesia, and on generalknowledge about the co-management of natural resources.

Depending on their objectives and on local hydrologicalfactors, floodplain river harvest reserves may either beclosed year-round, or just for certain seasons, or forcertain gears. At project study sites with effective localmanagement, partially closed harvest reserves were foundto increase the numbers of fish surviving to breed eachyear, prevent local species extinctions, and increase localcatches. However, although harvest reserves are centralto these guidelines, they are clearly not the onlymanagement tool which may give benefits to floodplainriver fisheries. The guidelines thus emphasise the need fora combination of locally appropriate management rules,developed on the basis of local knowledge and anintegrated, inter-disciplinary understanding of fisheryresources. A participatory co-management style ispromoted drawing on the skills and capacities of localcommunities, government officers, local developmentNGOs and other stakeholders in specified sub-units of theriver system. The Indonesian government’s recentRegional Autonomy Act, UU No. 2/1999, clearlypromotes such decentralised management of fisheries andother resources at provincial, kabupaten and even morelocal levels. Finally, the guidelines promote a long-term,‘adaptive’ management style, recognising that theoptimum management rules for different local fisheriescan not be predicted in advance, and need to bedeveloped by a process of learning and experience.

The guidelines are intended for use by national andprovincial fishery managers, planners and otherstakeholders. They may either be used directly, or as abasis for the development of more detailed guidelines orstrategies for specific areas. They provide guidance onthe process of developing new collaborative institutionsand technical management plans for specific sites ratherthan prescribing their exact contents. Such specificmanagement plans should be designed in collaborationwith local stakeholders to be appropriate for localconditions.

Chapter 2 of the guidelines provides general advice forthe development of co-management practices forfloodplain river fisheries. Firstly, advice is given onwhere co-management may best be developed, based on anumber of factors known to improve its chances of

success. Following this, guidelines are given on theinstitutional, technical and adaptive strategies formanagement. The institutional strategy includes both theformal processes of policy and legislation, and the moreinformal ‘rules of the game’. Such rules define whoshould be involved in management, and the standardpractices, routines and customs by which they shouldinteract and co-operate. The technical strategy brieflyoutlines how the fishery may be assessed, and howalternative management tools (reserves, gear licensing,gear bans etc) may be used for its management. Theadaptive strategy then describes how the benefits fromdifferent management practices may be monitored,assessed and improved, initially by simple ‘moves in theright direction’, or in the longer term by a more formal,analytical approach.

Chapter 3 of the guidelines concentrates on the use ofharvest reserves in river fisheries. Both social andtechnical criteria are given for the selection of appropriatewater-bodies, and for their management. Both the generalcriteria described in Chapter 2 for the development of co-management institutions and the specific criteria given inChapter 3 will be necessary for the successful co-management of harvest reserves.

The final step-by-step guidelines in Chapter 4 summarisewhere co-management practices and reserves may best bedeveloped and where capacity building and training willbe most required for success. The final two sectionssummarise the types of activities that may be mostusefully undertaken at the village level and the catchmentlevel respectively. The selection of such activities shouldbe developed in collaboration with stakeholders, and notimposed ‘top-down’. ‘Menus’ of possible activities arethus described for each level. In the villages theseactivities include:

(1) identifying the stakeholders, their perceivedproblems, and their objectives for the fishery;

(2) assessing the local fishery;(3) designing a management plan;(4) implementing the plan; and(5) monitoring outcomes and adapting the plan.

At the catchment level, they include:

(1) co-ordinating the village units and promoting newunits;

(2) representing the fishery in its interaction with othersectors; and

(3) facilitating the adaptive learning process.


1 Introduction

These guidelines provide advice for the management offloodplain river fisheries in Indonesia. They focusparticularly on the use of harvest reserves, and the basicprinciples of co-management and adaptivemanagement. These terms and the guiding principlesbehind them are explained in the following sections ofthis introduction. General guidelines on the co-management of river fisheries are given in Chapter 2,followed by specific guidelines on the use of harvestreserves in Chapter 3. This material is summarised inChapter 4, in which the key steps towards successful co-management are described in four sections.

1.1 Guiding principles

While this manual focuses on the use of reserves, it mustbe noted at the outset that the high variability of natural,physical and social characteristics between different riversystems will always demand locally-appropriatemanagement solutions. Different types of reserves will beneeded in different situations, and reserves may not beuseful at all in some other situations. Alternative oradditional management rules will be needed to improvebenefits from certain types of fish species (particularly‘whitefish’, as described below). There is thus no single‘right’ answer for floodplain river fisheries management,which may be applied universally in a ‘top-down’ way.

While there are no universal ‘blueprint’ solutions, theseguidelines are nevertheless based on a number of coreprinciples by which effective local solutions may befound. Firstly, the approach is people-centred andparticipatory. Fishery management is more aboutmanaging people than about managing fish. Solutionsdeveloped in partnership with local people, and buildingon their existing strengths, are far more likely to succeedthan those which simply aim to suppress any activitiesseen as undesirable by fisheries officers. Successfulmanagement will require strong support both fromnational and regional policy makers, and good leadershipat the local level.

Secondly, it is clear that effective management of thesecomplex resources requires integrated and inter-disciplinary approaches. This means taking a broad viewof the fishery and the wider river system, and being awareof the many different factors that may affect outcomes.Floodplain resources are vulnerable to a range of differentimpacts, both from local sources and from upstream. Theyalso provide a range of alternative livelihoodopportunities, not all of which may be compatible. Understanding these threats and opportunities, andresolving conflicts, will require integrated study from a

range of perspectives.

Thirdly, the guidelines promote flexible managementsolutions for coping with dynamic situations. Floodplainriver systems change continuously, due to both the normalannual flood cycle and to longer-term trends. Communities and their impacts on the environmentchange gradually over time and sometimes shiftdramatically (e.g. with the introduction of a new irrigationscheme or an effective new fishing gear). Therecommended adaptive approaches seek to learn fromboth intended changes (i.e. management actions) andthese other external trends and shocks, and to improvemanagement gradually, based on the lessons learnt.

Finally, the key principle behind these guidelines is thelong-term sustainability of fishing livelihoods in ruralcommunities. This means managing the fishery toproduce benefits year after year, without destroying theunderlying fish stock. It does not necessarily mean thatfishing practices must be sustained in future exactly asthey are today. New fishing practices or alternative waysof using the river system may be introduced so long asthey do not reduce the long-term potential of the resourcebase. The guidelines are thus designed to enable people tosustain their livelihoods by adapting to changingconditions in flexible but positive ways.

In practice, these guiding principles may be followed byalways asking the following questions during thedevelopment or implementation of any new managementmeasures:

Guiding principles checklist• Are these new measures well adapted to local

characteristics and current influences?• Have they been developed by (or in collaboration with)

local people, using their local knowledge?• Do they take account of the range of different potential

influences on the fishery?• Are they based on both a biological and a socio-

economic understanding of the fishery?• Are they flexible? Could they be easily and quickly

modified, if local circumstances change in future?• Will the new measures give sustainable benefits,

both to local fish stocks, and local livelihoods?

1.2 What is a harvest reserve?

A ‘harvest reserve’ is a fishery management tool, whichmay be defined as follows:

• a spatially defined area of water, …• managed with a specified (but flexible) set of


technical regulations, …• intended to sustain or increase the potential fish yield,

…• available from existing, natural fish stocks, …• for the benefit of fishers.

Harvest reserves are thus primarily intended to givebenefits to fishers. They mainly achieve this function byincreasing the numbers of fish which survive the fisheryto breed, resulting in many more young fish for capture inthe following year. Harvest reserves are not designedpurely to conserve fish stocks for their own sake, thoughthis may be a beneficial side-effect. This alternativeobjective is achieved by other non-harvest or‘conservation reserves’, including various types ofnational parks and wildlife reserves. In Indonesia, suchreserves are generally gazetted under the authority of thePHPA (ministry-level) and KSDA (province-level) ForestConservation Agencies. Co-managed harvest reserves aremore likely to be introduced by fishing communities withthe support of the provincial or kabupaten-level DinasPerikanan.

The distribution of people who benefit from a reservedepends on the dispersal patterns of the extra fishproduced. Reserves inhabited by relatively non-migratory, local ‘blackfish’ species (e.g. gabus and

tembakan) will mainlyincrease fish catches within asmall local area (see figure). Reserves designed to protectthe breeding populations ofmore migratory ‘whitefish’species (e.g. baung, semah)may give benefits to thewhole river catchment due totheir much wider dispersalpatterns. In general,blackfish reserves should belocated in dry season water-bodies in floodplain areas,while whitefish reservesshould be located inspawning grounds, usually inupstream parts of thecatchment. Whitefish mayneed additional managementtools (e.g. controls on barriertraps) to ensure that some fishcan get back to the reserveeach year to spawn. Blackfish reserves are morelikely to be supported bylocal communities since theextra fish produced by theirmanagement efforts will staymainly within their ownwaters.

While conservation reserves are usually permanentlyclosed areas, harvest reserves may not always need tobe closed for the whole year. They may be managedinstead with a flexible combination of regulations adaptedto maximise local benefits. In some situations (e.g. wherethe reserve water-body is the main fishing place for avillage), more benefits may be achieved by closing thereserve for only part of the year, and allowing fishing inthe reserve at other times. Closing the reserve all yearmay leave virtually no fishing opportunities for thevillage, who may then be irresistibly tempted to fishillegally in the reserve. In other situations, year-roundclosure may be more effective (e.g. in particularlyvulnerable habitats, or where fully closed ‘taboo’ areasare traditional practices). Guidelines on the alternativemanagement options for reserves are given in Section 3.2.

Should fishing be allowed inside reserves?

Though harvest reserves may be fully closed all yearround (giving a useful and clear message on theirstatus), some types of fishing may also sometimes beallowed inside their boundaries. In the apparentlyeffective harvest reserves studied in West Kalimantan,the communities only restricted certain gears,sometimes only for limited seasons. In Meliau village,fishing was permitted inside Danau Balaiaram reservewith hooks, portable traps and cast nets, while gill nets

Flood-plainlake system

Riverchannel

Sea / lake /main river channel

Long migrations of ‘whitefish’ up and down rivers require their managementat a catchment scale. Shorter ‘blackfish’ migrations enable theirmanagement at a local village level.

Blackfish migrations

Dry-season survival in deepflood-plain waterbodies

Spawning and feeding onadjacent flood-plains

Whitefish migrations

Dry-season survival indownstream river channels

Spawning in upstream riverchannels

Feeding on flood-plains


and barrier traps were prohibited. In Sekolat village’sDanau Batuk reserve, only gill nets were banned in thewet season but all gears were banned in the dryseason. The capture of small fish (below consumptionsize) was also prohibited.

1.3 Why use harvest reserves?

Harvest reserves are recommended as a particularly usefulmanagement tool for floodplain river fisheries for thefollowing reasons:

• they have been found to improve fish stocks andbenefit local catches in floodplain river fisheries;

• their high visibility makes illegal fishing easier todetect (it is easier to see a poacher fishing in a reservearea than to see who is using illegally small meshsizes, or using too many units of gear);

• they are traditional management tools in manyplaces, with proven local acceptability; and

• they are conceptually simple, with easilyunderstandable effects.

Seven different harvest reserves were studied by thisproject. At two of the study sites in West Kalimantan,harvest reserves were traditional practises, effectivelyenforced by local leaders and village communities. Thesetwo reserves were only closed to certain gears or over thedry season, but were found to provide significantbiological benefits to fish stocks (see box below).

In the other studied reserves, including the fully closedreserves set up by the government in South Sumatra, fishstocks appeared to be much less effectively protected.These reserves were either placed in inappropriatelocations or were ineffectively managed or enforced for avariety of reasons (they did not meet one or more of thecriteria given in Sections 2.1 or 3.1). Clearly, harvestreserves need to be carefully selected and managed toachieve their potential benefits. The following guidelinesare based on the lessons learned at the different studysites. They show how a co-management approach maydeliver these requirements by drawing on the capacity andknowledge of local fishers, communities and governmentofficers.

Biological effects of reserves on fish stocks

Fish stocks inside the Danau Balaiaram and DanauBatuk reserves in West Kalimantan were found to bemuch more abundant than those at the Danau PulauMajang study site having no reserves and fished bypoison in the dry season. Though the differencesbetween these sites may be due to a range of factors(i.e. they are not only due to the existence of thereserve), the following figures are provided as anillustration of the possible biological effects of reserves.

Fish abundances were estimated as catch rates in

experimental gill nets set overnight, eight times permonth. In the 1998-99 wet season, the nets in thereserves caught 12-15 times more fish (by number)and 15-16 times more weight than those set in DanauPulau Majang. In the 1999 dry season, the DanauBatuk catch weights were an average 22 times greaterthan those at Danau Pulau Majang.

The West Kalimantan reserve water-bodies alsocontained more fish species (60-77 different typescaught over the year) than in the fished Pulau Majangsite (only 46 species). The average number of differentfish species caught per night at the reserve sites was1.5 to 2.4 times higher than in the fished site.

The additional species found in the reserves werenearly all of the blackfish type, confirming that thereserves studied protect local fish stocks. Fish stocksat Pulau Majang are currently maintained mainly by themore migratory whitefish species, that can swim in tothe village from the main river with each new flood, atleast until they also become depleted or extinct.

Though harvest reserves are central to these guidelines, itshould be clearly understood that they are not the onlymanagement tool able to sustain livelihoods in floodplainriver fisheries. Other tools, such as habitat restoration,water-body leasing and gear licensing, size limits, gearbans and fish stocking may also be useful in river fisheriesin some circumstances, perhaps in combination withreserves. The guidelines given in Chapter 2 of thismanual thus provide advice on the development of ageneral management framework, by which harvestreserves or other management tools may be implementedand assessed.

1.4 What is co-management?

‘Co-management’ approaches are increasingly being usedfor the management of natural resources. Co-management may be described as a partnershiparrangement using the capacities and interests of the localfishers and their community, complemented by the abilityof government to provide enabling legislation and otherassistance. There are many important roles to be played,but there is no single blueprint solution for success. Inaddition to the two key stakeholders (government andlocal communities), NGOs, development projects andother agencies may also play valuable roles. The idealcombination of partners for each location will depend onthe capacities of the different local stakeholders and thenature of the resources to be managed. Stakeholders, here,may be defined as those people, groups or organisationsthat are likely to be affected (either negatively orpositively) by a proposed management intervention, andalso those that could influence the outcome of theintervention (again either negatively or positively).

Though flexibility will always be required, effective co-management arrangements for river fisheries will usually


require both local and catchment-level committees (orsome other type of management body). A localcommittee would enable the necessary stakeholderrepresentation for effective management of a small, local‘unit’ of the fishery. A ‘catchment’ is the land area thatfeeds into a river system, and may thus affect itsproductivity. A catchment committee would thereforerepresent the interests of fishery stakeholders duringnegotiations with other interacting sectors that occur at acatchment-wide scale (e.g. the effects of agriculturalpolicies or urban expansion on the different fishery units). If the catchment is large, intermediate sub-catchmentmanagement units may be more effective. In either case,the catchment or sub-catchment committee should also beresponsible for providing training and leadership, asrequired to implement new co-management units and tocommunicate the lessons of management betweendifferent units. These requirements are described furtherin Section 2.2.

1.5 Legal and cultural basis for co-management in Indonesia

For the first five of its five-year national plans (Pelita I toV), Indonesia’s fishery management strategies were ‘top-down’ in character, allocating responsibility for theresources to the government fisheries service (DinasPerikanan). In the Fisheries Act, Undang-undang No.9/1985, the central government declared some universalrules for Indonesian fisheries, including bans on the use ofelectricity and poisons. It also declared the government’sright to identify water bodies as protected conservationareas. These rules have proven difficult to enforce due tothe limited capacity of the government fisheries services. At the government’s Teluk Rasau reserve in SouthSumatra, for example, poaching was found to occur on35% of the nights studied by the project, and fish stockswere sometimes even lower than in a normally fishedwater-body nearby. Partly in response to these problems,the government’s sixth five year plan (Pelita VI, 1994-99)promoted a shift in policy towards the decentralisedmanagement of fisheries and other sectors at lowerlevels. This ambition was realised in 1999 with theadoption of the Regional Automony Act, UU OtonomiDaerah No 22/1999.

With the increasing autonomy of Indonesian provincesand districts (Kabupaten), it is now possible for the‘bottom-up’ decisions from village discussions to becomerecognised local laws. Such legal confirmation of thevillage committee’s right to manage the fishery may begranted either as Decision Letters issued by theKabupaten level chief (Bupati), or as Perda regulationsissued by the Kabupaten administration (Pemda Tk II).

On the cultural side, community-based or traditionalmanagement of fisheries has been practised in many parts

of Indonesia since at least the 16th century. Knownpractices include the use of ‘sasi’ in Maluku’s marinefisheries; and reserves, protected species, ceremonialfishing days, and the control of access by auctions andlotteries in freshwater fisheries in North, South and WestSumatra, Jambi, Riau and West Kalimantan. Suchtraditional management practices have often beendeveloped by the long-established Indonesian tradition ofmaking communal decisions by a process of discussion(musyawarah) until unanimity (sepakat) is achieved. During such discussions, either the details of the proposedsolution may be altered, or reluctant community membersmay be persuaded of its desirability. As a result of thesediscussions, community decisions are usually widelyaccepted. Where they exist, such traditional practicesprovide a strong basis for the proposed co-management ofriver fisheries in Indonesia by the village and catchmentcommittees.

Indonesia therefore currently has an enabling culturaland legislative environment that potentially favours theintroduction of co-management approaches. Thechallenge now for regional officials is to adopt these newgovernment policies, and accelerate moves towards co-management. The publication of this manual reflects theIndonesian Government’s commitment to these newprinciples and policies.

1.6 What is adaptive management?

Adaptive management recognises that the outcome ofdifferent management actions can not be clearly predictedfor complex and locally variable resources like floodplainrivers, and therefore:

• actively monitors the effects of any managementintervention or change;

• evaluates the outcome by comparison with otherplaces or previous times; and thus

• develops management strategies continuously, basedon learning and feedback.

Adaptive management represents a significant shift fromthe more traditional management practices. These haveoften been too rigid, and therefore not always suitable forthe wide variety of local environmental and stockconditions. Such rigid management frameworks may thushave declared in advance exactly what managementmeasures were needed (e.g. that 10% of floodplain water-bodies should be set aside as reserves), and thenproceeded to apply this rule in all areas. An adaptiveapproach would instead acknowledge that the optimummanagement regulations are not really known (should thefigure be 10%, 20% or 2%?), and would attempt to findthe best answer in each location by experimentation andfeedback.


Adaptive approaches clearly require a long-termcommitment to management. They require feedbackmechanisms to guide changes to the management strategyover time. At the catchment level, this may take the formof simple data on catches from village monitoring. At thevillage level, adaptation may simply involve regulardiscussion and sharing of ideas by members of the fishingcommunity. While adaptive approaches may be moredifficult to apply than the rigid, prescribed approaches,they have the advantage that the impacts of managementwill be known. Management practices may thus beimproved over time. Where rigid approaches are appliedwithout feedback mechanisms, managers may have noeffective means of guiding their actions, or of ensuringthat their actions are even beneficial.

While adaptive approaches do have clear advantages, theywill also always be difficult to implement for floodplainriver fisheries due to the complex mixture of local factorsthat determine the state of the fishery and the outcome ofnew management rules. Providing feedback on all of theimportant factors and interpreting the results will often bebeyond the ability of both the village and the government-level managers. In the first instance, the adoption of anadaptive approach may therefore simply mean keeping anopen mind to new ideas (e.g. based on the experiences ofother villages), instead of sticking rigidly to any existingmanagement strategy.

An adaptive approach is thus recommended as a long-term means of finding effective management solutions forfloodplain river fisheries in different locations, and ofensuring that they are working as intended. Guidancenotes for possible adaptive management strategies areprovided in Section 2.4. It should be remembered,however, that the adoption of the more complexstrategies should be seen as a lower priority than the moreimportant first steps of developing local managementcapacity. Involving communities in the selection andimplementation of their own management rules based ontheir local own knowledge will provide the greatest initialbenefits for a river fishery. While such co-managementskills are being developed, adaptive management can bebased on basic exchanges of ideas between village units. The more ambitious adaptive management strategiesdescribed in Section 2.4 may be promoted in later years.

1.7 Structure of the guidelines

Following this introduction, the guidelines are presentedin two main chapters, followed by a step-by-step summaryin Chapter 4. In each chapter, the actual guidelines orrecommendations are presented in a series of shadedblocks. Selected results from the project’s case studies arepresented in text boxes to illustrate key principles.

Chapter 2 provides general guidelines for thedevelopment of co-management practices for floodplainriver fisheries. Firstly, advice is given on where co-management may best be promoted, based on a number offactors known to improve its chances of success. Following this, guidelines are given on the institutional,technical and adaptive strategies for management. Theinstitutional strategy, described in Section 2.2, includesboth the formal processes of policy and legislation, andthe more informal or traditional ‘rules of the game’. Suchrules define who should be involved in management, andthe standard practices, routines and customs by whichthey should interact and co-operate. The technicalstrategy (Section 2.3) briefly outlines how the fisherymay be assessed, and how alternative management tools(reserves, gear licensing, gear bans etc) may be used forits management. Finally, Section 2.4 describes the long-term adaptive strategy, by which the benefits fromdifferent management practices may be monitored andimproved by ‘learning from experience’.

Chapter 3 of the guidelines then concentrates on the useof harvest reserves in river fisheries. Both social andtechnical criteria are given for the selection ofappropriate water-bodies, and for their management. Both the general criteria described in Chapter 2 and thespecific criteria given in Chapter 3 will be necessary forthe successful co-management of harvest reserves.

The final step-by-step guidelines in Chapter 4 summarisewhere co-management practices and reserves may best bedeveloped and where capacity-building and training willbe most required for success. The final Sections 4.3 and4.4 summarise the types of activities that may be usefullyundertaken at the village level and the catchment levelrespectively.


2 General Guidelines for Co-Management of River Fisheries

2.1 Where should co-managementsystems be developed?

The following initial guidelines list a series of social,institutional and physical conditions that make somevillages or localities particularly suitable for theintroduction of co-management approaches. Theconditions described are commonly found in communitiesthat already have successful management systems for theirnatural resources, often based on traditional approaches.Where such community-based systems are alreadyworking well, there may be no need for government‘interference’ or for the creation of new co-managementstructures. Such systems may instead provide many usefullessons for passing on to other new co-management units.In some cases, however, the formal or legal recognition ofthese units by government may reinforce their ability tomanage successfully, e.g. to exclude poachers fromoutside the village. In other cases, villages may bereceptive to the incorporation of new management tools(e.g. a harvest reserve) into their existing systems,particularly where this requires little extra effort.

• Co-management should only be introduced where itslegality is recognised both by government and bylocal people. As described in Section 1.5, the recentlyincreased autonomy of Indonesian local authoritieshas already created an enabling leglislativeenvironment under which co-management may bedeveloped. In other countries, similar changes innational policies and legislation may be required.

• The ownership rights of villages over the water-bodies in their territory should also be recognised bylocal people. Villages with accepted local rights mayalready manage access to their water-bodies (e.g. byauctions or lotteries), and/or restrict the access ofoutsiders to their resources.

Illegal fishing by ‘outsiders’ in Seliban village

Seliban village in West Kalimantan is a temporaryfishing community, in which up to 60 families live ontheir boats over the dry season. The community havedeveloped their own fishing regulations including aharvest reserve, but report frequent illegal fishing byoutsiders, both with electricity and other locallyprohibited gears. The project’s monitoring programmereported poaching on 78% of the nights fished at thissite, and fish catches in the village were less than atenth of those in the best reserves in West Kalimantan. This apparently destructive illegal fishing was believedto be carried out by rich outsiders from the nearby townof Suhaid, who were not dependent on the reserve anddid not recognise the management rights of Seliban’stemporary community.

• Co-management will be easiest to develop forfloodplain water-bodies that are located completelyinside the administrative boundary of a singlevillage. In this situation, initial managementdiscussions will only be required among the membersof the one village. The benefits from managementmay also be more likely to be retained mainly withinthe village, increasing the incentives for its membersto manage their resources.

• Co-management may also be developed in water-bodies that are shared between several villages, butgreater efforts will be required for their managementand simpler management strategies and tools shouldtherefore be used. Such water-bodies include lakessurrounded by two or more villages, or large floodplainsystems that flood around many villages. Thedispersal of fish from reserves in these situations maybe much less clear, and village members may thushave less incentive to participate.

Water-body ownership and co-management

At most of the sites studied in Jambi and WestKalimantan, the communities were permanently settledand had established accepted local rights to managethe fishing waters within their administrative villageboundary. In some cases, their waters were fullyinside the village territory, while in others they wereshared with an adjacent village. Such villages offergood prospects for effective community-basedmanagement systems.

In contrast, access to fishing in the River Lempuingstudy sites in South Sumatra is managed by regionalauthorities using an annual auction system. Theleaders of the Palembang kingdom originally set upthis system in 1822 to prevent conflicts betweenfishers. It has since been adopted by the kabupaten-level government administration, and the auction feesnow represent a significant portion of local governmentincome. As a result of the system, water-body ownerschange frequently, there are no permanently settledcommunities among the floodplain lakes, and thetemporary fishers have little incentive to conserve theirfish stocks. Developing a co-management system forthis resource would require major changes in the wayaccess and ‘ownership’ are managed.

• Co-management should be introduced in placeswhere local people agree that there are problemswith their resources and where the community or usergroup is highly dependent on those resources. Where fisheries are still reasonably healthy, thepotential benefits of management may not be largeenough to justify the time and effort involved. Toreinforce the co-management system, the actualbenefits of management should be demonstrated asearly as possible to be greater than the costsinvolved. In some places, local people may neededucation on the principles of conservation and


sustainability before they recognise local problems.

Seeing a need for change in Dano Lamo

In Jambi’s Dano Lamo village, the poor state of thelocal fishery in the mid-90’s prompted local people toseek the advice and financial support of government. Following discussions on a range of alternativeoptions, the villagers accepted the idea of a newreserve in their local river. Recognising their need fora change, they have since complied closely with theirnew regulations and now report some improvement incatches.

• Co-management approaches are most likely tosucceed in communities that have strongorganisations (e.g. the village committee) or skillfuland respected leaders. They may also havemechanisms (e.g. the musyawarah desa) fordiscussing issues and finding solutions to localproblems, and for enforcing their own managementrules and resolving conflicts. All of these factors mayprovide a strong basis for the introduction of newmanagement regulations.

Effective community management?

As noted in Section 1.3, the most abundant fish stockswere found in the community managed fisheries inMeliau and Sekolat villages in West Kalimantan. These villages had well-designed harvest reserves andother conservation regulations, and very low rates ofpoaching (0% of nights in Meliau and 6% in Sekolat). The success of these villages in managing theirfisheries may be due to a range of important factors. Both of the villages were fairly small (28 and 167households respectively), and highly dependent onfishing. Though the villages had mixed cultures(Dayaks and Malays), they lived harmoniously andaccepted the leadership of their village committee. Access to fishing positions for the effective jermal drifttraps was decided by fortnightly lotteries in bothvillages. This was perceived as a ‘fair’ way ofdistributing the benefits from fishing, and may havereduced the incentives of village members to poachfrom their reserves. Meliau’s fish stocks may also havebeen protected by its remote upstream position and byits extra ‘reserve’ water-bodies inhabited by crocodilesand ‘evil spirits’!

• Finally, co-management practices are more likely tobe successful in smaller villages than larger ones,and also where fishery stakeholders share the sameculture and ideals. Co-management (or indeed anymanagement) will be more difficult to develop invillages that have many existing conflicts and tensionsbetween village members.

Conflicting cultures in Pulau Majang

Pulau Majang village in West Kalimantan is inhabitedby around 170 households, most of whom are mainlydependent on fishing. These fishing families aremainly Malays who have settled in the region. The

village boundary, however, includes 22 indigenousfamilies from a different tribe, living in a separatehamlet. Members of this other tribe traditionally fishusing natural poisons in the dry season water bodies. Though such poison fishing is banned by government,its use is tolerated to some extent where it is atraditional practice. As noted earlier, fish stocks inPulau Majang were found to be up to 22 times lessabundant than in the other villages with well-managedreserves. The new Malay fishers would like to improvethe management of their local fish stocks, but have sofar been unable to control the poison fishing of theindigenous people due to their different cultures.

2.2 Institutional strategy (who shouldmanage and how?)

The institutional strategy defines who should be involvedin the management process, and how they should interactand operate. ‘Institutions’ in this sense may thus beunderstood as the ‘rules of the game’, ‘standard operatingpractices’, ‘routines, conventions and customs’, or simply‘the way things are done’.

The co-management process should include (in one wayor another) all the stakeholders who either (1) depend onthe resource or (2) may influence the success of the co-management initiative (some stakeholders may fall intoboth categories). The key stakeholders in co-managementare likely to be those most directly involved in using theresource – fishers and their households. A ‘stakeholderanalysis’, however, should also identify those with moreindirect interests in the resource. In Indonesia, effectiveco-management may require the participation ofrepresentatives from some or all of the following majorgroups, either at provincial, kabupaten, kecamatan or themost local village levels:

• fishers and their households;• fish processors and traders;• boat operators;• farmers and their employees who farm in the

surrounding floodplain or use water for irrigation;• Dinas Perikanan (Fisheries Service);• fishery researchers and scientists;• local government administrations;• traditional village leadership organisations;• non-governmental development organisations

(NGOs);• BAPPEDA (Regional Planning Board);• Agricultural Extension Service, including BPTP,

LPTP, IPPTP, BIP and BIPP; and• enforcement agencies (e.g. local police)

Not all of these stakeholders have to be fully involved inthe co-management process. The key partners, however,do need to know who the other stakeholders are, andhow they might be affected by management measures,


so that possible future conflicts can be avoided.

Once potential stakeholders have been identified, theirmost appropriate levels of participation in co-managementshould be worked out. Four levels of potentialinvolvement can be used:

• Informed – people who may not be directly affectedby management measures but have some interest inthe resource and may need to be kept informed ofchanges.

• Consulted – people who are liable to be affected bymanagement but are not directly involved in use of theresource. These stakeholders should be consulted sothat they are fully aware of what is going on and feelthat their concerns have been taken into account.

• Partners – people whose co-operation is essential forthe success of co-management, who take part in allconsultations and work together with otherstakeholders in implementing and monitoring the co-management process.

• Owners – people who “control” the co-managementprocess; depending on the circumstances this might bethe government agencies promoting co-managementand/or the stakeholder groups who benefit directlyfrom the management process.

As the process of co-management develops, the mostappropriate level of participation of the differentstakeholder groups may change. The stakeholder analysistherefore needs to be continually developed and adapted.

To enable the most effective contributions by each of thekey stakeholders, a hierarchical and spatial institutionalstructure is proposed. A hierarchical structure enablescommunity members to participate strongly at a locallevel, while government agents and other stakeholdersplay co-ordinating and supportive roles at intermediateregional levels and at the national policy level. Such astructure draws on the strengths of both bottom-up andtop-down contributions. A spatial structure enables thefloodplain fishery to be sub-divided into managementunits, each with its own fishing waters and associatedcommunity members.

The detailed institutional structure for each river systemor reserve should be allowed to vary according to thewishes of the different local stakeholders and theirrelative capacities. No attempt should be made to imposea single standard structure in all places. As a basicpattern, however, there would be some form ofmanagement committee within each local managementunit, and another committee at the regional coordinationlevel. The following points guide the establishment ofsuch dual committees and describe the potential roles ofthe different players.

• Firstly, the catchment should be sub-divided into anumber of management sub-units (see figure). The

choice of such sub-units should be guided by thedistribution of both floodplain water-bodies andcommunities to maximise the overlap between fishdistributions and community authority. Co-management practices should initially be developed insub-units having a single village, with a number ofwater-bodies (lakes, river channels etc) under itsauthority. Such villages should be selected byparticipatory techniques, and not picked ‘top-down’ byoutside experts. Further details were given on theselection of potentially appropriate management unitsin Section 2.1.

• In each management sub-unit, a stakeholderanalysis should be undertaken. This shoulddetermine the involvement of the different institutions,individuals and communities in the local fishery, andthe costs and benefits each one incurs from theirinvolvement. The analysis should identify both the‘indirect’ stakeholders and the key stakeholders (the‘owners’ and ‘partners’), who should be most directlyinvolved in the management of the fishery.

• Problems with the resources, management issues andpossible management solutions should be discussedby the key stakeholders, leading to the establishmentof an effective institutional structure for the co-management of the fishery. The most appropriatestructure will depend on the capacity of the differentstakeholders. Capacity here includes the resourcesrequired for management (both people and money)and the skills and motivation necessary to perform thedifferent roles. Where local communities lack theskills to contribute to decision-making andmanagement, they should be provided with additionalsupport and assistance until these skills have beenacquired.

• Though local flexibility must be encouraged, theinstitutional structure may be expected to include botha local or village co-management committee and acatchment co-management committee. In thesimplest terms, the Village Committees may beresponsible for the active management of their localfisheries, while the Catchment Committee providesguidance and support, based on its broader,catchment-wide perspective.

• The membership of the committee(s) should beclearly specified but allowed to change over time, asnew stakeholders are identified. The roles andrelationships of the different committee membersshould be clearly defined and agreed.

• Committed and effective leaders should be identifiedto develop the co-management partnership. The bestleaders will have strong personal skills in negotiationand conflict resolution and a good standing in thecommunity. Leaders need to represent stakeholderinterests and be accountable to the groups theyrepresent. While some of the skills required can bedeveloped through training, others will vary betweenindividuals or need time and experience to develop.

• The committee(s) should be provided with recognisedlegal powers to (1) select the objectives of


management (within certain basic principles ofsustainability), (2) limit access to the fishery (decidewho may fish), and (3) manage the fishery (set localregulations) to achieve the chosen objectives. Suchlegal recognition may be achieved by district orprovincial government regulations (depending on thesize of the management sub-unit), and should begranted permanently (depending on effectiveperformance) to maximise incentives for sustainableuse. In some countries, national legislation mayneed to be modified to enable such decentralised co-management to be applied.

• Representatives of key stakeholder groups, under theguidance of the Village Committee, should jointlyselect the management objectives for the fishery. This will usually involve choices, for example, betweenhigh employment with low profits or lower employmentwith a higher quality fish catch. Stakeholders shouldthus recognise the need to compromise betweentheir personal objectives, and aim to achieve themaximum possible consensus. To encourageparticipation, the preferred objectives of thecommunity members should be supported whereverpossible.

• The Catchment Committee should participate in

catchment management planning activities, e.g. forthe control of pollution, and the effective allocation ofwater resources between competing demands fromfisheries, agriculture, industry and other sectors. Withits broad regional focus, the Catchment Committee iswell placed to (1) promote the interests of the fishery;(2) inform the Village Committees about the impactsof other sectors on the productivity of local fisheries;and (3) transfer lessons between the different localmanagement units in their catchment. The CatchmentCommittee should also extend the co-managementpractices to new areas as appropriate, and providetraining, coordination and support as required.

• The Village Committee should participate in choosinglocal management tools, enforcing those tools andpenalising rule-breakers, monitoring the outcome ofthe management strategy and guiding adaptations(see Section 2.4).

• Communication between the different stakeholdersshould be a major priority. Stakeholders should bekept informed about any changes made to themanagement strategy, the anticipated impacts oncommunity benefits, and (later on) the actualoutcomes which result. Publicity materials mayinclude posters, leaflets, newsletters and public

PPP

P

PP

PP

P

P

CatchmentManagement Area

Village Management Units

SharedManagement Units

Catchment Committee roles:Monitor impacts of other sectors and promote

interests of the fisheryProvide training, coordination and support to

village management unitsMaintain key whitefish habitats

Select units where water-bodies arefully inside village boundaries

Village Committee roles:Develop own management plansManage local blackfish stocksEnsure access of whitefishEnforce village regulations

Require greater efforts for managementcoordination. May include:

Flood-plain systems where water-bodiesare not associated with single villages

Traditional management groupsLarge lakes fished by two or more villages

Villages

Waterbodies

Floodplain

Riverchannel

Sea, lake ormain river

P

P

P

PP

Town


meetings, both within the village, and at governmentoffices.

• Mechanisms for rule enforcement and conflictresolution should be established, to encourage theacceptance of management regulations proposed bythe committee(s). The mechanisms should beprimarily based on the participation of members ofthe fishing community (e.g. by discussions at villagemeetings), but should also be supported by existingformal (government) mechanisms and policies(including the 1985 Fisheries Act No. 9). Themechanisms should be low-cost and able to resolveconflicts as soon as they occur.

Problems with ‘top-down’ management

As described in a previous box, the South Sumatragovernment manages access to fishing in the RiverLempuing by the annual auction of fishing rights in itsfloodplain water-bodies. Under the auction system,lease-holding fishers take responsibility for controllingwho may fish in their water-bodies, and with which geartypes. This ‘self-policing’ effectively prevents poachingwithin the lease units and allows lease-holders to usehighly efficient barrier and seine gear types. Unfortunately, the resulting high levels of fishing havecaused the virtual disappearance of several valuablefish species including arowana, gourami and belida,and the giant udang prawns.

Government attempts to manage a harvest reservewithin this system have proven difficult. TheLempuing’s Teluk Rasau water-body was withdrawnfrom the auction system many years ago by thegovernment Fisheries Service and declared a fullyclosed reserve, with a permanent on-site guard. Localpeople were not consulted in the selection of thereserve. The project’s sampling programme found thatthe reserve was fished illegally on 35% of the observednights. Poachers included both professional fishermenfrom nearby auction units and farmers living near thereserve shores, who had lost their local source ofincome. Even the guard fished for subsistence.

With this ineffective reserve management, catch ratesfrom the experimental gill nets in Teluk Rasau werefound to be no better than in a nearby, fished water-body, Teluk Toman. In the 1998/99 wet season TelukRasau catch rates were also five times lower thanthose in the West Kalimantan reserves. In the 1999dry season, Teluk Rasau catches were slightly belowthose in poison fished Pulau Majang, and 32 times lessthan those in Sekolat’s reserve!

• Penalties for people breaking rules should vary inseverity, depending on the seriousness of the offence,and the number of offences committed. Rules mustbe enforced, and penalties applied, so stakeholderscan see that monitoring is effective and rule-breakersare penalised.

• Where management involves financial costs (e.g. forholding discussion meetings, or publicisingregulations), a system should be established forproviding revenue for self-funding of the co-

management system. Fund raising systems are mostoften based on revenues from licensing or leasingaccess to the fishery.

• A management plan should be prepared inconsultation with the stakeholders and publicisedwidely. The plan should provide a clear statement onthe selected objectives of management; themanagement tools to be used; the feedbackmechanisms for monitoring the performance of themanagement strategy; and the responsibilities of eachof the co-management partners (e.g. for co-ordination,communication, monitoring, analysis, enforcementetc).

2.3 Technical strategy (whichmanagement tools should beused?)

Harvest reserves are just one possible option from a widerange of alternative technical tools for the managementof fisheries. Other management tools include closedseasons (covering all areas, not just inside a reserve);permanent bans on damaging gear types; and legal sizelimits on gear meshes or fish. Access rules (e.g. leasesystems, lotteries or gear licensing) may further definewho may fish in which water-bodies at particular times. Other tools or actions may be used to improveenvironmental conditions (e.g. by dredging siltedchannels) or to improve fish stocks (e.g. by stockingdepleted fish species). These different rules each havetheir own advantages and disadvantages, and may becombined in many different ways to achieve good localoutcomes. The best combination of rules for a givenlocality depends on its hydrological, physical and socialcharacteristics. The ideal combination is difficult topredict in advance, but may be moved towards graduallyover a period of time by adaptive management (seefollowing Section 2.4).

The choice of initial management regulations to be usedfor a fishery should be based on a simple assessment of itslocal characteristics. Such assessment should combinethe local knowledge of the fishing community and thescientific knowledge of government offices such asCRIFI and Dinas Perikanan. Assessments should provideenough understanding of the local floodplain riverenvironment, fish stocks and fishing practices to guidewhich management tools (e.g. reserves, gear bans, fishstocking etc) may be useful in that locality. Whenchoosing rules, consideration should also be given to thelikely difficulties that the local community might have inenforcing them. Harvest reserves, for example, may beeasier to implement in some places than fish size limits orannual fish stocking.

Holding discussions based on the following key questionsmay provide initial ideas on the suitability of alternativetechnical management tools:


• Are fish stocks relatively stable or in decline (i.e.becoming smaller, or harder to catch, or extinct)? Active management is only worthwhile if there is aclear problem to be solved.

• Which stocks are declining – are they blackfish orwhitefish? Where do such fish survive over the dryseason? Where do they breed? Where are they badlyaffected by fishing practices or other activities? Howcould such negative impacts be reduced?

• How could the local blackfish species be protectedover the dry season? Are there any permanent localwater-bodies that blackfish could survive in, butwhich are heavily fished instead? Such water-bodiesmay be useful as harvest reserves.

• Can migrant whitefish species access local fishinggrounds from the main rivers? Dredging siltedchannels, banning barrier traps, or ensuring that sluicegates are open during fish migration seasons mayincrease the numbers of whitefish entering localfishing grounds.

• How do the different fishing gears interact or competewith each other? Which gears catch the same fish,either at the same time or in different seasons? Amanagement tool designed to benefit one gear mayhave negative impacts on another one. Introducing adry-season reserve may, for example, increase thecatch of most flood season gears used in a village, butreduce the fishing opportunities of the dry seasongears. Similarly, a ban on a barrier gear may be goodfor the community at large, but bad for those peoplepreviously using that gear type. Where such impactsmay cause significant difficulties for some people,these problems may need to be allowed for in themanagement plan. Alternative opportunities may needto be created, for example, or some compensationpaid.

• Could a proposed management tool be effectivelymonitored and enforced, given the resources andskills available? Local fishery managers should startwith the simplest options for managing their fishery,and leave the more ambitious plans for later.

2.4 Adaptive strategy (monitoring andimproving the fishery)

The management regulations for the reserve should bebased initially on the basic technical strategy, arisingfrom the stakeholder discussions and resource assessmentdescribed above. Adaptive management may then be usedto check that the overall strategy (including its technicaland institutional components) is actually achieving theintended benefits. For this approach, initial regulations

should be set flexibly, and adjusted over time, asrequired, depending on the outcomes achieved.

As described in Section 1.6, a simple form of adaptivemanagement may be undertaken by keeping an openmind to new management ideas, and modifying rulesbased on observations and experiences in both the localfishery and in other villages nearby. In the longer term,and where capacity and resources permit, a more formalor analytical adaptive management strategy may bedeveloped, as described in the following guidelines. Onlypractice will show whether this formal approach (and theextra effort required for data collection and analysis) willresult in significantly better knowledge of the system andits management.

Adaptive learning can occur at two main levels. Firstly,the village level managers (e.g. the Village Committee)can learn purely from their own experiences, over time,by comparing their results this year with those theyachieved in previous years. Traditional community-basedmanagers have presumably mainly operated in this way inthe past. Such year-to-year comparisons must, however,take into account the natural variability in fishproductivity and catches that occur between years. Thisyear’s catch may, for example, be good because of a highflood rather than a newly introduced regulation. A long-term view should therefore always be taken beforeconclusions are drawn.

In support of the local within-village comparisons,regional managers (e.g. the Catchment Committee) mayalso learn by comparing outcomes between villages. If,for example, a village with a reserve including both riverand lake habitats is getting much better results thananother village with a reserve including only lake habitats,then the differences between the reserves may be partlyresponsible. Some uncertainty will still exist though, asthe different results may also partly be due to differencesbetween the habitats in the two villages (the two lakesmay be very different depths for example). Regionalmanagers should therefore always make severalcomparisons between different villages before drawingtheir conclusions.

The most effective adaptive management may beachieved by collaboration between both the local andcatchment committees. In this partnership, the localcommunity may be best able to understand the localsituation, and to say why they are achieving a certainresult in their waters this year (is the reserve being badlypoached? are blocked water channels reducingproductivity?). At a wider level, the regional partnersmay be best able to make comparisons between thedifferent strategies being used in different villages. Theymay also be most able to understand the effects ofexternal impacts on the catchment’s resources (e.g. dueto pollution from upstream areas, deforestation ofuplands, or agricultural or urban development in nearby


parts of the catchment). Local people may simply notknow about such impacts, and may identify themincorrectly as the effects of their own managementactivities.

A formal, analytical adaptive management strategy forfloodplain river fisheries may therefore be undertaken asfollows:

• Firstly, as noted before, key stakeholders in each localmanagement sub-unit should jointly select themanagement objectives for the fishery (e.g. toprevent further declines in the catches of gabus, or toincrease average daily incomes to Rp15,000 perfisherman). Adaptive management should have aclear target to work towards, and this target should beclearly quantified and stated in the Management Plan.

• The success of management must be measured insome way. A simple, cost-effective monitoringsystem should be set up to provide indicators of thecurrent outcomes from the fishery (see below). Themonitoring system provides the essential feed-backmechanism by which adaptive managementapproaches may learn about and improve the benefitsfrom the fishery.

• The local fishing community members should beencouraged to participate in the monitoring system. When fishers are involved, they will be more likely tobelieve the data collected, and will be able to seedirectly, for themselves, the impacts of themanagement strategy. The fishing community mayalso supplement the limited capacity of thegovernment management agencies for this role. Government agents should note, however, thatcommunities will only participate effectively in this roleif they are also actively involved in selecting theobjectives for the fishery and the types of monitoringsystem to use.

• The complexity of the monitoring system should varyaccording to the situation. In some villages, adaptivemanagement may be based on ‘commonknowledge’ simply collected at discussion meetings. In other situations, particularly where new approachesare being tested out or where between-villagecomparisons are being made, simple routine surveysmay be used to collect basic data for comparisons. Managers, however, should not aim to collect datathat are difficult or expensive to collect, or toocomplicated for village members to understand ormake good use of.

• Both the outputs from the fishery and the inputsshould be monitored. Outputs should be measured todetermine the success (or failure) of management. Inputs should be measured to explain the outcomesthat result.

• Which outputs should be monitored should beestablished by participatory methods, and shouldreflect the development goals of the local community. People are more likely to be motivated by the

achievement of their own livelihood goals than bythose of an outsider. Outputs of interest to thecommunity may include the sizes or total weights offish caught, the overall income or food produced bythe fishery, the distribution of income betweendifferent stakeholders and the variability of incomeover the fishing season.

• The inputs to be monitored should include themanagement tools in use (e.g. the area set aside asa reserve, the seasons closed etc); the amount offishing (both legal fishing and illegal poaching); theexistence of environmental problems (e.g. pollution,or fish kills due to very dry weather); and theeffectiveness of the management institution (are rulesbeing enforced or ignored?).

• The success of the management strategy should beassessed frequently, based on the level of theoutputs, as determined by the monitoring system. Local fishery stakeholders should meet at least once ayear to discuss the results obtained and decide onfuture actions. Where the desired outputs (theselected management objectives) are not beingachieved with the current management tools,managers should attempt to determine why, andmake appropriate adjustments. Clearly, the realcause of a particular outcome will often not be known. There may also be several factors that jointlydetermine the outcome. Alternative potentialexplanations should therefore be tested by theadaptive approach until success is achieved. Adjustments may be made to the level of regulations(e.g. the length of a closed season, or the number orsize of reserves), or to the combination of tools in use(e.g. a new fish size limit may be introduced tocomplement an existing reserve). Adaptivemodifications may also be made to the institutionalstrategy (e.g. a sub-committee may be introduced toimprove the effectiveness of management for aparticularly troublesome area).

Making management rules that work

Arang Arang village in Jambi has 173 households,most of whom mainly fish for a living. The village hasbeen actively involved in managing its local fishery formany years, using a mixture of access controls andgear restrictions. Half of the village’s main lake, DanauArang Arang, is set aside as a ‘reserve’. It was initiallyunderstood that the reserve was designed to conservelocal fish stocks and only fished during a ceremonialvillage fishing day in those years when stocks werehealthy. More probing investigations revealed that the‘reserve’ regulations were neither very restrictive norvery well enforced. The ceremonial fishing ‘day’, forinstance, could actually go on for three months untilvery few fish were left. Catch rates in the experimentalgill nets at Arang Arang were similar to those taken atthe poison-fished Pulau Majang in West Kalimantan,and far below those from the other well-managedreserves in Meliau and Sekolat. An adaptive approachat Arang Arang would question both the design and theenforcement of the current management rules.


• The adaptive management approach should initiallybe introduced in one or a few local fishery sub-units,to gain experience with participatory processes andco-management. Depending on the successfulachievement of results, co-management should thenbe introduced into more fishery units around thecatchment. Increasing the number of local fisheryunits co-managed by the Catchment Committee

should provide two benefits. Firstly, it should increasethe opportunities for adaptive learning by comparisonsbetween the different sites. Secondly, with successfulmanagement, it should improve the overall state offish resources within the whole catchment, and lead toincreased livelihood opportunities over the widestpossible area.


3 Specific Management Guidelines for Harvest Reserves

3.1 Which water-bodies should beselected as reserves?

Reserve water-bodies should be carefully selected on thebasis of a wide range of both technical and social criteria. Reserves should not simply be selected by ‘experts’brought in from outside. Both local people and externaladvisors may make valuable contributions. Reservesshould also not be imposed on villages ‘top-down’ againstthe wishes of local people. The introduction of a reserve(or other management tool or strategy) may have verysignificant consequences for a nearby village, perhapschanging traditional access rights or fishing patterns. Inplaces where such consequences are negative for manypeople, the reserve may prove very difficult to manageand so provide few of its intended benefits.

Depending on their location and on the seasons which areclosed, harvest reserves may benefit fish stocks in anumber of different ways, such as:

• ensuring that some blackfish species survive the dryseason to spawn next year=s stock (blackfish areespecially vulnerable to capture in the dry season);

• reducing disturbance of broodfish during spawningseasons (usually the early flood);

• restricting the capture of juvenile fish during therising and high water seasons; and

• restricting the excessive capture of migrating fishduring rising and falling water seasons.

These benefits to fish stocks will only be translated intobenefits to fishers if, either (1) the reserve is located in awater-body from which fish can emigrate to fished areas,or (2) some fishing is allowed inside the reserve (e.g. inlimited seasons, or with non-threatening gears).

The selection criteria for a harvest reserve thus depend onwhich of the above objectives the reserve is intended toachieve, and on how the benefits to fishers will beachieved. Clearly, reserves must be placed in a locationthat protects fish at one or more of their key life stages(e.g. spawning or migrating). Reserves intended toprotect all vulnerable life stages would need to include arange of different habitats (pools, river channels, swampsetc) and may be so large that they were against theinterests of local fishers. The following criteria indicatewhich water-bodies may make useful harvest reserves,and how they may be selected.

• Most importantly, local people should take the lead inthe selection of reserves, using their local experienceto identify the most suitable water-bodies. Villagersare more likely to know the hydrology of their local

area, and to support reserves if they consider that thebest water-body has been selected. Real participationinvolves much more than just saying ‘yes’ to anoutside expert’s choice.

Links between reserves and fished areas

For harvest reserves to increase fish catches, theymust be connected in some way to accessible fishinggrounds. In Dano Lamo for example, the new reservewas established in a section of river running throughthe village, and adjacent ‘economic zones’ wereidentified both upstream and downstream of this ‘corezone’. In West Kalimantan, open channels linked thefloodplain lake reserves with other fishing grounds ineach village, and some limited fishing was also allowedinside each reserve.

In contrast, several factors prevented the efficientoperation of the fully-closed reserves, established bygovernment in South Sumatra. Teluk Gelam reserve,for example, was found to be located in a remote areawith only temporary channels linking it to the fishinggrounds. Teluk Rasau reserve was close to the fishinggrounds, but the connecting channel was blocked withsilt and overgrown with weed. Another ‘reserve’,Lebung Karangan was originally created as anirrigation reservoir and was still disconnected fromsurrounding floodplains by closed sluice gates. Suchwater-bodies may make attractive recreation sites butdo not function well as harvest reserves.

• Several small reserves should be selected, scatteredaround a river catchment, rather than one large one.In river systems, several small harvest reserves maygive more benefits to fishers, due to the limiteddispersal patterns of blackfish. To spread out themanagement costs between the beneficiaries, one ormore reserves may be established in each villagewhere suitable social structures and reserve habitatsexist.

• Reserves should be selected in several differenthabitat types to protect different fish species andtheir various life stages. Some reserves may, forexample, be selected in river sections (especiallyincluding the deep scour pits or lubuks), and others infloodplain lakes. In larger lakes, important habitatsmay often be found where streams and rivers flow intoand out of the lake. The largest reserves may includesuch habitats in both rivers and lakes.

• The best size for a harvest reserve will vary betweenlocations due to the movement patterns of the localfish and the distribution and type of water-bodies. Where a village has many small water-bodies,connected by channels, one, two or more of thedeepest water-bodies may be used as reserves. Where a village has only one large lake, a part of thelake may be set aside, perhaps in a bay near thevillage with habitats used by spawning and juvenile


fish. In any case, the reserve(s) should be largeenough to protect fish from disturbance, while stillallowing fishing to continue in the village, either in thenon-closed seasons, or in areas outside the reserve.

• Local ’blackfish’ reserves should be selected indeep, permanently flooded water-bodies infloodplain areas. Such water-bodies are more likely toprotect blackfish over the full dry season, while othershallower pools dry up and cause fish kills.

• For the more migratory ‘whitefish’ species, reservesshould be selected in their known spawninggrounds, in upstream stretches of rivers. Additionalrestrictions on barrier traps may be needed to ensurethat the whitefish can reach the protected spawninggrounds.

• For both blackfish and whitefish reserves, only thosewater-bodies should be selected that have goodconnections to surrounding fished areas (e.g.through water channels or across flooded land). These connections ensure that the extra fishproduced in the reserve may be caught. Wherepractical, such connecting channels should beincluded in the area defined as the reserve.

• Where possible, reserves should be located well awayfrom potential sources of pollution. These mayinclude industrial or agricultural areas where toxicchemicals or pesticides are in use, or transportationroutes that may be polluted by fuel or oil.

• In water-bodies disconnected from the floodplain riversystem, such as dams or isolated ox-bow lakes,permanent closure of the whole water-body may meanthat the extra fish produced are not available in anyfishable waters. Only partial closures should be madein such water-bodies, either as one or more smallpartial reserves, or as a closed season. In largelakes, reserves may be introduced in the local watersof different fishing villages around the lake.

• Reserve water-bodies should be selected to leaveenough alternative fishing grounds in the village tomaintain fishing opportunities. A village=s only water-body should not be set aside as a fully closed reserve,as it is likely to be badly poached.

• Where possible, a new reserve should be close to thevillage(s) involved in its management. Suchcloseness maximises the visibility of fishing activitiesand minimises opportunities for illegal fishing.

3.2 How should harvest reserves bemanaged?

Once a reserve waterbody has been selected, additionalconsideration must be given to exactly how it will bemanaged. As noted in Section 1.2, it may not always bemost effective to permanently close the reserve.

• In blackfish reserves, the use of particularlydangerous dry-season gears should be restricted toensure the survival of part of the spawning stock overthe dry season (most floodplain fish spawn at the startof the flood). The most dangerous fishing gearsinclude poison and electric fishing, which are alreadynationally prohibited by the Indonesian Government. De-watering and fish drives may also be dangerous inthose places where they can be used (some water-bodies may be naturally protected from these gearsdue to their deep water or underwater snags).

• Either permanent or seasonal closures may beused to ensure protection of critical life cycle phases. Closed seasons may be set to prevent the capture ofjuvenile fish in the high water season, brood-fishduring the early flood spawning season, or migratingfish during the rising/falling water seasons. The actualperiod for a closed season may need to changebetween years depending on the dates of flooding.

• The location of the reserve should be made as clearas possible, by defining boundaries at recognisablelocal features, such as bridges, well-known buildings(mosques, schools etc) and river confluences. Markerposts may also be used if these can be made clearlyvisible. Grid references, which are invisible on theground, should be avoided, unless marker posts arealso used. New reserves may also be usefully locatedin areas traditionally protected by religious or culturalsanctions.

• In reserves where the movement of fish into fishedareas is via channels in the floodplain, suchconnections may need to be maintained by theremoval of silt or vegetation. Similarly, whenreserves are silting up and drying out in the dryseason, they may be excavated to maintain asufficient depth of water. Artificial reserves may evenbe excavated to enable more fish to survive the dryseason.

• To increase the acceptability of a new reserve,additional measures may be used to enhance itsperceived benefit to the village. Such measures mayinclude the stocking of a depleted fish species into thereserve, the rehabilitation of nursery or spawninghabitats (e.g. re-planting reed beds), or allowing thecommunal use of reserve waters for recreation orother non-destructive activities.

Establishing Dano Lamo’s new reserve

When the Danau Mahligai reserve in Jambi’s DanoLamo village was first declared in 1997, it was stockedwith 30,000 fingerlings, paid for by the ProvincialPlanning Service (BAPPEDA). Such stocking may notalways be biologically necessary (stocking some fishspecies may even have negative impacts on naturalfish stocks). However, such ceremonies usuallyincrease the value of a new reserve as perceived bylocal people.

• Due to the uncertainty in the best size and numbers ofreserves, and in the seasonality of closures, and the


use of other management tools, adaptivemanagement practices should be used to determinethe optimal combination of regulations for eachlocality. As described in Section 2.4, such adaptive

management may be either simple or analytical,depending on the level of data collection and analysisinvolved.


4 Summary of Key Steps for Co-Management of River Fisheries

The following summary provides step-by-step guidelinesfor the implementation of co-management institutions inriver fisheries. The guidelines are divided into fourdiscrete stages to emphasise that the process ofimplementation can be undertaken gradually, learninglessons and building skills and capacity along the way. Itis more important to make a start on the co-managementpathway, than to achieve the most comprehensivearrangement straight away.

Section 4.1 provides guidance on how to select locationsthat have good prospects for co-management. Section 4.2then indicates the skills that will be required for co-management, both for village members and governmentstaff. Section 4.3 illustrates the types of managementactivities that may be undertaken in selected village co-management units to develop effective managementsystems. The final Section 4.4 illustrates how regionalstakeholders (catchment managers) may assist the localmanagers by providing advice and coordination to thelocal units.

To minimise the initial implementation requirements, it isrecommended that only a small number of village co-management units should be selected in the first place(perhaps only two or three). More can be selected later. Some villages with good local capacity may go straight onto develop management systems as described in Section4.3 or to modify their existing systems. Other villages willrequire much greater training and capacity building asdescribed in Section 4.2. The final regional coordinationactivities in Section 4.4 are likely to be the mostchallenging to achieve, since they involve the greatestnumbers of people and the most complex issues. Theseshould be left until good skills have been developed at thevillage level.

4.1 Choosing village co-managementunits

A Village Co-Management Unit should include (1) aclearly defined part of the floodplain river system and (2)a group of local community members and otherstakeholders who are able and willing to participate in itsmanagement. The selection of good village units isabsolutely critical to the successful outcome of theirsubsequent management activities.

The process of selecting suitable village units should beinitiated by catchment-level stakeholders (e.g. DinasPerikanan, BAPPEDA and development NGOs), andproceed to involve villages in their own self-selection.The selection process may be carried out using the

following steps:

• Identify those parts of the river system whereimproved fishery management may provide thegreatest benefits. Such areas are likely to includesignificant fishery resources (e.g. in lakes, channels,floodplains etc), that are thought to have declined, dueto too much fishing or bad fishing practices.

• With reference to maps and/or by talking to villagers,identify villages that have their own fishing groundswholly within their administrative boundaries. Management will be easier where agreements onlyneed to be reached between members of the samevillage (large water-bodies exploited by two or morevillages should be left until later).

• Hold discussions with the members of villagesidentified above to determine which of the villageshave the following features (these features may makethem particularly able and/or willing to manage theirresources).

Do villagers believe that there are internal problemsin the fishery that may be solved by improved localmanagement? Villagers are only likely to invest theirtime and energy in management if they believe thattheir contribution will give them a significant benefit.External problems affecting the fishery, such aspollution from an upstream factory, may be difficult forthe village to solve on its own.

Does the village already actively manage its fisheryresources? If so, how? Where management isperceived as already successful, there may be noneed for large changes or new co-managementsystems. Such villages may however be helped bythe legal recognition of government (e.g. to help themenforce their own rules), or may provide usefullessons for other villages.

Is the village highly dependent on the fishery forlivelihoods (income, employment)? How many of thevillage members are employed by the fishery, eitherdirectly, or as traders, processors etc? Those villagesthat are highly dependent on a fishery stand to gainmore from improved management and hence have agreater incentive to participate.

Does the village have a strong leadership andrespect for authority? Does it have existingmanagement organisations or skilful leaders whocould take on the roles required for co-management?

Is the village large or small (how many householdsare there)? Smaller villages may be able to managetheir resources more easily, as there are fewer peopleto argue about management options.

Do village members all share the same cultures and


ideals? Villages with existing conflicts betweendifferent groups may find it hard to agree on newmanagement measures.

• Where managers particularly wish to develop moreharvest reserves, ask villagers if their village areaincludes any water-bodies that may be suitable for thispurpose (see the criteria in Section 3.1). Do notselect villages that already have their own harvestreserves unless these do not appear to be workingwell.

• Find out if there are any development-oriented NGOsworking in the locality of the village. Suchorganisations may be able to help with chairingmeetings, building consensus or resolving conflicts inthe fishery?

• Ask village members if they would be willing tocollaborate in the co-management of their fishery? Explain the types of activities and contributions whichmay be required, and the training which may beavailable.

4.2 Building the skills required for co-management

Enabling local institutions to take the initiative in themanagement of the fisheries in their local waters is noteasy, quick or to be achieved without cost in time, effortor resources. However, it is critical that this stage is notignored or cut short, as such institutions are the essentialfoundation of an effective co-management structure.

While there are villages with a tradition of managing theirown fisheries through a process of consultation andconsensus building and which achieve fisheries outcomesthat are both sustainable and equitable, these are theexception rather than the norm. Replicating suchinstitutions is not simply a matter of requesting the KepalaDesa to hold a meeting at which a series of institutionalrules and regulations are announced – there is nopredefined package that can be disseminated.

Though there are similarities to the process of forming agroup to receive or adapt a technical extension message,group formation in a fisheries context is much moredemanding. This is because the resource is shared, sosuccess depends on a very high proportion of local fishersbecoming committed to the process. The first step istherefore to ensure that they are informed and consulted atall key stages and that all stakeholder groups are fullyrepresented in discussions. Initial commitment, oncegained, must be maintained by ensuring that managementdecision-making remains open and transparent.

Within the wider user community, institutional rules mustbe agreed on: the size and composition of themanagement committee; the means by which members of

the committee might be appointed or removed; and theprocedures through which different types of decision(operational fishing rules, penalties etc.) can bedetermined. Unless this process is transparent and seen tobe fair, the operational rules that result will lacklegitimacy among stakeholders, decreasing the chance ofrule adherence and of rule breaking being reported.

Setting up a group in this way is complex, time-consuming and demands specialist skills that are likely tobe beyond the experience of most Dinas Perikanan staff. Assistance may be sought from other governmentagencies, such as Dinas Kooperasi or Dinas Perindustrian,who may have experience in developing suchmanagement skills. Linkages may also be developed withNGOs, universities or other training institutions withappropriate capacity to provide support.

The actual training required for successful co-management will vary between locations, depending onthe existing skills and capacity of the variousstakeholders. The ‘curriculum’ of required knowledgeand skills will, however, include the following subjects:

Training curriculum for co-management• What is co-management? Why use it and where?• Understanding the co-management process.• Legal basis for co-management in Indonesia

(implications of 1999 Regional Autonomy Act etc).• Types of stakeholders and their interests in the

fishery. How to identify stakeholders?• Who to involve in the co-management partnership?• Identification of stakeholder skills and capacity.• Roles of local and catchment-level collaborators.• Setting objectives and building consensus between

stakeholders.• Development of management plans (including

technical and institutional components).• Establishing legitimacy of the plan (including both

formal legality and local acceptance).• Implementation of management plans.• Enforcement and conflict resolution.• Communication strategies for different stakeholders.

In addition to these social and institutional developmentskills, effective management of floodplain river fisherieswill also require a range of technical knowledge, e.g.about the following subjects:

Sustainability – its meaning and importance• Environmental, economic, social and institutional

sustainability.

Ecology of floodplain rivers• Sources of productivity in floodplain rivers.• Annual variations in flooding and productivity.• Interactions between sectors (e.g. fishing and

agriculture), and the need for integrated and locallyappropriate solutions.


Ecology of floodplain river fisheries• Seasonality – when are fish caught?• Spatial aspects – where are fish caught?• Behaviour of blackfish and whitefish.• Response to fishing of different types of fish, and the

effect of overexploitation.

Technical management tools for river fisheries• Harvest reserves, gear bans, habitat improvements,

stocking, licensing, leasing etc.• Implications of different tools on sustainability and

productivity of fish stocks (blackfish and whitefish).• Implications of different tools on distribution of

benefits between different fishing gears and differentstakeholders.

• Investigation and analysis of the fishery – choosingtechnical strategies and rules.

Adaptive management• What is adaptive management? (learning from

experience)• Why use it? How to use it?• Monitoring and feedback - simple or analytical?

These guidelines include material on many of the abovetopics, but they clearly can not provide all of thenecessary knowledge. More detailed information isprovided in FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 384/1 (see‘Preparation of this document’, page i). Other location-specific information and training will also be required.

4.3 Activities in each village co-management unit

Having considered the necessary skills and capacity, thefollowing lists describe the types of managementactivities that may be undertaken in the village co-management units. Many of these activities will benefitfrom the involvement of both the village members andthe catchment-level stakeholders (government officers,NGOs etc).

It is important to note that the activities required maydiffer significantly between villages and may be more orless detailed than the outline given below, depending onlocal capacity and the wishes of village members. Toencourage effective local participation, governmentmanagers should not force village collaborators toaccept any rigid or pre-planned structure. Theyshould instead encourage all of the stakeholders to worktogether to create management systems which they allbelieve will work for their local circumstances. Thefollowing guidelines are thus presented as a menu ofpossible components, or starting points for localdiscussions on how management might proceed.

These ‘village’ guidelines are divided into five basicsteps: (1) the identification of stakeholders, theirperceived problems, and their management objectives for

the fishery; (2) the assessment of the local fishery; (3) thedesign of a management plan; (4) implementation of theplan; and (5) the monitoring of outcomes and adaptationof the plan. Any effective long-term management systemmay be expected to include at least these basic steps, inone form or another.

Identification of stakeholders, and theirproblems and objectives

• Hold individual meetings with villagers, localgovernment agencies and NGOs etc to identify all ofthe ‘stakeholders’ of the fishery unit. Stakeholdersinclude all those people, groups or organisations thatare likely to be affected (either negatively or positively)by the management of the fishery, and also those thatcould influence its outcome (again either negatively orpositively). Identify the key stakeholders who maybecome the ‘owners’ and ‘partners’ for each unit.

• Hold a group meeting of all of the local and catchmentstakeholders, to discuss local fishery resources andidentify problems. Note that different communitymembers (e.g. water-body leaseholders, subsistencefishers and traders) may have very different views onthe fishery. The poorer or less powerful communitymembers may need support or encouragement toparticipate effectively in the meeting. Somestakeholders may need educating about concepts ofconservation and sustainability.

• At the group meeting, also discuss possibleobjectives for the management of the local fisheryunit (e.g. to increase the numbers of a valuable fishspecies, or improve the distribution of benefitsbetween village members). Again, note that differentpeople will have different objectives and work towardsdeveloping a consensus based on a properunderstanding of alternative perspectives.

• Write a clear statement declaring the managementobjective(s) for the fishery. Be specific and explainany trade-offs made between competing objectives. As far as possible, ensure that the statementrepresents the interests of all of the stakeholders.Choose compatible objectives, remembering that itmay not be possible to achieve all of the desiredobjectives at the same time. Ensure that thestatement allows for the needs of the poor(government regulations promote benefits to incomesand job opportunities for small-scale fishers, andmaintenance of fish supply for domesticconsumption).

Assessment of the fishery

• Encourage local fishers and other stakeholders toidentify the key factors that maintain the localproductivity of the fishery. These discussions shouldprovide an understanding of the natural resourcesavailable to the village, i.e. the local fish stocks andthe water-bodies and swamps etc that they live in. Discuss what management actions could be used tosustain these resources (e.g. harvest reserves for


blackfish).

• To help the discussions, it may be useful to drawmaps of the village fishing grounds, showing whichwater-bodies fish are thought to survive in over the dryseason, which channels they use to move betweenthe different fishing areas of the village, and wherethey are caught. Such maps should be drawn by thevillage members, and do not need to be highlyaccurate or detailed.

• Discuss which fish species are thought to survive thedry season in local water-bodies (i.e. blackfish) andwhich migrate in every year from the main river (i.e.whitefish). If the blackfish species are declining, thenlocal restrictions on the fishery may be useful (e.g.reserves, gear bans, less fishers etc). If whitefishspecies are declining, then it may be more useful toimprove their access to local waters (e.g. by banningbarrier traps or removing other blockages inchannels). Reference to the maps may show wheresuch management restrictions may be most usefullyapplied.

• Hold further discussions on which fishing gears maybe most responsible for causing any declines in thelocal fishery. The effects of different gears willdepend on where and when they are used – dryseason fishing gears will be most damaging forblackfish, while barrier gears may be worst forwhitefish. Consider what management tools could beused to reduce the negative effects of these gears(e.g. total bans of certain gear types, or general limitson fishing during migration seasons).

• Consider also the possible effects of otherenvironmental factors on the fishery (e.g. thedrainage of swamps for agriculture, declines in waterlevels or blockages in connecting channels). Some ofthese negative impacts may be difficult to resolve atlocal level (e.g. pollution from upstream), while othersmay be more controllable (e.g. by dredging siltedchannels). For some villages, scientific informationmay also be available on these issues, e.g. fromDinas Perikanan or BAPPEDA.

• Discuss which fishing gears compete with each other- such gears catch the same fish species, either at thesame time or in different seasons. A managementtool designed to benefit one gear may have negativeimpacts on another. Where such impacts may causesignificant difficulties for the owners of the gears,these problems may need to be allowed for in themanagement plan.

Design of the management plan

• Hold meeting(s) with both local and catchment-levelstakeholders to discuss the results of the fisheryassessments, and design an appropriatemanagement plan to achieve the selected localobjectives.

• The management plan should include an integrated‘technical strategy’ (a combination of different

management tools), to achieve (1) conservation offish, and (2) the fair distribution of social benefits fromthe fishery. The conservation of fish may be achievedby the use of harvest reserves or other tools asdescribed in Section 2.3 and Chapter 3. Thedistribution of social benefits will be affected by theuse of different access control measures (auctions,lotteries, free fishing areas etc).

• The plan should also include a complementary‘institutional strategy’, indicating who will beresponsible for each part of the management plan andhow it will be implemented. Who will set rules? Whowill monitor the fishery and ensure that rules areenforced? Who will resolve conflicts between villagemembers or with outsiders? How will revenue beraised to pay for any costs of management? Whenwill future assessments be done and by whom?

• Create a ‘village co-management committee’ or othersimple structure responsible for implementing theplan. Discuss the membership of the committee,representation of different stakeholder groups and theroles and relationships of the different members.

• Ensure that the plan has the greatest possible localbenefits, and the minimum possible negative impacts(ensuring its support by local people, and reducing therequirements for strong enforcement). Discuss givingcompensation or alternative opportunities to any badlyaffected fishers.

• Ensure that the plan is compatible with the capacityof the managing partners. People, technical skills,money and motivation may all be required in varyingamounts. If either the selected objectives or themanagement plan now seem too difficult to achieve,discuss how they can be simplified.

• Write up the management plan as an official villagedocument. The management plan document mayinclude the following sections:

the area to be managed;the stakeholders of the local fishery;the requested rights of the stakeholders (to be

confirmed by local legislation);the assessment of the fishery, and the problems being

addressed by the plan;the management objectives selected by the

stakeholders;the roles of the managing stakeholders and their

capacities for these roles;the initial technical management tools to be used;the mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement

of these tools;and the process for the future modification of the

management rules, as required.

Implementation of the management plan

• Establish the legal basis for the management plan. Submit the plan to the Bupati or to Pemda Tk II for itsapproval either as a Decision Letter or as a perdaregulation.


• When the plan is approved, publicise its key points toall of the stakeholders, e.g. at village meetings or bydistributing a summary leaflet. State any new rulesclearly and precisely: where do the new rules apply?;what are they intended to achieve?; when will theystart?; what are the penalties for offenders?.

• Where necessary, develop people’s awareness of theconservation principles underlying the managementplan. Effective education may be achieved bypublishing simple folklore stories for use in schools, orposters for display in public places. ConservationNGOs may be able to help with the development ofsuitable materials.

• Enforce the rules, and penalise offenders as required. Use graduated penalties, e.g. a formal warning for afirst offence, a moderate fine for a second offence anda large fine or a ban for any further offences.

• Resolve conflicts between fishers within the unit, andwith outsiders. The catchment stakeholders may alsosupport this process (see Section 4.4).

Monitoring of the fishery and adaptation ofthe management plan

• Monitor the inputs to the fishery (the new rules andother influencing factors) and the resulting outputs,and learn from the results observed over time. Monitoring may either be based on simple or detailedsurveys, or even just on discussions of fishers’ latestcatches and observations on the fishery at annualmeetings.

• Monitor the outputs of the fishery to show whether ornot the selected management objectives are beingachieved. Which outputs should be monitored willdepend on which objectives were selected for thefishery. They may include the revenue raised bylicensing the fishery, the catch rate per standard unitof gear fished (which should be proportional to theabundance of fish in the water), the average incomesor profits of the fishers, or the distribution of benefitsbetween village members.

• Monitor the amount and type of fishing (numbers offishers, use of different fishing gears, introduction ofnew gears) and the levels of illegal fishing etc. Thisshould show whether or not the selected managementtools are limiting fishing as intended in the plan.

• Monitor environmental conditions to determine theirlikely impact on the productivity of the fishery. Important factors may include water levels during theflood or the dry seasons, changes in local land usepractices, or pollution from upstream (see alsoSection 4.4).

• Each year, compare the current outputs from thefishery, with those in previous years, particularlylooking for trends in the outputs. Jointly examine thecurrent fishing practices, local environment conditions,and wider catchment influences to determine whatmay be responsible for current output levels.

Changes in outputs may be due to any one of thesefactors (a reduction in catch rate may, for example, bedue to low water levels and not to a new managementrule).

• If the fishery outputs are not meeting the unitobjectives due to continued high levels of fishing, or tochanges in fishing practices, adjust the technicalmanagement strategy as appropriate. Either the levelof regulations may be adjusted (e.g. the length of theclosed season may be increased), or newmanagement tools may be added.

• If the fishery outputs are not meeting the unitobjectives because the rules are not being followed(e.g. the reserve is being fished illegally), adjust theinstitutional management strategy as appropriate. Particular consideration should be give to whichstakeholders are ignoring the plan, and why?

• If the fishery outputs appear to be declining due to theimpacts of other sectors, ask catchment-levelmanagers to lobby for the fishery, or requestmitigation (see Section 4.4. below).

4.4 Catchment management andcoordination

Though village fishery units can do much to manage theirown resources, they are not independent of the wider riversystem. Whitefish stocks can be depleted by over-fishingin other parts of the river system. Water quality andquantity can also be badly affected by activities outsidethe village, reducing the productive potential of localblackfish stocks. Regional stakeholders may provideadvice, assistance and coordination on these wider issuesarising outside the village boundary. These activitiesshould be undertaken within distinct river catchments (orsub-divisions of them).

A catchment is defined as the land area from which waterdrains into a river system. The catchment provides anatural boundary for the river system and its fish stocks,and limits the area from which the fishery may beaffected. A village’s fish catches may thus be affected bypollution from an upstream source in the same catchment,but not by pollution in an adjacent catchment. Catchments vary enormously in size, however, andwhether a committee is formed to discuss fisheries issuesover an entire catchment or just some part of it willdepend on the scale of both the important problems andthe administrative challenge of forming an effective co-ordinating body.

Since a catchment area may not overlap with existingadministrative boundaries, catchment-levelmanagement may need to involve discussions on theshared use of river resources with agencies from adjacentkabupaten or provinces. In these cases, a full ‘catchmentcommittee’ would clearly need to involve members from


the different administrations. In other places, a provincialor kabupaten boundary may overlap sufficiently with thecatchment area for it to be able to manage the catchmentresources independently from other administrations. Catchment management should initially begin in thesesimpler cases to deal with problems that arise at a sub-catchment level, and then proceed to the morecomplicated ones.

The following points then, discuss the potential regionalactivities that may be undertaken by the catchment-levelmanagers, over and above their assistance to the villageunits described in the previous sections. The activitiesfall into three general categories: (1) promoting and co-ordinating the village units; (2) representing the fishery inits interaction with other sectors; and (3) contributing tothe adaptive learning process.

Promotion and coordination of village units

• Promote the development of more village co-management units to increase the numbers of localunits contributing to sustainable management ofresources within the catchment. River fish stocks arelikely to be much healthier if they are sustainablymanaged in the majority of fishing villages, than in justone or two. Select villages according to the criteria inSection 4.1, and provide training as described inSection 4.2.

• Promote collaboration in the management activitiesof adjacent units, particularly to enable migration ofwhitefish stocks. Discuss the implications of barriertraps and river channel blockages in one village onthe migrations of fish into adjacent villages.

• As requested by the village committees, assist withthe resolution of conflicts between units. Catchment-level collaborators may either play the roleof a neutral mediator for discussions between thevillages, or that of an arbitrator when the villagesrequest an external decision to be made.

Representation of fishery interests atcatchment planning level

• Investigate the potential impacts of other sectors onthe catchment’s fisheries, and promote theconsideration of fishery requirements indevelopment planning decisions. Floodplain riverfisheries may be negatively affected by a wide rangeof different forces, including agriculture, irrigationsystems, transport networks, forestry, deforestation,water abstraction, urban growth, industry, hydro-electric power and flood control schemes. Thecatchment committee may provide a much morepowerful voice than the members of single villagesworking on their own, especially if it is able todemonstrate the benefits being produced by anotherwise well-managed fishery.

Contribution to the adaptive learningprocess

• Inform village-level managers about the anticipated orestimated impacts on their fisheries of newdevelopments in the catchment. Such informationmay assist local managers to interpret their monitoringdata. If a new upstream dam destroys the spawninggrounds of whitefish for example, villagers should bewarned to expect declines in whitefish stocks (and notto attribute such declines solely to the effects of theirown management activities).

• Facilitate committee members from different villagesin the collaborative interpretation of their fisheryoutcomes, enabling them to learn directly from theexperiences of others. This process may be achievedby holding annual discussions attended by thecatchment stakeholders and representatives of all theactive village units in the catchment. An annualstatement may be written on the achievements of thedifferent villages, and distributed to all of thestakeholders to reinforce the learning process andprovide new ideas for local use.

• In addition to monitoring the simple inputs andoutputs, monitor the successes and/or failures of thedifferent village units in designing and implementingtheir management plans. Such ‘process monitoring’may reinforce the village selection guidelines given inSection 2.1 and 2.2 and provide other useful lessons. Skills will be required in social and institutional areas,which may be contributed by NGOs or governmentdepartments responsible for rural development.

• Where appropriate, develop a formal, analytical,empirical system of adaptive management, capable oflearning lessons by making comparisons betweenthe village units. Monitor the management activitiesundertaken in the village units, and the outcomes thatthey achieve. Take account of the wide range ofexternal and internal factors that may affect outcomes. A reserve in one village may, for example, be workingbetter than one in another village because it is in adeeper or less polluted water-body, or because itsregulations are better enforced. The most usefullessons may be learnt by monitoring how a newmanagement tool changes a village’s outputs,compared to another nearby village without the newtool. For these comparisons, both ‘before’ and ‘after’data are required for both the ‘with’ and the ‘without’villages. Such lessons will only be learned when thereare sufficient local management units participatingover long enough time periods.

• To improve the comparability of data from differentsites, supplement the village’s own monitoring datawith additional records on both inputs and outputs in astandard format. Such data may be based on simplesurveys of catch rates of different gear types or fishspecies. The catchment committee should fund thecollection of such data rather than the villages. Thisformal, analytical adaptive management style shouldbe seen as a long-term goal, to be worked towardsonly gradually.

Dinas Perikanan CRIFI · knowledge about the co-management of natural resources. Depending on their...

Documents

Transcript of Dinas Perikanan CRIFI · knowledge about the co-management of natural resources. Depending on their...