Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies Quantitative and ...
-
Upload
nguyenminh -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
3
Transcript of Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies Quantitative and ...
Selected Indonesian Fisheries SubsidiesQuantitative and Qualitative Assessment of
Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
By A. Ghofar, D.K. Schorr, and A. Halim
The Nature Conservancy - Coral Triangle Center
Sanur, Bali, Indonesia
December 2008
:
The Authors
(Note: Institutional affiliations are given for purposes of identification only)
Abdul Ghofar is a senior member of the Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science at Diponegoro University in Semarang, Indonesia (email: [email protected]); David Schorr is an independent consultant based in Washington, DC, with expertise in international fisheries policy and environmental aspects of globalization (email: [email protected]); Abdul Halim is Program Manager at The Nature Conservancy - Coral Triangle Center in Bali, Indonesia (email: [email protected]).
Copyright :
The Nature Conservancy – Coral Triangle Center, Jl. Pengembak No. 2 Sanur, Bali, Indonesia. 2008.
All photos copyright of The Nature Conservancy, except photo on page 9 used by permission from Jones/Shimlock - Secret Sea.
i
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Acknowledgements
This study was commissioned by The Nature Conservancy through its Coral Triangle Center (CTC) in Bali, Indonesia, and was carried out in cooperation with the Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) and MMAF’s senior advisory body, the Komnas Kajiskan.
The authors acknowledge the invaluable support and help of many individuals during data gathering and field observations, especially from key staff of the MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT), MMAF DG-Marine Coasts and Small Islands (DJ-K3PK), DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP), the MMAF Secretariat General, the Komnas Kajiskan, and the Provincial Fisheries and Marine Services in Semarang, Surabaya, Denpasar, Mataram and Kupang, the District Fisheries and Marine Services in Pekalongan, Batang, Pati, Banyuwangi, Jembrana, Lombok Timur, Kota and Kabupaten Kupang. Extensive and useful discussions were also held with key staff at Gappindo (Indonesia’s Fisheries Entrepreneurs Association) MPN (Indonesia’s Fisheries Society) and HNSI (Fishermen Association of Indonesia), whom we deeply appreciate.
The authors received invaluable help and support during the field work in those districts, from Dr. A. Suherman of the Diponegoro University (UNDIP) Fisheries Department, Mr. I. Gede Wiadnya of the Nature Conservancy, Ir. Mian S. Sitanggang of the MMAF, Mr. Sarjani, and Mr. Suhadi, MM, Chief, Fisheries Enterpreneur in Juwana - Pati, Central Java, without whom data collection would not have been effective. Special thanks are due to Dr. Purwito, Chief of Komnas Kajiskan, Dr. Victor Nikijuluw of MMAF, and Rili Djohani, TNC’s Country Director, whose continuous support and encouragement made this publication possible. Maps and some translation services were provided by Arief Darmawan and Juliana Tomasouw of TNC CTC. And also Mr. Imran Amin of TNC CTC for layout and design, to whom the authors express their gratitude.
Finally we thank the intrepid fishermen of the districts in which this study was carried out for their generous time in interviews and discussions. It is our hope that this study will contribute to their continued development and the security of their livelihoods—and to the sustainable future of all of Indonesia’s marine fisheries and fishing communities. Special thanks are extended to Mr. Sarjani, a prominent fisherman in Juwana, Pati, whose long and intelligent efforts have contributed greatly to the independence and prosperity of many Indonesian fishermen. Our sincere gratitude is always due to the late Mr. Badaruddin, who passed away in August shortly after providing invaluable assistance to our field research team.
Naturally, however, the analysis and conclusions presented in this study—and any errors they may contain—remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
ii
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii
Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................. iv
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................1
A. Indonesian fisheries at the crossroads .............................................................. 1
B. The goal: healthy ecosystems, sustainable livelihoods ..................................... 2
II. Data Underlying this Report ...............................................................................5
III. An Overview of Indonesia’s Fisheries Subsidies .................................................7
A. The definition of “fisheries subsidy” ................................................................. 7
B. The scale of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ...................................................... 8
C. The kinds of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ..................................................... 9
D. Indonesian fuel subsidies ................................................................................ 11
E. The “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ........................................ 12
IV. The Perceptions of Fishermen .......................................................................... 16
V. Discussion: Policy Coherence & Effectiveness .................................................... 19
A. The first issue—sustainability ......................................................................... 19
B. Other issues — effectiveness, equity, and transparency ................................. 21
VI. Conclusions & Recommendations ..................................................................... 24
A. General conclusions ........................................................................................ 24
B. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 25
Appendix A — Definitions of “Fisheries Subsidy” ................................................... 28
Appendix B — Tabel 6 Exploitation Levels of Major Indonesian Fisheries ............... 32
APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................. 33
Appendix Table 1 —Total Subsidies by Authority and Year (Rp) ............................ 34
Appendix Table 2 —Total Subsidies by Authority and Year (USD) ........................ 35
Appendix Table 3 — MMAF Budgets, by Program & Year ..................................... 36
Appendix Table 4 — Provincial & District Budgets, by Program & Year ................ 38
Appendix Table 5 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries) .................. 43
iii
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Appendix Table 6 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands) .................................................................................................. 51
Appendix Table 7 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Product Processing & Marketing) ...................................................................................................... 60
Appendix Table 8 — Survey Results (Bali Strait Fishers) ........................................ 65
Appendix Table 9 — Survey Result (Java Sea Fishers) ........................................... 67
Appendix Table 10 — Survey Results (Nusa Tenggara Fishers) .............................. 71
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 75
Endnotes ............................................................................................................... 78
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation English Meaning Equivalent in Bahasa Indonesia
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Kerjasama Ekonomi Asia-PasifikASCM WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing MeasuresPerjanjian WTO tentang subsidi dan Countervailing Measures
BBM Fuel Oil Program Bahan Bakar MinyakDJ-KP3K MMAF DG-Marine Coasts & Small
IslandsDirektorat Jenderal Kelautan Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil
DJ-P2HP MMAF DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing
Direktorat Jenderal Pengolahan dan Pemasaran Hasil Perikanan
DJPT MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan TangkapFAO U.N. Food and Agriculture
OrganizationOrganisasi Pangan dan Pertanian PBB
FMP Fisheries Management Plan Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan (“RPP”)Komnas Kajiskan National Commission for Fish
Resources AssessmentKomisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan
MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan (“DKP”)
MPA Marine Protected Area Kawasan Konservasi PerairanOECD Organization for Economic
Cooperation and DevelopmentOrganisasi untuk Kerjasama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan
PEMP Coastal Community Economy Empowerment Program
Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Masyarakat Pesisir
PUPTSK Small Scale Fishing Enterprise Development Program
Pengembangan Usaha Perikanan Tangkap Skala Kecil
Rakornas National Coordination Meeting Rapat Koordinasi NasionalWTO World Trade Organization Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia
I. Introduction
A. Indonesian fisheries at the crossroads
Indonesia is blessed with many rich and prolific fisheries—fisheries that provide livelihoods to nearly 5.5 million Indonesians and are the primary source of dietary protein for more than half of the nation’s 225 million people. But even Indonesia’s fisheries are not limitless. After decades in which both private sector economics and government policies encouraged a dramatic expansion of fishing (see Table 1 – Indonesia’s Fishing Fleet and Fisheries Production), many of Indonesia’s most valuable fisheries have reached or exceeded their biological limits. The future of Indonesia’s fisheries—and of communities that depend on them for income and food—now depends on policies to halt overfishing and to manage Indonesian fisheries for long term sustainability.
Table 1 – Indonesia’s Fishing Fleet and Fisheries Production
The need to shift Indonesia’s fisheries policies towards sustainability has been clearly recognized by the Komnas Kajiskan (“National Commission for Fish Resources Assessment”), the eminent stakeholder committee that advises the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF). In 2007, the Komnas issued a report warning that more than half of Indonesia’s fisheries are fully- or over-exploited, with another quarter in “uncertain” condition (see Figure 1 and Appendix B). As the Komnas noted in a formal policy recommendation accompanying the report:
Indonesia’s capture fisheries are threatened by a precipitous decline due to over-exploitation of major income-generating fish stocks. This puts at risk incomes and job opportunities of Indonesia’s coastal communities. Given that millions of people in Indonesia are dependent upon small-scale fishing for protein and cash, the current focus on continued expansion of fisheries is endangering economic development and food security.1
Fortunately, the process of reform has begun, guided by new Indonesian legislation. Fisheries Law No. 31/2004 requires an end to policies focused only on expanding
Number of decked vessels Total catch (tones)
Based on FAO 2002, Fig. 15 Source: FAO 2008
Indonesia’s fishing fleets have been among the fastest growing in the world, rising more than 600% from 1975 to 1994, and continuing to grow to the present. Catches also rose steadily . . . until 2003.
2
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
production, while Law No. 27/2007 calls for improved management of coastal zones and small islands. Taken together, this new legal framework enshrines sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystem management at the core of Indonesian fisheries policy.2 As a critical step towards fulfilling this vision, the Komnas Kajiskan has also recommended the prompt creation and implementation of fisheries management plans (FMPs) in all priority Indonesian fisheries.3
However, the shift towards sustainable fisheries in Indonesia is still in its early phases. The old emphasis on expanding production continues to be found in elements of MMAF policy and practice. For example, as recently as 2007, MMAF strategic plans continued to call for the continuous expansion of Indonesia’s wild capture fisheries production by approximately 3% per year.4
Indonesia—and MMAF as the steward of its valuable fisheries—is thus passing through a time of significant transition. There is good evidence that the policy trends are positive. Official publications5 as well as recent policy statements issued by the Director General of MMAF’s Capture Fisheries division6 suggest dynamic movement within MMAF towards policies that emphasize long-term sustainability. But the task is not small, especially considering the breadth of MMAF’s responsibilities for fisheries across dozens of increasingly autonomous provinces and districts.
In this context, there is a pressing need to focus new attention on the role of subsidies in Indonesia’s fishery sector. As noted below, Indonesia makes significant use of subsidies as part of its sectoral strategy. But, as history has shown in developed and developing countries around the world, inappropriate subsidies can contribute to fleet overcapacity and overfishing. Indonesian policymakers and stakeholders are increasingly aware of ongoing international efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and elsewhere to curtail harmful subsidies and to prevent them from contributing further to the global overfishing crisis.7
B. The goal: healthy ecosystems, sustainable livelihoods
The fundamental question presented in this report is whether Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are currently used in a manner consistent with the core principles at the heart of Indonesia’s fisheries legislation. These core principles begin with the goal of maximizing the contribution of the fisheries sector to the welfare of Indonesia’s fisheries-dependent communities, with a high priority on poverty reduction and improved livelihoods.
Indonesian fisheries today are at an important crossroads, poised between the “industrial development” models of the past and the “sustainable management” model of the future. In this context, it is important to consider how fisheries subsidies are being used.
3
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Figu
re 1
— S
tatu
s of
Indo
nesi
a Fi
sher
y Re
sour
ces
Stat
us o
f Fis
heri
es R
esou
rces
per
Fish
ery
Man
agem
ent A
rea
and
per
Stoc
k C
ateg
ory
6
4
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
But the ability of fisheries to provide livelihoods and food security ultimately depends on the long-term sustainability of fishing itself. The contribution of fisheries subsidies to Indonesia’s economic development thus depends on the success of Indonesia’s fisheries management. This essential triangle—explored more deeply in the discussion of policy coherence in Section V, below—is summarized graphically in Figure 2.
Figure 2 -- The Critical Problem: Policy Coherence
The inextricable links among the economics of fishing, the husbandry of fisheries resources, and the development of Indonesian communities is already clearly acknowledged in Indonesian fisheries policy.8 It has also been noted in leading reviews of Indonesia’s fisheries sector, such as one recently conducted by the Asia Development Bank.9 The goal of this report is to advance dialogue over the degree to which Indonesian fisheries subsidies are playing the positive role desired by the government and by stakeholders. Although this report is restricted to a preliminary review of selected subsidy programs, it is hoped that the conclusions presented in Section VI will serve as a solid basis for further discussion and reform.
II. Data Underlying this Report
This report is based primarily on two sets of data collected by our research team from July 2007 to February 2008. The first set consists of budgetary information received from MMAF and from a small number of provincial and district level authorities. Much of this information is being made public for the first time. The authors wish to acknowledge and thank MMAF and local authorities for their remarkable openness and cooperation throughout this study.
Notwithstanding the high level of cooperation from MMAF and others, however, the budgetary data presented in this study is only partially representative of all Indonesian fisheries subsidy programs. Given limited resources for field research, we have been unable to conduct a comprehensive review. However, we have been able to collect budgetary data from three key MMAF departments: DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT); DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP); and DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands (DJ-KP3K). Limited provincial and district level data was also collected in some of the sites where we conducted local case studies. Largely excluded from our study were subsidies that are provided by national ministries other than MMAF, as well as subsidies granted at the provincial and district level outside of our case study sites. For an overview of the data made available for this study, see Table 2.
Table 2 — Budget Data Obtained for this Study
Jurisdictional Level
Administering Authority Years Covered
National (MMAF)
DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT) 2005-07
DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP) 2005-06
DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands (DJ-KP3K) 2005, 2007
Provincial
Bali Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005-06
Central Java Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006
East Java Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005
East Lombok Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005
East Nusa Tenggara Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006
West Nusa Tenggara Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006
District/ Local
Banyuwangi District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2004
Batang District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2004-05
Kota Kupang & District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2007
Pati District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005-06
Pekalongan District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005
6
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
The second set of data underlying this report came from a series of field interviews conducted by our research team with over eighteen hundred Indonesian fishermen. These surveys were designed to learn about the impact of fisheries subsidies from the perspective of fishermen, and to “spot check” what kinds of subsidies are evident on the ground in a few specific localities. The sites for these case studies were selected to cover major Indonesian fisheries of several different kinds. Surveys were conducted in fishing communities located in five provinces and involving fishermen active in seven different fisheries (see infra Section IV).
These two data sets were collected through an inclusive process of research and stakeholder consultations that comprised:
(i) Preliminary discussions with, and data collection from, MMAF and national stakeholders, including through an initial stakeholders workshop held in Jakarta on 16 May 2007 (co-convened by TNC and the Komnas Kajiskan);
(ii) Discussions with, and data collection from, five provincial Marine Fisheries Services in Semarang (Central Java), Surabaya (East Java), Denpasar (Bali), Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara), and Kupang (East Nusa Tenggara);
(iii) Discussions with, and data collection from, ten district- and town-level Marine Fisheries Services in Pekalongan, Batang, Pati, Banyuwangi, Muncar, Jembrana, Lombok Timur, Kabupaten Kupang, and Kota Kupang;
(iv) Observations and discussion with key fishermen and/or informal leaders at the case study sites;
(v) Collection of survey data from 250-300 fishers at each of seven sites;j
(vi) Preliminary data analysis and summarizing;
(vii) Results verification with officials at district and provincial levels and with MMAF in Jakarta;
(viii) Discussions with stakeholders at a second workshop held in Bogor (West Java) on 17 June 2008, to receive feedback on a summary (in Bahasa) of an early draft of this paper; and
(ix) Discussions with MMAF and Komnas Kajiskan at a third workshop in Jakarta on 25 July 2008, for input into the conclusions and recommendations section of this paper.
It is hoped that the final draft of this report will be formally presented to national MMAF officials and stakeholders convened by the Komnas Kajiskan. It is also proposed that these be followed by further follow-up meetings at MMAF and with provincial and district stakeholders.
III. An Overview of Indonesia’s Fisheries Subsidies
A. The definition of “fisheries subsidy”
As described more fully in Appendix A, the term “fisheries subsidy” can be the subject of substantial technical and political debate. In many cases, the specific meaning of the term depends on the context in which it is used. Most narrowly, the term has a legal definition at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the technical concept of a “subsidy” delimits the government activities disciplined by the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ASCM”” or “WTO Subsidies Code”). More broadly, a purely economic definition may consider a subsidy to be any commercial benefit that is not monetized and “purchased” by its beneficiary. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tends this way, at times defining “subsidy” to include uncompensated commercial benefits transferred entirely among private actors, and reserving the term “government financial transfers” for subsidies provided by the public sector. Technical discussions within the FAO have concluded that no single, simple, and universal definition of “fisheries subsidy” is possible, and have identified at least four basic kinds of “public-to-private” benefits that may be covered by the term.
This paper need not look far into this definitional discussion. We are mainly focused on direct and indirect financial transfers that have both budgetary consequences for the Government of Indonesia and real-world impacts on the health of Indonesian fisheries and fishing communities. Accordingly, we adopt an approach that examines “fisheries subsidies” of four basic kinds:
• Direct government payments, loans, or in-kind transfers of goods (such as subsidized fuel, ice, or bait) or services (such as training) to fishermen or fishing enterprises;
• Indirect transfers in the form of goods, services, or activities from which fishers derive an immediate benefit (such as port infrastructure, marketing and promotion programs); and
• Tax rebates or other tax relief offered to fishermen or fishing enterprises;
• Direct programmatic spending on conservation and management of fisheries.
By calling these government expenditures “subsidies” we do not intend to take sides in any policy debate. For example, being
The fact
that an
expenditure
is included
in this
study does
not mean
that it is or
should be
considered
a “subsidy”
as defined by
the WTO.
8
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
included in this study does not mean that an expenditure is or should be considered a subsidy under the rules of the WTO. Expenditures on conservation and fisheries management almost certainly fall outside the WTO definition. We include such expenditures here for two reasons: first, a balanced review of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies requires some consideration of the government’s investments directly in sustainability; second, (as discussed in Appendix A), other leading discussions of fisheries subsidies, and some governments, routinely include management costs in their catalogue of fisheries subsidies, and so for the sake of comparison with the international literature it is useful to include them here as well.
B. The scale of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies
The total value of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies remains difficult to ascertain precisely, particularly in light of the limited sources of data available for this study. Nevertheless, in an effort to provide a “guesstimate” of Indonesia’s total, we considered three sources of information:
First, we looked at the MMAF and sub-national authority budgets available to us, as summarized in rupiah in Appendix Table 1 and in U.S. dollars in Appendix Table 2 In estimating the overall scale of Indonesian subsidies, we began by looking at MMAF expenditures in 2005, the most complete year for which we have data. The three directorate generals participating in this study provided subsidies in 2005 totaling Rp306.3 billion (USD $33.7 million). These figures do not include fuel subsidies, discussed separately (see Section III.D).
We then looked at provincial and district level data in the localities for which data was provided. Over the three years 2005-07, data from these five provinces and seven districts suggest average yearly subsidies that approach Rp80 billion (USD $8.8 million) per year.10
It is very difficult to extrapolate from this data to calculate total provincial and local fisheries subsidies nationwide. However, our data may allow a very rough estimate of this figure. Most of the subsidies for which we have provincial and local data come from the provinces of Bali and the two Nusa Tenggaras. Taken together, these provinces appear to have provincial and local subsidies in excess of Rp54.4 billion (USD $6.0 million) per year. The FAO reports that in 2004 the provinces of Bali and the Nusa Tenggaras accounted for 5.59% of Indonesia’s total marine catch. (FAO 2007) If subsidies were distributed evenly across Indonesia’s catch (which, of course, may not be the case, especially since the fisheries studied here are among the more important of Indonesia’s fisheries), this would suggest total provincial and district subsidies in the range of Rp973 billion (USD $107 million) annually.
By combining the foregoing, we arrive at a total of roughly Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year from the main MMAF subsidy programs plus provincial and local sources nationwide. Some additional subsidies certainly are provided from other national-level programs, but our study gives no basis for estimating these.
As a complementary method of estimating overall Indonesian fisheries subsidies, we have considered two previously published studies available in the international literature. The first was a regional study sponsored by APEC governments in 2000 and produced
9
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
by the international accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.11 That study was conducted in dialogue with the Government of Indonesia, among others. It reported Indonesian fisheries subsidies totaling approximately USD $250 million (Rp2,273 billion) per year, excluding fuel subsidies. A second study was published in 2006 by the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (Canada).12 That study—which in the case of Indonesia relied heavily on the APEC figures plus other information—estimated the Indonesian total to be USD $343.2 million (Rp3,120 billion) per year, excluding fuel.
The figures offered by the APEC and UBC studies are substantially higher than our own estimates. There may, however, be several reasons for this, such as the inclusion in those studies of programs we would tend not to count as subsidies (e.g., investments from international development banks) and of programs some of which may have been dedicated to aquaculture. Nevertheless, those studies suggest that Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year may be a conservative estimate.
C. The kinds of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies
Indonesia makes use of fisheries subsidies in many different forms and for different purposes. Drawing on preliminary interviews and desk studies, we originally identified six basic kinds of Indonesian fisheries subsidies programs:
1. Coastal community development subsidies, mainly through the Coastal Community Economy Empowerment Program (“Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Masyarakat Pesisir, or “PEMP”);
2. Fishing enterprise development programs, mainly through the Small Scale Fishing Enterprise Development Program (“Pengembangan Usaha Perikanan Tangkap Skala Kecil” or “PUPTSK”), which consists of several subsidiary programs for optimizing specific fishing or fisheries-related activities (known as the “OPTI” programs);
3. Fuel subsidies, mainly through the Fuel Oil Program (“Bahan Bakar Minyak” or “BBM”);
4. Various supports for fisheries and marine conservation, management, and rehabilitation;
5. Fishing harbor infrastructure subsidies, mainly through the Development of Infrastructure Program (“Pengembangan Sarana Prasarana” or “PSP”); and
6. Other programs, including price supports and subsidized credit programs for providing easily accessible capital to fishing, processing, and marketing activities.
We conservatively
estimate annual Indonesian
fisheries subsidies
to be Rp 1,280 billion (USD
$140 million), not including
subsidies to fuel
. . .
the total is equivalent to ≈ 10% of the total value of
Indonesia’s fisheries and ≈ 30% of its
fisheries exports.
Jo
nes/
Shim
lock
- Se
cret
Sea
10
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
However, a more detailed profile of Indonesian fisheries subsidies emerges from the data we collected in the field. As a general matter, that data is not consistently organized into the program categories just listed. This may be due to flux in the administrative names of programs, or to differing terms in budgetary and other administrative usage. In any case, a summary of subsidies broken out into the program categories used in the budget materials is set forth for MMAF in Appendix Table 3 and for provincial and district authorities in Appendix Table 4.
Even the program descriptions in the budgetary materials are rather broad. For a better understanding of how Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are actually used, we further categorized the available budget data on an activity-by-activity basis, relying on the brief activity labels associated with each budget line. The thirteen classification categories we used are included in Table 3.
Table 3 — Distribution of Subsidies by Activity Type (excluding fuel)
Activity Type Object of Subsidy % of Total
Infrastructure Port facilities (not otherwise categorized as “Value Added Equipment & Activities”)
20.1%
Conservation & Management Fisheries management activities & programs 17.5%
Fisheries Development A program category used by MMAF to describe various activities meant to increase production from fisheries
11.5%
Directly Capacity-enhancing Gear or vessel acquisition, repair, modernization, etc. (i.e. direct additions to physical fishing capacity)
10.4%
Value Added Equipment & Activities
Physical infrastructure and activities (other than training) for processing/handling to improve value or value added
11.8%
Marketing and Promotion Programs to help market fish products (including export promotion) or to increase fish consumption,
5.8%
Access to Credit Loans & loan guarantees (where use is not sufficiently restricted to allow categorization into another category)
5.3%
Skills (fishing) Training in fishing techniques 1.3%
Social Safety Net Income supports, unemployment relief, etc. 1.0%
Operating Costs (exclusive of fuel) Operating costs of fishing (e.g., bait, ice) 0.8%
Skills (value-added) Training in handling/processing techniques 0.4%
Other Subsidy type not clear or not included in other categories
13.9%
Total 100.0%
After classifying the subsidies in this manner, we calculated roughly the percentage of funds used in each category. This calculation was, however, complicated by the fact that much of the budget data was available only for one or two years in the 2005-07 period (see Table 2). For the three MMAF directorate generals participating in this study (together
11
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
comprising 88% of the budgetary data collected), complete data was available only for 2005. The data from provinces and districts were also spread across several years, with most jurisdictions providing data for only a single year.
To compensate for the uneven temporal distribution of available data, we ran the numbers three different ways,14 all of which produced roughly the same results, with no activity type varying by more than a few percentage points. Accordingly, Table 3 averages the results of the foregoing methods to give the proportional distribution of subsidy amounts by activity types across the basket of programs we studied. The totals are presented graphically in Figure 3.
D. Indonesian fuel subsidies
The foregoing discussion does not take account of fuel subsidies, which the fishery sector—like other economic sectors in Indonesia—has received in large amounts. The BBM fuel subsidy program mentioned in the previous section is a nationwide program aimed at small businesses. The portion of this national program made available to fishermen is administered by MMAF.
Estimating the quantity of fuel subsidies granted to Indonesia’s fishery sector is difficult, since fuel subsidies are disbursed in the form of low cost fuel, and thus do not appear as an item on MMAF program budgets. Still, according to information provided by MMAF, the total value of fuel subsidies received by Indonesian fishermen was Rp3,558 billion in 2005 and Rp3,624 billion in 2006—approximately USD $390-400 million per year15. By comparison, the UBC study mentioned earlier (Sumaila & Pauly (2006)) estimates
Figure 3 — Distribution of Subsidies by Activity Type (excluding fuel)
12
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Indonesian fuel subsidies at Rp1,554 billion (USD $171 million) per year. Meanwhile, a press report from the Antara news service in April 2006 reported that Indonesian fishers consume approximately 2.61 billion liter of fuel each year at a subsidy rate of Rp829 per liter.16 This would give an annual subsidy level of around Rp2,163 billion (USD $238 million) per year. Other news reports further suggest that calculations of the legally available fuel subsidy for fishermen understate the real situation, since some fishers illegally purchase even more heavily subsidized fuel at prices intended to support poor households.17
By any measures, fuel subsidies for Indonesia’s fishery sector are very high—possibly as much as four times higher than our estimates for all other Indonesian fisheries subsidies combined (see Section III.B).
The fuel subsidy policy, however, appears to be undergoing rapid change, at least with regard to other sectors of the economy. In 2005, the government announced its intention to phase out fuel subsidies, and promulgated Presidential Regulation No. 22/2005, which raised the national price of fuel by 29%. The impact on the fisheries sector was immediate and severe, leading to a substantial outcry. A few months later, the President issued a second decree—Presidential Regulation No. 55/2005—ordering a new subsidy for small-scale fishers. The following year, Presidential Regulation No. 9/2006 extended this relief to nearly all fishermen, regardless of their vessel size.
Although the national policy of reducing fuel subsidies generally continues—another 28.7% rise in the basic national price was announced just a few months before completion of this study18—so far as we are aware there has been no reduction in fuel subsidies to the fishery sector. Indeed, at least one report suggests that the government considers the fishery sector one of the last where fuel subsidies will be eliminated.19 And as fuel prices rise sharply, political pressure to maintain or increase fuel subsidies for fishers also rise.20
In sum, fuel subsidies remain a very significant contribution to the underlying economics of Indonesia’s fishery sector. As discussed below, these and other direct subsidies to operating costs must be considered among the most likely to have a direct influence on fishing activities. Because such subsidies immediately intensify fishing activities, they are considered “high risk” subsidies in the discussion in the next section of this paper.
E. The “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies
The central question raised by this paper is the extent to which fisheries subsidies make a coherent and effective contribution to the sustainable management of Indonesia’s fisheries and marine environment. The limited resources available for this study have prevented a direct measurement of the impacts of fisheries subsidies in Indonesia. As a first step towards answering this question, we offer instead an overview of the “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies as a whole. This profile aims to classify subsidy types according to their potential for contributing to overfishing or overcapacity, or conversely, their potential to promote sustainability. The profile was assembled by adding a probable “risk level” to each of the subsidized activity categories discussed above (see Table 3), as follows:
13
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Table 4 — Subsidized Activities and Risk Ratings
Subsidy Types Risk Rating
Directly capacity-enhancing Very HighOperating Costs Very High“Fisheries Development” Very HighAccess to Capital HighInfrastructure ModerateMarketing & promotion ModerateOther ModerateSkills (fishing) ModerateSocial Safety Net ModerateSkills (value added) Low (Positive?)Value added equip & activ. Low (Positive?)Conservation & Mgmt Likely to be Positive
These risk categories are consistent with the international literature on classification of fisheries subsidies and their potential impacts.21 Basic economic theory, as well as documented experience, has clearly shown that direct subsidies to fishing capital or effort (such as subsidies for vessel construction or modernization, or subsidies to operating inputs such as fuel) have a very high potential for contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. UNEP, among others, has rated such subsidies as “harmful” (and not just “possibly harmful”) in any fishery that is not fully managed under a strict “property rights” management regime.22 This kind of management regime remains the exception rather than the rule globally (even in developed countries), and is not yet practiced in Indonesia. Moreover, subsidies for “fisheries development” are classically associated with efforts to raise fisheries output, such the “old style” Indonesian fisheries policy discussed in Section I.A, above.
Below the subsidies that are classified as “very high risk” in Table 4, other subsidy types are given decreasing risk assignments. “Access to Capital” has been rated a “high” risk because it is closely associated with direct investments in fishing capacity. The remaining subsidy categories are rated from “moderate” to “low (positive?)” risk, or even “likely to be positive”. Again, both economic theory and case studies such as those cited above have shown that subsidies with an indirect relationship to fishing capacity and effort have some risk, but are significantly less likely to contribute to overfishing. Subsidies that increase value added can obviously have a positive impact on resource management (if steps are taken to avoid encouraging intensification of fishing), and management subsidies are in principal considered positive.
In short, the risk classifications used here are based on the degree to which certain classes of subsidies have the potential to contribute to unsustainable fishing capacity or effort. However, placing Indonesian subsidies into these categories is not intended as a definitive judgment of the quality of any specific program. These classifications are based on the activity titles in government budgetary documents—
14
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
the actual operation of the programs was not reviewed. Apart from the possibility of miscategorizing a program in this manner, it is possible that even programs considered “high risk” can have reduced risks if they are implemented in well-regulated fisheries.23 Nevertheless, the risk categories used here can assist policymakers and stakeholders in identifying subsidy programs that could benefit from priority attention and possible reform.
When the available data was reviewed according to these categories, and with fuel subsidies excluded, it was found that approximately 25% of expenditures were in the “Very High” or “High” risk categories, 45% in the “Moderate” risk category, and 30% in the “Low” or “Likely to be Positive” categories (see Figure 4). Again, given the partial nature of the data available, it is not possible to extrapolate these findings to the whole of Indonesian fisheries subsidies.
Figure 4 — Overall Risk Profile (available data 2005-07)
If the risk analysis is limited to MMAF data (i.e., excluding provincial and district subsidies), two noteworthy results appear. First, the overall risk profile shifts somewhat towards higher risk, with the combination of “Very High” and “High” moving from 25% of the total to 32% (see Figure 5). Second, the available data suggest significant variability in the risk profile for MMAF subsidies from year to year, as evident in Figure 6. It is especially interesting to note that MMAF substantially increased its “directly capacity enhancing” subsidies in 2006-07, due mainly to new spending on vessels and gear by DG-Capture Fisheries (see Appendix Table 3). On the other hand, spending on the lowest risk and positive categories also increased substantially.
15
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Figure 5 — MMAF Risk Profile (available data 2005-07)
Figure 6 — MMAF Risk Profiles (available data, by year)
Finally, it is again necessary to consider fuel subsidies. If fuel subsidies (which fall squarely within the “operating costs” category) are counted at the 2005-6 levels of Rp3,600 billion per year (as MMAF data suggest), then the percentage of “High Risk” subsidies in the MMAF portfolio would rise to more than 90%.
IV. The Perceptions of Fishermen
As noted above, extensive field interviews were carried out with fishers in seven fishing communities located in five provinces and involving fishermen active in seven different fisheries. The sites for these surveys are summarized in Figure 7 and Table 5.
Table 5 — Field Study Locations
Province Locality Fisheries
Central JavaPekalongan
Java Sea small pelagic purse seine
Java Sea demersal handline & “cotok” and “cantrang”
BatangPati
East Java BanyuwangiBali Strait Oil Sardine purse sein
Bali Jembrana
West Nusa Tenggara
Lombok Timur Alas Strait squid (”oras”-lampara type)
Off Nusa Tenggara, shark long line
East Nusa Tenggara24
Kota Kupang port (Tenau) Sawu Sea tuna
handlineOebaba (landing site)
Sawu Sea small pelagic purse seine
Oesapa fishing villageKabupaten Kupang
Figure 7 — Field Study Locations (Map)
17
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
The surveys yielded both quantitative and qualitative (anecdotal) information. Even the quantitative data, however, is a reflection of the subjective experiences and perceptions of fishermen. Given the limited scope of this study, it has not been possible to measure objectively the impacts of subsidies on the respondents. Moreover, it has been impossible to correlate the responses with the implementation of specific fisheries subsidies programs, because respondents were almost always unaware of the administrative source of the subsidies they received.
The results of our surveys are summarized for Bali Strait fishers in Appendix Table 8, for Java Sea fishers in Appendix Table 9, and for fishers in the Nusa Tenggaras in Appendix Table 10. Due to local variations in the conditions for carrying out surveys, reliable data was not available for all questions in all locations. Despite these limits, however, it has been possible to draw several useful conclusions from the survey results. The quantitative tabulations of survey responses revealed the following:
• The types of subsidies most commonly received or experienced by our respondents were port infrastructure, fuel, and subsidies to gear/vessels, all of which were widely in use. Training was offered in all but two sites, but was received by only a small number of respondents in those sites. Other types of subsidies were received only sporadically.
• Nearly all respondents who had received subsidies for gear/vessels, for fuel, or for infrastructure reported that these subsidies resulted in the intensification of fishing. In the cases of infrastructure and fuel, nearly all respondents reported the subsidies also increased their income. However, the data suggests that gear/vessel subsidies may have produced fewer income gains.
• The subsidy type apparently most useful to fishers was infrastructure, which nearly all respondents had experienced and which nearly all respondents reported had improved their activities, raised fish prices, and raised income.
• Subsidies for improving sanitation and preserving fish (e.g., on-board ice boxes) were received by relatively few respondents, but were highly rated for their effective impact on quality and price.
• Subsidized training programs were given mixed reviews by their recipients. While most recipients did find the trainings useful, in some localities between 20-30% of recipients did not feel the training had improved their fishing or fish handling or increased their income.
• Access to subsidized capital appears to have been very limited.
In addition to these quantitative results, the surveys produced anecdotal reports about subsidy programs. These reports were usually in the form of complaints, mainly from fishers who had not received subsidies rather than from those who had. In many cases, fishers complained that subsidies had been administered with “inappropriate selection criteria”—i.e., in the opinion of the respondents, the wrong fishers got the subsidies. This does not mean, of course, that the subsidies were inappropriately administered in fact. It does, however, clearly show that fishermen believe there was poor administration, or at least unfairness, in how subsidies were distributed. To the extent that government policy is to reduce conflicts among fishers, this is a point worth keeping in mind. The distribution
18
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
of subsidies between localities is also noteworthy. For example, in the two Bali Straight survey sites, one (Jembrana) had 82 fishers out of 300 reporting gear/vessel aid, while in the other (Banyuwangi) only six out of 300 reported receiving such aid.
A second common complaint was that subsidies were not properly tailored to meet local conditions. This was true of training programs, where respondents in several localities complained that the programs were either repetitive of what fishermen already knew or were not relevant to local realities. More disturbing were a handful of anecdotal reports that inappropriate gear or vessels were provided through subsidies. In at least one case, several new vessels were provided to one locality in the Java Sea fisheries, but then remained unused on the beach because they were not the kind of vessels used by local fishers. (In this case, administrative errors may have benefited sustainability, since the Java Sea fisheries are already suffering from overcapacity).
Third, where access to subsidized capital was experienced, there were at least some problems because the recipients considered the subsidized loans to be grants that did not require repayment. This suggests that an effort to use more “market-like” instruments in the place of handouts may require additional efforts to educate fishermen about the nature of the subsidies in question.
V. Discussion: Policy Coherence & Effectiveness
The data collected and analyzed for this study provide a solid basis for a preliminary discussion of the policy coherence and effectiveness of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. As noted above, the ultimate goal of Indonesian fisheries policy is to ensure the long-term welfare and development of Indonesia’s fisheries-dependent communities. But with Indonesian fisheries now at a crossroads, it is clear that achieving poverty reduction and durable economic growth depends on policies that are balanced and integrated. The key elements of such a balanced and integrated approach are clearly set forth
in Indonesian fisheries legislation. In the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 31 of 2004 Concerning Fisheries, Article 2—the first substantive article of the law—states in its entirety:
Fisheries management shall be carried out under the principles of benefit, equality, partnership, equal distribution, integration, transparency, efficiency. and sustainable preservation.
(“Pengelolaan perikanan dilakukan berdasarkan asas manfaat, keadilan, kemitraan, pemerataan, keterpaduan. keterbukaan, efisiensi, dan kelestarian yang berkelanjutan.”)
The core concepts embedded in this legislative mandate—equity/fairness, participation/transparency, effectiveness (efficiency/benefits), and sustainability—are precisely those against which the policy coherence of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies should be tested. In speaking of “integration” (“keterpaduan”), Article 2 even establishes the principle of policy coherence itself.
A. The first issue—sustainability
In light of the heavily exploited condition of many important Indonesian fisheries, we begin with a focus on sustainability, and on identifying areas where current fisheries subsidies may be working against durable livelihoods and long-term development. Even subsidies that appear to have short term benefits must be considered harmful if they encourage fisheries depletion. In the context of national fisheries many of which are already showing signs of overcapacity and overfishing, policies in favor of sustainability must emphasize at least three areas of action:
• effectively managing fisheries through fisheries management plans that set appropriate limits on fishing capacity and effort, and that in appropriate cases establish a network of multi-use marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect spawning grounds and other critical habitat elements;
• maximizing the value of fishery products through quality improvement, value-added processing, and gains in efficiency that raise incomes without exerting increased pressure on fully- or over-fished stocks; and
• restructuring the sector where it is necessary to do so, including through programs to reduce fishing capacity and to promote alternative livelihoods.
20
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
While some of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are doubtless consistent with these goals, it is not possible to be fully satisfied. Too many of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies risk working in the wrong direction, and too few of them are implemented in an administrative context that ensures their coherence. Several indications of “room for improvement” arise from our research:
First, as already mentioned in Section III.E, a substantial portion of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are in the highest two categories of risk for unintentionally contributing to overcapacity or overfishing. For subsidies administered by MMAF, these high risk subsidies may be more than 30% of overall subsidy spending, without even considering massive fuel subsidies.
Most disturbing in this regard is evidence that spending on directly capacity-enhancing subsidies has been increasing precisely at a time when coherent policies require limiting the size of fleets and emphasizing the three areas of action noted above. The sharp increase during 2006-07 in MMAF’s budget for subsidies to vessels and gear (see the fourth budget line listed in Appendix Table 3) was accompanied by declarations from national political leaders in favor of distributing vessels to “fishermen throughout Indonesia” and for keeping Indonesia’s ship building industry working at full capacity.25 Our field surveys confirm significant levels of subsidies to vessels and gear in many of the localities we studied. Unfortunately, capacity-enhancing subsidies were a significant factor in communities targeting fisheries that are already fully- or over-exploited.
The Java Sea is a particularly important case where this kind of policy incoherence has been evident, and especially dangerous. The Java Sea is home to some of Indonesia’s most prolific fisheries, producing between a quarter and a third of total national marine fishery production.26 It has long been recognized that the Java Sea is suffering from overcapacity and overfishing. In fact, national and international experts have concluded that capacity-enhancing subsidies were an important factor leading to these twin problems.27
In 2005, MMAF issued a management plan recognizing that almost all of the major Java Sea fish stocks are overexploited—exceeding sustainable utilization levels by 37% overall, and as much as 49% in the case of the pelagic stocks.28 The first element of the MMAF plan emphasizes the need to reduce fleet capacity, especially for the small pelagic fleet.
The experience of fishermen
suggests that Indonesia
should shift away from
subsidies to capacity/effort
and towards subsidies
that increase increasing
product value
21
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
MMAF’s approach to the fisheries management plan (“FMP”) for the Java Sea is an example of precisely the kind of leadership that will be necessary to secure a sustainable future for Indonesia’s fishing communities. But even as some offices within MMAF are calling for capacity reduction, subsidized vessels and gear continue to be introduced into the fishery. At both the national and local levels, these actions are working at cross-purposes with MMAF’s own sustainable management goals.
Recent policy pronouncements, such as highlighted at a recent MMAF “National Coordination Meeting” (“Rakornas”) held in Jakarta in March 2008, indicate MMAF’s intention to implement tighter controls on fishing capacity and effort throughout Indonesia’s fisheries.29 To be fully effective, however, such controls will have to be accompanied by steps to ensure that fisheries subsidies programs do not work in a contrary direction.
B. Other issues — effectiveness, equity, and transparency
Sustainability is not the only good reason to shift subsidies away from promoting capacity and effort—both effectiveness and “customer satisfaction” would suggest the same. As noted above, our field surveys indicate that subsidies to gear and vessels were less effective in raising catches or incomes than other subsidy types. Even where fishers reported that the subsidies did increase fishing intensity, improvements in catches did not always follow. This result is not surprising, particularly in the context of a growing number of over-exploited fisheries where decreasing “catch per unit effort” is a standard sign of stock depletion.30
In contrast, fishers reported their highest level of improved livelihoods from subsidies to promote product quality or value-added processing. Again, this makes sense wherever fisheries resources are under pressure or where the cash value of fish depends heavily on product condition. The experience of fishermen interviewed for this study thus suggests that Indonesian subsidies policies should be shifted away from subsidies to capacity/effort and towards increasing product value, not only for the sake of long-term sustainability but also for the sake of short-term effectiveness at promoting economic growth and poverty reduction.
Another factor that may reduce the effectiveness of Indonesian fisheries subsidies is the tendency of subsidies to erode the independence and initiative of fishermen. While difficult to capture in quantitative data, the tendency of subsidies to create dependencies and to reduce entrepreneurial spirit was evident to our field researchers in many of their interviews. In this regard, we note that efforts within MMAF to encourage use of “market based” subsidies (such as subsidized capital loans) may present one means for addressing this problem, but are not yet a significant proportion of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies programs.
The effectiveness of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies is also clearly being diminished by problems of misadministration. During our field research we repeatedly heard stories about subsidized vessels or gear being provided in a manner unsuited to the local fishery. In one example, a subsidy seemed to have been designed more to benefit a particular boat builder than to aid the development of the local fishery. No effort was made to ensure that
22
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
the vessels to be built were useful to the fishermen, and the boats have remained on the beach since delivery.
Unfortunately, we also heard of cases that appeared to involve outright theft or corruption. We were told more than once, for example of cases in which the flow of fuel from subsidized fuel stations was interrupted because the station operator sold fuel but failed to pay distributors for his shipments. In another case, our researchers were told of a local government official who had not previously been a fisherman receiving a boat and entering the fishery.
Even where effectiveness is not being reduced by misadministration (or outright fraud), Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies sometimes appear to fall short of the goal of “equity” emphasized in Art. 2 of the framework law. As noted in Section IV, our researchers encountered widespread complaints about the distribution of subsidy benefits. In several cases, respondents voiced the opinion that family or social connections influenced the selection of recipients more than objective need. In other cases, subsidies appeared to be biased towards industrial or export-oriented fleets, rather than favoring small-scale, locally-oriented enterprises. For example, in Jembrana the government subsidized construction of a fueling station for disbursing subsidized diesel fuel. Around Jembrana, however, diesel is used almost exclusively by an industrial scale purse seine fleet—leading smaller scale hand-liners (who use kerosene) to complain of unfairness in the construction of the diesel station.
Finally, we consider the principle of transparency also enshrined in Article 2 of Law 31/2004. We note that the law emphasizes this principle alongside the closely linked principles of partnership and participation. Public access to official information about fisheries subsidy programs is essential for both accountability and stakeholder involvement—both of which are fundamental conditions of good policy. Experts and civil society groups around the world have been calling for increased transparency in fisheries subsidies for nearly a decade,31 and these calls for have been repeated frequently by governments in the context of international negotiations at the FAO and the WTO. Unfortunately, concrete action to improve public access to information has remained the exception rather than the rule in both developing and developed countries, and much important information about fisheries subsidies is today still beyond public reach.
In this regard, the positive attitude of Indonesian government officials in supporting and cooperating with this study—and in particular in providing detailed budgetary materials—provides an unprecedented level of transparency about the fishery subsidy programs of a major developing country. Providing such transparency always involves risk, and any government that takes this risk must be prepared for public discussion of its policies and practices. But the principles of partnership and participation point precisely to the need for such dialogue as necessary for successful government. By beginning to open its books on fisheries subsidies as it has for this study, the Government of Indonesia is demonstrating both wisdom and true international leadership.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the lack of a regular mechanism for the routine publication of information about Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. For proper administration of subsidy programs, occasional studies such as this one cannot provide the necessary public access to
23
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
information. Moreover, as decentralization proceeds in Indonesia’s government structure generally, improvements in the transparency of subsidy programs will be needed just to ensure that MMAF and other national officials are kept aware of subsidy activities of provincial and district governments.
VI. Conclusions & Recommendations As noted in Sections I and II, this study must be considered preliminary in nature and limited in scope. On the other hand, the study presents what the authors believe is the largest and most detailed set of data yet to be published about fisheries subsidies in a major developing country. The budgetary information made available by MMAF and local officials, in combination with extensive interviews of hundreds of fishermen, provides a solid basis for a number of important conclusions and recommendations.
A. General conclusions
Conclusion 1 — The total level of subsidies granted to the Indonesian fisheries sector is significant, and almost certainly has an impact on the scale and kind of fishing carried out in Indonesia’s domestic fisheries. We conservatively estimate total fisheries subsidies nationwide to be on the order of be Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year, exclusive of fuel subsidies. Fuel subsidies in the fishery sector, while difficult to calculate and in constant flux, likely amount to trillions of rupiah (hundreds of millions of dollars) annually. These figures compare with a total value of Indonesian fisheries of approximately USD $5 billion per year,32 and with total Indonesian fisheries exports valued at approximately USD $1.5-2.0 billion per year.33 In other words, if fuel subsidies are included, total Indonesian fisheries subsidies could amount to almost 10% of the value of Indonesia’s fisheries and nearly 30% of Indonesia’s fisheries exports.
Conclusion 2 — Some fisheries subsidies in Indonesia are clearly supportive of sustainable fisheries management and conservation. In a growing number of fisheries, funding is being directed at establishing fisheries management plans, as called for by the Komnas Kajiskan. Moreover, significant subsidies are being directed at activities to improve the value extracted from fisheries without requiring intensified fishing. In some program areas, funding for improved fisheries management is clearly on the rise.
Conclusion 3 — A substantial amount of subsidy funding continues to flow towards uses that are not consistent with sustainable fisheries management. The overall risk profile of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies is dangerously slanted towards high risk subsidies, and there is direct evidence of many cases in which subsidies are increasing fishing capacity and effort in fisheries that are already heavily exploited. Moreover, our field research revealed significant problems with effectiveness, equity, and transparency in the administration of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies.
25
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Conclusion 4 — Significant levels of policy incoherence and ineffectiveness are detracting from the overall effectiveness of Indonesian fisheries subsidies. These problems appear to result from two underlying causes. First, as discussed in Section I, Indonesia is still in the early stages of a major transition away from policies aimed at ever-expanding production, towards the sustainable management of fish stocks and marine ecosystems. However, the “culture of sustainability” has not yet been fully disseminated within MMAF, and outside of MMAF there remains a pressing need to educate policymakers, fishers, and the public generally about the challenges facing Indonesia’s fisheries. Second, current administrative structures within MMAF appear inadequate to ensure policy coherence in subsidy administration. There is simultaneously a lack of centralized planning and monitoring of subsidy programs and a lack of proper involvement of local officials and stakeholders in subsidy design.
B. Recommendations
MMAF leadership and the Komnas Kajiskan are well aware of the challenges discussed above, and many steps towards reform are already underway. The specific recommendations set out below are, therefore, intended to reinforce the positive trends already evident in Indonesian fisheries policy.
Recommendation 1 — MMAF should take immediate steps to eliminate subsidies that are directly at odds with sustainable management goals. Specifically, a process should be launched to review subsidies in all Indonesian fisheries that are nearing or have already surpassed full exploitation. In such fisheries, subsidies that directly increase fishing capacity or effort should be phased out rapidly. More generally, wherever fisheries management plans are already in place, subsidies should be reviewed to determine their consistency with the FMPs.
Recommendation 2 — Special attention should be given to the use of fuel subsidies in the fishery sector. While it is clearly necessary to take account of the impact of high fuel prices on fishermen’s livelihoods, it is equally important to recognize the direct impact fuel subsidies can have by encouraging overexploitation. MMAF and stakeholders should consider conducting a detailed study of the impacts of fuel subsidies in order to develop a balanced plan for reform.
Recommendation 3 — MMAF should make increased use of positive subsidies. In particular, both sustainability and “customer satisfaction” could be increased by shifting subsidies towards infrastructure and training for improving product quality and value. Where FMPs are not yet in place, subsidies should also be used to facilitate FMP development, including through support for increased local stakeholder involvement.
26
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Recommendation 4 — MMAF should give increased emphasis to developing and implementing fisheries management plans. Where appropriate (as is often the case in near-shore demersal fisheries, among others), such FMPs should be coordinated with and include the establishment of a network of multi-use marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect spawning grounds and other critical habitat elements. FMPs should explicitly address the use of subsidies in the relevant fisheries. To do this, the FMP process will need to move beyond traditional approaches to consider in detail the kinds of public investments needed to improve sustainability and economic efficiency under specific local circumstances. In other words, FMPs should include an explicit “subsidies needs analysis” on a fishery-by-fishery basis, taking account of the major issues in each fishery, the economics of the fishery, the existing infrastructure, and the real world status of existing management systems (including key elements of “monitoring, control, and surveillance”). Once an FMP is in place, mechanisms should be created for continuous monitoring of subsidies to ensure their consistency with the management plan.
Recommendation 5 — MMAF should continue to explore and accelerate specific steps to increase its effective administrative control over Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. New administrative structures should aim at several key goals:
A. Improving centralized development of subsidy policy and strengthening centralized monitoring and review of subsidies expenditures, in order to ensure that subsidies are supportive of national goals and to increase coordination across MMAF offices. For example, it should not be possible for one office in MMAF to subsidize new vessels in a fishery while another office calls for capacity reduction in the same fishery.
B. Increasing the involvement of local officials and stakeholders in designing subsidies programs. Even as MMAF increases centralized policymaking and monitoring of subsidies, the specific “subsidy needs analyses” should be undertaken at the local level. This may require not only increasing local MMAF capacities, but also establishing better mechanisms for communications between central MMAF offices and local officials.
C. Improving inter-ministerial coordination. Although not examined in detail here, subsidies being provided to fishing communities by ministries other than MMAF appear to be significant. Inter-ministerial coordination is especially important in today’s context of transition, when many non-specialists are unaware of fisheries overexploitation and unfamiliar with the “sustainable management” policies that are now required,
27
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Recommendation 6 — MMAF should take strong steps to improve the financial accountability and transparency of subsidy programs. In fact, stronger bookkeeping and reporting mechanisms are likely to be necessary for the success of administrative reforms such as suggested under Recommendation 5. Records showing the flow of funds and the basis for the distribution of subsidies should be mandatory. MMAF should consider establishing a public record of its fisheries subsidies, including routine publication of detailed budgetary information. MMAF should also explicitly commit to achieving full compliance with existing or future WTO rules on transparency and notification of subsidies.
Two “golden threads” run through these conclusions and recommendations. The first is the tool of fisheries management planning. FMPs are fundamentally tools for localizing and implementing fisheries and ecosystem management. If FMPs are properly developed and implemented—and if they are made a core function within MMAF, so that all MMAF offices interact with them in any fishery where they are active—they can go a long way to promoting the reforms suggested above.
The second golden thread is the thread of transparency and accountability. At present, fisheries subsidies are designed and administered in an atomized fashion, with different offices pursuing different programs for different purposes. It will never be possible or desirable to centralize programs completely. But where coordination is necessary—as it so obviously is where subsidies are concerned—increased information flow within and outside of MMAF is required. Where local stakeholders are to be involved, this also implies an increased flow of information to the local level.
There is good reason to be hopeful about the future of Indonesia’s fisheries and its fisheries subsidies policies in particular. The trends within the ministry and stakeholder groups are generally positive. But this study reveals that substantial work needs to be done to ensure genuine policy coherence both within MMAF and between MMAF and other national and local authorities. The pursuit of substantive policies that embrace a “culture of sustainability” and administrative practices that embrace a “culture of accountability” are the fundamental elements of success.
≈ ≈ ≈
28
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Appendix A — Definitions of “Fisheries Subsidy”
FAO
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (“FAO”) is the leading intergovernmental body with expertise and governance responsibilities over fisheries on a worldwide basis. The issue of fisheries subsidies first came to international attention as a result of FAO analytic work in the early 1990s,34 and the FAO houses the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, which is the only international legal instrument yet to be adopted that addresses the need for eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies. The FAO has, however, never formulated a single clear definition of “fisheries subsidy”. The question has never been presented for political decision by FAO members.35 Moreover, an in-depth technical consultation on “Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry” conducted by the FAO in 2002 was unable to produce a simple or precise definition.36 Rather, as was reported in the 2002 edition of FAO’s biannual State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), “This discussion drew the conclusion that no single definition could be agreed to.”37 Instead, the FAO has noted a series of broad descriptions of what may constitute a “fisheries subsidy”, and has identified at least four general categories into which fisheries subsidies can be classified. Among the broad general formulas used to describe “fisheries subsidy” for the FAO expert consultation were the following:38
“[A] direct or indirect payment, economic concession, or privilege granted by a government to private firms, households, or other governmental units in order to promote a public objective.”
“[A]ny government intervention—or lack of intervention—that affects the fisheries industry and that has an economic value.”
“[A] subsidy should be something that is out of the ordinary, i.e. something that is done – or not done – outside of normal practices:
“[G]overnment actions or inactions that are specific to the fisheries industry and that modifies (sic)—by increasing or decreasing – the potential profits by the industry in the short-, medium- or long-term.”
The 2002 expert consultation also identified four categories of activities that can be covered by the term “fisheries subsidies”:39
Category 1 — Direct governmental payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., grants to purchase or modernize fishing vessels);
Category 2 — Government interventions other than direct payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., tax waivers, below-market loans, goods or services);
Category 3 — Lack of government intervention that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., failure to impose or enforce limits
29
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
on target catch or bycatch) (also known in some contexts as “failures to internalize environmental costs”);
Category 4 — Government interventions other than direct payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the medium or long term (e.g., effective fisheries management measures).
The FAO has noted that the combination of Categories 1 and 2 comes closest to being coextensive with the WTO definition (see below), while governments and stakeholders take different views about whether Categories 3 and 4 are properly considered “subsidies.”
WTO
The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“ASCM”) defines a subsidy as any “financial contribution” by a government (or by a public or private entity on behalf of a government) that confers a specific “benefit” on a domestic industry. A “financial contribution” may be in the form of a direct transfer of funds (e.g., a grant or loan) or “potential” transfer (e.g., a loan guarantee), the provision of goods or services, a price support, or the foregoing of tax or other revenue otherwise due. The requirement that a benefit be “specific” to an industry (or, in some cases, to a region) is intended to exclude government interventions that produce general public benefits (such as social security or police services), and thus bears some relation to the idea articulated by the FAO Draft Guide (quoted above) that “a subsidy should be something that is out of the ordinary.”
As a general matter, government financial transfers to the fisheries sector (roughly equivalent to FAO Categories 1 and 2, discussed above) fall within the WTO definition of a subsidy, and thus come under existing WTO subsidy disciplines.40 Fisheries management services, except perhaps in very particular and unusual cases, do not fall within the WTO definition. Failures to internalize environmental costs (e.g., the short-term benefits of allowing overfishing) are certainly not covered by current WTO rules.
In the context of the current Doha Round, governments have agreed to “clarify and improve” the ASCM’s treatment of fisheries subsidies,41 and have further agreed to adopt a prohibition on fisheries subsidies “that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing”, taking account of the need for “special and differential treatment” of developing countries.42 As of this writing (October 2008), the negotiations had produced a draft “Chair’s Text” outlining a proposed annex to the ASCM on fisheries subsidies.43 While many aspects of the Chair’s Text have raised debate and even some controversy, the fisheries subsidies language was broadly accepted as a basis for further negotiations.
At the negotiating table, the question of defining “fisheries subsidy” has raised issues that can be roughly divided into the questions “What is meant by ‘fisheries’?” and “What is meant by ‘subsidy’?”
30
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
With regard to the concept of “fisheries”, the Chair’s Text proposes limiting the reach of new disciplines to:
• subsidies that confer benefits on “fishing vessels or service vessels” or on their operations (where “fishing vessel” are “vessels used for marine wild capture fishing and/or on-board processing of the products thereof” and “service vessels” are “vessels used to tranship the products of marine wild capture fishing from fishing vessels to on-shore facilities; and vessels used for at-sea refuelling, provisioning and other servicing of fishing vessels”);
• subsidies that confer benefits on the “landing, handling or in- or near-port processing activities for products of marine wild capture fishing”;
• subsidies to “port infrastructure or other physical port facilities exclusively or predominantly for activities related to marine wild capture fishing”;
• subsidies that provide “income support for natural or legal persons engaged in marine wild capture fishing”; and
• subsidies in the form of “price support for products of marine wild capture fishing”.
The proposed rules thus appear to exclude subsidies relating to inland fisheries and to the non-fishing aspects of aquaculture.
With regard to the concept of “subsidy” the Chair’s Text appears to clarify two points: First, on the controversial question of “foreign access payments” the text strikes a balance by explicitly excluding government-to-government access payments but by treating as “subsidies” the onward transfer of access rights from the government that has acquired them to its domestic industry.44 Second, the text implicitly excludes fisheries management services from the definition of “subsidy”. In many cases, the text would require that certain fisheries management services be provided as a condition precedent to the use of non-prohibited fisheries subsidies. These services are clearly treated as an essential public good, and not as subsidies in themselves.
OECD
The OECD—which has conducted more extensive technical work on quantifying fisheries subsidies than any other intergovernmental organization—has adopted the term “government financial transfers” (“GFTs”) in place of the more common term “subsidies”, and has given GFTs a broad economic definition:
“The [OECD] Committee [on Fisheries] has used the term “government financial transfers” in preference to the more general term “subsidies”. This is because, in general usage, subsidies encompass more than just the explicit transfer of money from the public purse to the sector. Since subsidies in general also include implicit transfers from consumers to the industry, GFTs are considered to be a subset of the whole range of subsidies. . . . Government financial transfers are defined as the monetary value of interventions associated with fishery policies, whether they are from central, regional or local governments. GFTs include both on-budget
31
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
and off-budget transfers to the fisheries sector. . . . Three categories of GFTs are identified: direct payments; cost-reducing transfers; and general services. A fourth category of transfer, market price support, is included in the classification scheme but was not addressed in the study on Transition to Responsible Fisheries. The extent of cost recovery undertaken by countries is also included in the classification.”
A. Cox, “OECD Work on Defining and Measuring Subsidies In Fisheries” (OECD 2003) ¶¶ 3-5 (emphasis added).
Cox explicitly notes that there is controversy over whether “general services” such as governmental fisheries management activities should be counted as a GFTs, and reports that OECD governments differ in their approach to the matter. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The fisheries subsidies data collected by the OECD from its members thus varies somewhat in scope from government to government. For purposes of reporting to the OECD, some governments clearly have treated budgetary expenditures for fisheries management services as “subsidies”.
UBC Fisheries Centre
The Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia in Canada has done more technical work quantifying fisheries subsidies than any other non-governmental entity, and is the only entity that has attempted a global quantification of fisheries subsidies that includes developing countries. In its major publication setting out worldwide estimates of fisheries subsidies on a country-by-country basis,45 UBC reviews several approaches to defining “fisheries subsidy”, but apparently declines to adopt a specific definition of its own.46 It is clear from its data and analysis, however, that the Centre adopts a fairly broad definition that includes expenditures for management services, which it generally classifies as “good” (as opposed to “bad” or “ugly”) subsidies.
Appendix B — Tabel 6 Exploitation Levels of Major Indonesian Fisheries
Stock Status Key: Source: Komnas Kajiskan (2007a)
U : Under exploited F : Fully exploited UN : Uncertain
M : Moderately exploited O : Overfished
33
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
APPENDIX TABLES
34
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
35
App
endi
x Ta
ble
1 —
Tota
l Sub
sidi
es b
y A
utho
rity
and
Yea
r (R
p)
Aut
hori
ty20
0420
0520
0620
07G
rand
Tot
alN
ation
al
306,
311,
772,
132
200,
887,
801,
076
150,
489,
170,
246
657,
688,
743,
454
D
JPT
(DG
-Cap
ture
Fis
heri
es)
17
2,83
6,60
1,90
710
1,18
5,68
8,13
398
,669
,804
,134
372,
692,
094,
174
D
J-KP
3K (D
G-M
arin
e Co
asts
&
Smal
l Isl
ands
)
97,8
33,8
75,3
77
51,8
19,3
66,1
1214
9,65
3,24
1,48
9
D
J-P2
HP
(DG
-Fis
heri
es P
rodu
ct
Proc
essi
ng &
Mar
ketin
g)
35,6
41,2
94,8
4899
,702
,112
,943
13
5,34
3,40
7,79
1Pr
ovin
cial
37
,194
,419
,694
40,1
36,5
98,6
91
77,3
31,0
18,3
85
Bali
6,
797,
908,
333
2,53
2,61
1,42
0
9,33
0,51
9,75
3
Ce
ntra
l Jav
a Pr
ovin
ce (F
ishe
ry &
M
arin
e Se
rvic
e)
13
,942
,014
,600
13
,942
,014
,600
Ea
st Ja
va P
rovi
nce
29
,848
,319
,004
29,8
48,3
19,0
04
Ea
st L
ombo
k Pr
ovin
ce (M
arin
e &
Fi
sher
y Se
rvic
e)
548,
192,
357
5,55
7,68
3,39
0
6,10
5,87
5,74
7
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
ra P
rovi
nce
10,8
18,6
19,2
81
10,8
18,6
19,2
81
East
Nus
a Te
ngga
ra P
rovi
nce
7,28
5,67
0,00
0
7,28
5,67
0,00
0D
istr
ict/
Loc
al1,
904,
542,
000
4,63
6,70
0,50
03,
447,
225,
000
2,45
0,75
0,00
012
,439
,217
,500
Ba
nyuw
angi
193,
520,
000
19
3,52
0,00
0
Bata
ng1,
711,
022,
000
450,
000,
000
2,16
1,02
2,00
0
Kota
Kup
ang
2,
450,
750,
000
2,45
0,75
0,00
0
Pati
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s D
ept
2,
410,
271,
000
3,44
7,22
5,00
0
5,85
7,49
6,00
0
Peka
long
an
1,77
6,42
9,50
0
1,
776,
429,
500
Gra
nd T
otal
1,90
4,54
2,00
034
8,14
2,89
2,32
624
4,47
1,62
4,76
715
2,93
9,92
0,24
674
7,45
8,97
9,33
9
(Thi
s ta
ble
incl
udes
onl
y da
ta m
ade
avai
labl
e fo
r th
is s
tudy
)
34
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
35
App
endi
x Ta
ble
2 —
Tota
l Sub
sidi
es b
y A
utho
rity
and
Yea
r (U
SD)
Aut
hori
ty20
0420
0520
0620
07G
rand
Tot
al
Nati
onal
$3
3,69
4,29
5$2
2,09
7,65
8$1
6,55
3,80
9$7
2,34
5,76
2
DJP
T (D
G-C
aptu
re F
ishe
ries
)
$19,
012,
026
$11,
130,
426
$10,
853,
678
$40,
996,
130
D
J-KP
3K (D
G-M
arin
e Co
asts
& S
mal
l Isl
ands
)
$10,
761,
726
$5
,700
,130
$16,
461,
857
D
J-P2
HP
(DG
-Fis
heri
es P
rodu
ct P
roce
ssin
g &
M
arke
ting)
$3
,920
,542
$10,
967,
232
$1
4,88
7,77
5Pr
ovin
cial
$4
,091
,386
$4,4
15,0
26
$8,5
06,4
12
Bali
$7
47,7
70$2
78,5
87
$1,0
26,3
57
Ce
ntra
l Jav
a Pr
ovin
ce (F
ishe
ry &
Mar
ine
Serv
ice)
$1,5
33,6
22
$1,5
33,6
22
Ea
st Ja
va P
rovi
nce
$3
,283
,315
$3,2
83,3
15
Ea
st L
ombo
k Pr
ovin
ce (M
arin
e &
Fis
hery
Se
rvic
e)
$60,
301
$611
,345
$6
71,6
46
W
est N
usa
Teng
gara
Pro
vinc
e
$1
,190
,048
$1
,190
,048
Ea
st N
usa
Teng
gara
Pro
vinc
e
$8
01,4
24
$801
,424
Dis
tric
t/ L
ocal
$209
,500
$510
,037
$379
,195
$269
,583
$1,3
68,3
14
Bany
uwan
gi$2
1,28
7
$21,
287
Ba
tang
$188
,212
$49,
500
$237
,712
Ko
ta K
upan
g
$269
,583
$269
,583
Pa
ti M
arin
e an
d Fi
sher
ies
Dep
t
$265
,130
$379
,195
$6
44,3
25
Pe
kalo
ngan
$1
95,4
07
$1
95,4
07G
rand
Tot
al$2
09,5
00$3
8,29
5,71
8$2
6,89
1,87
9$1
6,82
3,39
1$8
2,22
0,48
8
(Thi
s ta
ble
incl
udes
onl
y da
ta m
ade
avai
labl
e fo
r th
is s
tudy
)
36
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
37
App
endi
x Ta
ble
3 —
MM
AF
Budg
ets,
by
Prog
ram
& Y
ear
Dire
ctor
ates
/ p
rogr
ams
2005
20
06
2007
(Rp)
(USD
)(R
p)(U
SD)
(Rp)
(USD
)
DJP
T (D
G-C
aptu
re F
ishe
ries
)17
2,83
6,60
1,90
7$1
9,01
2,02
610
1,18
5,68
8,13
3$1
1,13
0,42
698
,669
,804
,134
$10,
853,
678
UN
Cod
e O
f Con
duct
for
Resp
onsi
ble
Fish
ing
988,
789,
888
$108
,767
4,56
1,05
9,96
0$5
01,7
171,
967,
975,
960
$216
,477
Dev
elop
men
t of c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
4,
302,
249,
761
$473
,247
4,30
2,24
9,76
1$4
73,2
47
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
y st
atisti
cs12
8,93
8,60
0$1
4,18
31,
219,
907,
199
$134
,190
1,29
7,10
7,19
9$1
42,6
82D
evel
opm
ent o
f fish
ing
vess
els
and
gear
s
64,6
82,8
94,9
12$7
,115
,118
75,9
58,7
90,8
41$8
,355
,467
Dev
elop
men
t of s
mal
l sca
le
fishe
ries
1,21
8,11
5,50
0$1
33,9
93
Fish
ing
licen
se3,
148,
315,
165
$346
,315
Fish
ing
port
11
,275
,895
,928
$1,2
40,3
49
Impr
ove
serv
ice
on fi
shin
g lic
ensi
ng75
1,30
1,68
6$8
2,64
315
,143
,680
,373
$1,6
65,8
0515
,143
,680
,373
$1,6
65,8
05
Inve
stm
ent a
nd jo
b cr
eatio
n1,
313,
530,
616
$144
,488
OPT
IHA
ND
IS10
,907
,392
,409
$1,1
99,8
13
OPT
IKA
PI14
9,42
7,69
2,05
3$1
6,43
7,04
6
OPT
ISA
RKA
N1,
952,
819,
795
$214
,810
Se
rvic
e an
d co
ntro
l of fi
shin
g lic
ense
2,99
9,70
6,19
5$3
29,9
68
DJ-
KP3K
(DG
-Mar
ine
Coas
ts &
Sm
all I
slan
ds)
97,8
33,8
75,3
77$1
0,76
1,72
6
51
,819
,366
,112
$5,7
00,1
30Co
nser
vatio
n of
mar
ine
natio
nal
park
5,72
5,44
2,20
0$6
29,7
99
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f co
asta
l sm
all-i
slan
d re
sour
ces
10,7
62,6
50,6
00$1
,183
,892
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
ies
reso
urce
s54
,123
,179
,500
$5,9
53,5
50
Man
agem
ent a
nd u
tiliz
ation
of
smal
l isl
ands
17,8
38,5
89,7
77$1
,962
,245
36
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
37
Dire
ctor
ates
/ p
rogr
ams
2005
20
06
2007
(Rp)
(USD
)(R
p)(U
SD)
(Rp)
(USD
)
DJP
T (D
G-C
aptu
re F
ishe
ries
)17
2,83
6,60
1,90
7$1
9,01
2,02
610
1,18
5,68
8,13
3$1
1,13
0,42
698
,669
,804
,134
$10,
853,
678
Mar
ine
reso
urce
s m
anag
emen
t
37
,430
,262
,452
$4,1
17,3
29M
CRM
P - m
arin
e an
d co
asta
l re
sour
ces
man
agem
ent p
rogr
am
14
,389
,103
,660
$1,5
82,8
01Sp
atial
pla
n fo
r co
asta
l and
sm
all-
isla
nds
9,38
4,01
3,30
0$1
,032
,241
D
J-P2
HP
(DG
-Fis
heri
es P
rodu
ct
Proc
essi
ng A
nd M
arke
ting
)35
,641
,294
,848
$3,9
20,5
4299
,702
,112
,943
$10,
967,
232
Busi
ness
dev
elop
men
t : p
roce
ssin
g &
mar
ketin
g fi
sher
y pr
oduc
ts2,
306,
260,
047
$253
,689
5,17
5,79
0,38
0$5
69,3
37
Im
prov
e qu
ality
and
dev
elop
men
t of
pro
cess
ing
for
fishe
ry p
rodu
ct4,
462,
325,
838
$490
,856
52,2
38,5
85,2
38$5
,746
,244
Impr
ove
publ
ic s
ervi
ce, H
R de
velo
pmen
t and
goo
d go
vern
ance
12,4
72,3
25,9
98$1
,371
,956
22,4
94,9
08,6
76$2
,474
,440
Mar
ketin
g de
velo
pmen
t and
im
prov
emen
t of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
ts16
,400
,382
,965
$1,8
04,0
4219
,792
,828
,649
$2,1
77,2
11
G
rand
tota
l30
6,31
1,77
2,13
2$3
3,69
4,29
520
0,88
7,80
1,07
6$2
2,09
7,65
815
0,48
9,17
0,24
6$1
6,55
3,80
9
38
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
39
App
endi
x Ta
ble
4 —
Pro
vinc
ial &
Dis
tric
t Bud
gets
, by
Prog
ram
& Y
ear
Loca
l Aut
hori
ties
/ P
rogr
ams
2004
(Rp)
(USD
)
2005
(Rp)
(USD
)
2006
(Rp)
(USD
)
2007
(R
p)
(USD
)
Bali
6,79
7,90
8,33
3$7
47,7
702,
532,
611,
420
$278
,587
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
y ag
ribu
sine
ss
1,58
2,16
9,09
5$1
74,0
39
Incr
ease
in th
e pr
ospe
rity
of
gove
rnm
ent s
taffs
.
39
,900
,000
$4,3
89
Man
agem
ent a
nd D
evel
opm
ent o
f Co
asta
l are
a
487,
199,
400
$53,
592
151,
171,
000
$16,
629
Man
agem
ent a
nd D
evel
opm
ent o
f us
e of
fish
ery
and
mar
ine
reso
urce
s
3,94
8,55
5,51
8$4
34,3
412,
115,
310,
920
$232
,684
Surv
eilla
nce,
con
trol
and
co
nser
vatio
n on
mar
ine
and
fishe
ry
reso
urce
s
779,
984,
320
$85,
798
226,
229,
500
$24,
885
Bany
uwan
gi19
3,52
0,00
0$2
1,28
7
Dev
elop
men
t of a
quab
usin
ess
100,
000,
000
$11,
000
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
men
and
fish
fa
rmer
s43
,520
,000
$4,7
87
Man
agem
ent a
nd p
rote
ction
on
fishe
ry a
nd m
arin
e re
sour
ces
50,0
00,0
00$5
,500
Bata
ng1,
711,
022,
000
$188
,212
450,
000,
000
$49,
500
Capa
city
bui
ldin
g fo
r fis
heri
es
com
mun
ities
40,0
00,0
00$4
,400
75,0
00,0
00$8
,250
Dev
elop
men
t of m
arin
e aff
airs
and
fis
heri
es10
9,90
0,00
0$1
2,08
9
Impr
ove
tech
nica
l fac
ilitie
s fo
r m
arin
e aff
airs
and
fish
erie
s1,
561,
122,
000
$171
,723
335,
000,
000
$36,
850
(bla
nk)
40
,000
,000
$4,4
00
Cent
ral J
ava
Prov
ince
(Fis
hery
&
Mar
ine
Serv
ice)
13,9
42,0
14,6
00$1
,533
,622
Dev
elop
men
t and
Em
pow
erm
ent o
f Ca
ptur
e fis
hery
3,34
7,43
6,00
0$3
68,2
18
38
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
39
Loca
l Aut
hori
ties
/ P
rogr
ams
2004
(Rp)
(USD
)
2005
(Rp)
(USD
)
2006
(Rp)
(USD
)
2007
(R
p)
(USD
)
Prog
ram
of e
mpo
wer
men
t of c
oast
al
com
mun
ity
14
9,08
9,00
0$1
6,40
0
Prog
ram
of e
mpo
wer
men
t of s
mal
l is
land
s
97
,916
,500
$10,
771
Prog
ram
of fi
sher
y bu
sine
ss
deve
lopm
ent
7,37
1,96
1,60
0$8
10,9
16
Prog
ram
of i
ncre
ase
in in
stru
men
t an
d in
fras
truc
ture
of t
he g
over
nmen
t
55
7,62
3,00
0$6
1,33
9
Prog
ram
of i
ncre
ase
in th
e qu
ality
of
dis
tric
t gov
ernm
ent h
uman
re
sour
ces
Dae
rah
124,
550,
000
$13,
701
Prog
ram
of s
uper
visi
on o
n m
arin
e re
sour
ces
expl
oita
tion
and
expl
orati
on
2,29
3,43
8,50
0$2
52,2
78
East
Java
Pro
vinc
e
29
,848
,319
,004
$3,2
83,3
15
Agr
ibus
ines
s de
velo
pmen
t
991,
260,
000
$109
,039
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f m
arin
e re
sour
ces
10
,863
,120
,306
$1,1
94,9
43
Food
sec
urity
41
1,68
3,80
0$4
5,28
5
Inte
grat
ed fi
sher
ies
deve
lopm
ent
43
7,33
7,50
0$4
8,10
7
Offi
ce o
pera
tions
17
,144
,917
,398
$1,8
85,9
41
East
Lom
bok
Prov
ince
(Mar
ine
&
Fish
ery
Serv
ice)
548,
192,
357
$60,
301
5,55
7,68
3,39
0$6
11,3
45
Empo
wer
men
t of e
cono
my
of th
e co
asta
l com
mun
ity (
sea
and
fres
hwat
er
fishe
rmen
& fi
sh fa
rmer
s)
156,
265,
950
$17,
189
98,9
55,0
00$1
0,88
5
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
env
ironm
enta
lly
frie
ndly
sci
ence
& te
chno
logy
(IPT
EK)
12
0,08
5,00
0$1
3,20
919
5,76
5,50
0$2
1,53
4
Incr
ease
in m
arin
e an
d fis
hery
in
fras
truc
ture
.
94,7
63,3
07$1
0,42
43,
484,
159,
090
$383
,257
40
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
41
Loca
l Aut
hori
ties
/ P
rogr
ams
2004
(Rp)
(USD
)
2005
(Rp)
(USD
)
2006
(Rp)
(USD
)
2007
(R
p)
(USD
)
Incr
ease
in th
e m
anag
emen
t of
mar
ine
and
fishe
ry e
nviro
nmen
t
55,9
26,7
00$6
,152
Incr
ease
in th
e pa
rtici
pato
ry m
arin
e en
viro
nmen
t man
agem
ent
219,
041,
250
$24,
095
Incr
ease
in th
e qu
ality
and
qua
ntity
of
fish
ery
and
mar
ine
hum
an
reso
urce
s
121,
151,
400
$13,
327
289,
480,
050
$31,
843
Reha
bilit
ation
and
Res
tora
tion
of
natu
ral r
esou
rces
rese
rve
(Cad
anga
n Su
mbe
rday
a A
lam
)
1,
270,
282,
500
$139
,731
Kota
Kup
ang
2,45
0,75
0,00
0$2
69,5
83
Incr
ease
fish
pro
ducti
on
2,45
0,75
0,00
0$2
69,5
83
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
ra P
rovi
nce
10,8
18,6
19,2
81$1
,190
,048
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f m
arin
e re
sour
ces
1,16
7,39
0,10
9$1
28,4
13
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
y re
sour
ces
9,65
1,22
9,17
2$1
,061
,635
East
Nus
a Te
ngga
ra P
rovi
nce
7,28
5,67
0,00
0$8
01,4
24
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f m
arin
e re
sour
ces
839,
000,
000
$92,
290
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
ies
reso
urce
s
6,
446,
670,
000
$709
,134
Pati
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s D
ept
2,41
0,27
1,00
0$2
65,1
303,
447,
225,
000
$379
,195
Catc
hing
Fac
ility
and
Infr
astr
uctu
re
Dev
elop
men
t
700,
000,
000
$77,
000
1,00
0,00
0$1
10
Catc
hing
pro
ducti
on im
prov
emen
t
283,
000,
000
$31,
130
291,
500,
000
$32,
065
Cont
rol o
f Exp
loita
tion
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s N
atur
e Re
sour
ces
Impr
ovem
ent
5,
000,
000
$550
Cultu
re p
rodu
ction
and
oth
er
com
mod
ity im
prov
emen
t
3,40
0,00
0$3
74
40
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
41
Loca
l Aut
hori
ties
/ P
rogr
ams
2004
(Rp)
(USD
)
2005
(Rp)
(USD
)
2006
(Rp)
(USD
)
2007
(R
p)
(USD
)
Effici
ency
& E
ffecti
vene
ss o
f A
dmin
istr
ation
and
tech
niqu
e se
rvic
es im
prov
emen
t
30,0
00,0
00$3
,300
Faci
lity
and
Infr
astr
uctu
re
fish
cultu
re im
prov
emen
t and
de
velo
pmen
t
1,33
9,42
1,00
0$1
47,3
36
Fish
erie
s pr
oduc
t pro
cess
ing
and
mar
ketin
g im
prov
emen
t
15,0
00,0
00$1
,650
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s H
uman
Res
ourc
es
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent a
nd D
evel
opm
ent
9,
000,
000
$990
68,7
00,0
00$7
,557
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s in
stitu
tion
Dev
elop
men
t
5,00
0,00
0$5
50
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s In
stitu
tiona
l D
evel
opm
ent a
nd C
omm
unity
Em
pow
erm
ent
55,0
00,0
00$6
,050
Mar
ine
and
Fish
erie
s N
atur
e Re
sour
ces
Envi
ronm
ent Q
ualit
y D
evel
opm
ent
5,
000,
000
$550
135,
000,
000
$14,
850
Mar
ketin
g Fa
cilit
y an
d In
fras
truc
ture
Re
nova
tion
and
Dev
elop
men
t
2,
896,
025,
000
$318
,563
Plan
ning
, Mon
itori
ng, E
valu
ation
&
Repo
rt Im
prov
emen
t of M
arin
e an
d Fi
sher
ies
Dep
artm
ent D
istr
ict P
ati
15,4
50,0
00$1
,700
Peka
long
an
1,
776,
429,
500
$195
,407
Agr
ibus
ines
s de
velo
pmen
t
64,9
50,0
00$7
,145
Biod
iver
sity
pro
tecti
on
15,0
00,0
00$1
,650
Coas
tal c
omm
unity
dev
elop
men
t
74,7
00,0
00$8
,217
Dev
elop
men
t of E
cono
mic
de
velo
pmen
t zon
e
993,
559,
500
$109
,292
42
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
43
Loca
l Aut
hori
ties
/ P
rogr
ams
2004
(Rp)
(USD
)
2005
(Rp)
(USD
)
2006
(Rp)
(USD
)
2007
(R
p)
(USD
)
Man
agem
ent o
f nat
ural
en
viro
nmen
tPen
gelo
laan
Lin
gkun
gan
alam
49
8,22
0,00
0$5
4,80
4
Skill
s an
d kn
owle
dge
impr
ovem
ent
for
agri
cultu
re H
R
55,0
00,0
00$6
,050
Supp
ort p
rogr
am fo
r foo
d pr
oduc
tion
75
,000
,000
$8,2
50
Gra
nd T
otal
1,90
4,54
2,00
0$2
09,5
0041
,831
,120
,194
$4,6
01,4
2343
,583
,823
,691
$4,7
94,2
212,
450,
750,
000
$269
,583
42
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
43
App
endi
x Ta
ble
5 —
Acti
viti
es b
y Ri
sk (M
MA
F D
G-C
aptu
re F
ishe
ries
)Ri
sk R
ating
Prog
ram
Acti
vity
Very
Hig
hde
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re
fishe
ries
busi
ness
mee
ting
for
capt
ure
fishe
ryco
ntro
l of o
vers
eas
empl
oyee
s w
orki
ng a
t nati
onal
fish
ing
vess
els
deve
lop
man
agem
ent i
nfor
mati
on s
yste
m fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
busi
ness
deve
lopm
ent o
f int
egra
ted
capt
ure
fishe
ryev
alua
tion
on th
e de
velo
pmen
t of s
mal
l sca
le c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
(< 3
0 G
T)Ev
alua
tion
on th
e de
velo
pmen
t of s
mal
l-sca
le fi
sher
y (fi
shin
g po
wer
< 3
0 G
T)fe
asib
ility
and
allo
catio
n fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
heri
esfe
asib
ility
and
fish
ery
allo
catio
n fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
form
ulat
e sa
lary
sys
tem
and
pro
fit s
hari
ng in
cap
ture
fish
ery
busi
ness
form
ulati
on o
f mas
ter
plan
and
rens
tra
(str
ateg
ic p
lann
ing)
on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f sm
all-s
cale
cap
ture
fish
erie
s (P
UPT
SK)
inte
rnati
onal
coo
pera
tion
for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f cap
ture
fish
erie
s bu
sine
ssin
tern
ation
al c
oope
ratio
n on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f cap
ture
fish
erie
sm
appi
ng p
erfo
rman
ce o
f arti
sana
l fish
erie
sm
appi
ng p
erfo
rman
ce o
f sm
all-s
cale
fish
erie
sm
ento
ring
on
revi
taliz
ation
of c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
men
tori
ng th
e op
erati
onal
of r
evita
lizati
on p
acka
ge fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
heri
espo
licy
form
ulati
on o
n op
en o
cean
cap
ture
fish
ery
Prom
ote
inve
stm
ent o
n ca
ptur
e fis
hery
soci
o-ec
onom
ic a
naly
sis
of fi
sher
’s b
usin
ess
tech
nica
l mee
ting
and
deve
lop
part
ners
hips
for
capt
ure
fishe
rytr
aini
ng T
OT
on in
stitu
tiona
l str
uctu
re o
f cap
ture
fish
ery
44
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
45
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyde
velo
pmen
t of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s an
d ge
ars
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
shin
g bo
ats
and
gear
sde
velo
pmen
t of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s an
d ge
ars
FAD
’s m
appi
ngim
prov
e fa
cilit
y fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
, dire
ct a
id to
com
mun
ity a
nd o
ther
sup
porti
ng a
ctivi
ties
impr
ovem
ent o
f fish
ing
faci
lities
, dire
ct a
id a
nd o
ther
sup
porti
ng a
ctivi
ties
map
ping
on
FAD
(Fis
h A
ggre
gatin
g D
evic
e)M
onito
ring
-Eva
luati
on (M
onEv
) of i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
OPT
ILA
NPI
plan
ning
and
sup
ervi
sion
on
the
desi
gn a
nd s
eaw
orth
ines
s of
fish
ing
boat
s an
d ge
ars
Pre-
cons
ensu
s an
d co
nsen
sus
on s
tand
ardi
zed
fishi
ng v
esse
ls a
nd g
ears
pre-
cons
ensu
s &
con
sens
us o
n st
anda
rdiz
ed fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s an
d ge
ars
impr
ove
serv
ice
on
fishi
ng li
cens
ing
arra
ngem
ent f
or c
aptu
re fi
sher
y al
loca
tion
arra
ngem
ent o
n fis
hing
allo
catio
nev
alua
tion
on fi
shin
g al
loca
tion
eval
uatio
n, a
lloca
tion
and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
cap
ture
fish
ery
busi
ness
field
ext
ensi
on a
nd a
ccel
erati
on to
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
inte
grat
ed c
aptu
re fi
sher
y sy
stem
field
ext
ensi
on o
n bu
sine
ss s
ervi
ce o
n ca
ptur
e fis
hery
of fi
shin
g po
wer
< 3
0 G
TO
PTIK
API
Eval
uatio
n of
SPD
N/S
PBN
dev
elop
men
tFi
eld
cons
ulta
tion
to s
uppo
rt th
e de
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
fishi
ng v
esse
l dev
elop
men
tPr
ocur
emen
t of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
sO
PTIS
ARK
AN
deve
lopm
ent o
f sm
all s
cale
fish
erie
sH
igh
deve
lopm
ent o
f cap
ture
fis
heri
esfa
cilit
ate
certi
ficati
on o
f lan
d ow
ning
for
fishe
rmen
impr
ove
acce
ss o
n ca
pita
l inv
estm
ent o
f fish
ers
to b
ank
incr
ease
acc
ess
to c
apita
l inv
estm
ent f
or s
mal
l sca
le fi
sher
men
incr
ease
acc
ess
to c
apita
l of fi
sher
men
to b
ank
incr
ease
d ac
cess
to c
apita
l inv
estm
ent f
or fi
sher
thro
ugh
paw
ning
ser
vice
and
land
cer
tifica
te a
t fish
ing
port
/fish
la
ndin
gs (P
P/TP
I)m
ento
ring
to in
crea
se a
cces
s to
cap
ital f
or s
mal
l-sca
le fi
sher
stre
ngth
enin
g ca
pita
l for
fish
erm
enSt
reng
then
ing
capi
tal i
nves
tmen
t for
fish
erm
en
44
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
45
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyM
oder
ate
CCRF
follo
w u
p ac
tion
to s
olve
fish
erm
en c
onfli
ctde
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re
fishe
ries
capa
city
bui
ldin
g fo
r co
mpe
tenc
y im
prov
emen
t of t
he fi
sher
men
De-
regu
latio
n on
fish
ery
busi
ness
: pub
lic p
olic
y an
alys
es o
n fis
hery
bus
ines
sde
velo
pmen
t of l
ivel
ihoo
d di
vers
ifica
tion
for
smal
l sca
le fi
sher
men
impr
ove
fishe
rmen
com
pete
ncy
in b
asic
saf
ety
proc
edur
e (B
STF)
impr
ove
fishe
r’s
com
pete
nce
in m
achi
nery
(Atk
apin
III)
impr
ove
fishe
r’s
com
pete
nce
on b
asic
saf
ety
proc
edur
es (B
ST-F
)im
prov
e fis
her’
s co
mpe
tenc
e on
dec
k sk
ills
(Ank
apin
III)
impr
ove
fishe
rmen
com
pete
ncy
in e
ngin
e (A
tkap
in II
I)liv
elih
ood
dive
rsifi
catio
n fo
r sm
all-s
cale
fish
erm
enSo
cio-
econ
omic
s an
alys
es o
f fish
erm
ende
velo
pmen
t of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s an
d ge
ars
deve
lopm
ent o
f inf
orm
ation
sys
tem
for
fishi
ng p
ort
deve
lopm
ent o
f out
er r
ing
fishi
ng p
ort i
n In
done
sia
fishi
ng v
esse
l map
ping
at fi
shin
g po
rtgu
idel
ine
to m
easu
re v
esse
l dim
ensi
ons
harb
or m
aste
r of
fish
ing
port
impr
ove
fish
land
ing
faci
lities
in W
est J
ava
Prov
ince
impr
oved
faci
lities
of C
ilaca
p fis
hing
por
t (PP
S)im
prov
ed s
tatu
s of
PPP
Sun
gaili
at in
to P
PNIn
fras
truc
ture
dev
elop
men
t of J
akar
ta F
ishi
ng P
ort
Mon
itori
ng-E
valu
ation
(Mon
Ev) a
nd m
ento
ring
of t
he o
pera
tiona
l of fi
shin
g po
rtFi
shin
g po
rt o
pera
tiona
l mai
nten
ance
& re
porti
ngPl
anni
ng a
nd s
uper
visi
on o
n de
sign
of s
afet
y pr
oced
ure
for
fishi
ng v
esse
ls a
nd g
ears
revi
ew a
nd e
valu
ation
on
inte
grat
ed fi
shin
g po
rt m
anag
emen
t in
rela
tion
to lo
cal a
uton
omy
revi
ew o
n re
med
iatio
n of
sed
imen
tatio
n po
nd a
t fish
ing
port
stud
y th
e im
pact
of o
pera
tiona
l PER
UM
to p
erfo
rman
ce o
f fish
ing
port
tech
nica
l and
impl
emen
tatio
n gu
idel
ine
on th
e op
erati
onal
of fi
shin
g po
rtte
chni
cal t
rain
ing
on th
e de
velo
pmen
t of fi
shin
g ge
ars
trai
ning
for
boat
-mas
ter
46
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
47
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tytr
aini
ng fo
r offi
cial
s on
phy
sica
l and
doc
umen
t che
ckin
g of
fish
ing
vess
els
trai
ning
for
oper
ator
of U
PMB
trai
ning
for
oper
ator
UPM
Btr
aini
ng o
n de
velo
pmen
t of fi
shin
g ge
ars
trai
ning
on
fishi
ng b
oat m
aste
rtr
aini
ng o
n id
entifi
catio
n an
d m
easu
ring
fish
ing
boat
dim
ensi
ons
trai
ning
on
mai
nten
ance
and
repa
ratio
n of
fish
ing
mac
hine
trai
ning
on
mai
nten
ance
and
repa
ratio
n of
mac
hine
ry fo
r fis
hing
trai
ning
on
phys
ical
and
doc
umen
t che
ckin
g fo
r fis
hing
boa
ts/s
hip
trai
ning
on
safe
ty p
roce
dure
of fi
shin
g bo
attr
aini
ng o
n se
awor
thy
of fi
shin
g bo
ats/
ship
sde
velo
pmen
t of s
mal
l sc
ale
fishe
ries
trai
ning
on
smal
l-sca
le fi
sher
ies
fishi
ng li
cens
etr
aini
ng o
n fis
hing
fishi
ng p
ort
deve
lopm
ent o
f inf
orm
ation
sys
tem
for
fishi
ng p
ort
deve
lopm
ent o
f out
er-r
ing
fishi
ng p
orts
in In
done
sia
faci
lity
impr
ovem
ent o
f fish
ing
port
(PPS
) in
Cila
cap
harb
or m
aste
r of
fish
ing
port
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d te
chni
cal g
uide
line
of th
e op
erati
on o
f fish
ing
port
impr
ovem
ent o
f fish
ing
land
ing
site
s (T
PI) E
ast J
ava
Prov
ince
incr
ease
d st
atus
of P
PP S
unga
iliat
into
PPN
infr
astr
uctu
re im
prov
emen
t of J
akar
ta F
ishi
ng P
ort
Mon
itori
ng-E
valu
ation
(Mon
Ev) o
f the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
OPT
ILA
NPI
Mon
itori
ng-E
valu
ation
(Mon
Ev) o
f the
ope
ratio
nal o
f fish
ing
port
revi
ew a
nd e
valu
ation
of i
nteg
rate
d fis
hing
por
t man
agem
ent i
n re
latio
n to
loca
l aut
onom
yre
view
on
rem
edia
tion
of s
edim
enta
tion
pond
at fi
shin
g po
rtSt
udy
on im
pact
of P
ERU
M o
pera
tion
on th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f fish
ing
port
46
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
47
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyim
prov
e se
rvic
e on
fis
hing
lice
nsin
gco
achi
ng o
n no
n-ta
xed
gove
rnm
ent i
ncom
e (P
NBK
)es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f KU
B (c
oope
rativ
e)fie
ld e
xten
sion
on
busi
ness
ser
vice
on
capt
ure
fishe
ry o
f fish
ing
pow
er <
30
GT
HR
deve
lopm
ent i
n re
latio
n to
cap
ture
fish
ery
licen
sing
men
tori
ng o
n PN
BK (n
on-t
axed
gov
ernm
ent i
ncom
e)op
timiz
ing
of n
on-t
axed
gov
ernm
ent i
ncom
e (P
NBP
)op
timiz
ing
no-t
axed
gov
ernm
ent i
ncom
e (P
NBP
)O
PTIK
API
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
ies
land
ing
and
aucti
on p
lace
sim
prov
e fa
cilit
y of
fish
ing
port
impr
oved
ser
vice
of fi
shin
g po
rtO
pera
tiona
l im
prov
emen
t of fi
sher
y ha
rbor
Stan
dard
izati
on o
f cap
ture
fish
ery
faci
lities
trai
ning
on
cont
rol &
con
stru
ction
of fi
shin
g ha
rbor
trai
ning
on
fishi
ng fa
cilit
yLo
w (P
ositi
ve?)
CCRF
empo
wer
men
t of a
rtisa
nal fi
sher
ies
(fish
box
)de
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re
fishe
ries
deve
lop
conc
ept o
n th
e re
vita
lizati
on fi
sher
y bu
sine
ss
OPT
IHA
ND
ISfis
h ha
ndlin
g an
d pr
oces
sing
Impr
oved
faci
lity
of L
PPM
HP
(fish
qua
lity
cont
rol)
Opti
miz
e fis
h pr
oces
sing
faci
lities
qual
ity im
prov
emen
t of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tVa
lue
adde
d an
d qu
ality
impr
ovem
ent o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Posi
tive
CCRF
an o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r tr
awl o
pera
tion
in c
ross
bou
ndar
y be
twee
n M
alay
sia
- Ind
ones
iaCp
UE’
s m
onito
ring
& e
valu
ation
for
fishi
ng v
esse
ls <
30
GT
in W
PP (fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t are
as)
Dee
p se
a FA
D’s
mon
itori
ng a
nd e
valu
ation
Sul
awes
i and
Pap
ua, F
AD
’s id
entifi
catio
n in
Sou
th C
hina
Sea
Dev
elop
men
t of d
raft
man
agem
ent p
lan
for
spotf
in fl
ying
fish
in M
akas
sar
Stra
it an
d Fl
ores
Sea
eval
uatio
n an
d m
ento
ring
the
tran
s-bo
unda
ry fi
sher
men
eval
uatio
n an
d ve
rific
ation
on
the
use
of F
AD
s in
Nor
th S
ulaw
esi a
nd P
acifi
c oc
ean
eval
uatio
n of
fish
ery
regu
latio
n at
cro
ss b
ound
ary
of E
astK
al, W
estK
al w
ith M
alay
sia
exte
nsio
n of
CCR
F
48
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
49
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyEx
tens
ion
of N
POA
for
shar
k m
anag
emen
tfie
ld e
xten
sion
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
CCR
FFi
sher
ies
man
agem
ent o
f end
ange
red
spec
ies
Fish
erie
s m
onito
ring
in A
rafu
ru S
eaFi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t of E
EZ a
nd o
pen
ocea
nfo
rmul
ation
of N
ation
al P
lan
of A
ction
on
Fish
ing
Capa
city
form
ulati
on o
f tec
hnic
al g
uide
line
on fi
shin
g ge
ar, F
AD
’s p
lace
men
t and
NPO
A fi
shin
g ca
paci
tyim
plem
enta
tion
of N
POA
for
shar
k m
anag
emen
tin
itial
dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t pla
n (R
PP) f
or A
rafu
ra S
eaIn
vent
ory
of fi
sher
y re
sour
ces
in th
e Pr
ovin
ce o
f Ban
gka
Belit
ung
man
agem
ent o
f red
sna
pper
fish
ery
in A
rafu
ru a
nd T
imor
Sea
man
agem
ent p
lan
for
Bang
gai C
ardi
nal fi
shM
ento
ring
on
Code
of C
ondu
ct fo
r Re
spon
sibl
e Fi
sher
ies
(CCR
F)M
onito
ring
-Eva
luati
on (M
onEv
) of fi
sher
y re
gula
tion
in a
rchi
pela
gic
area
sM
onito
ring
-Eva
luati
on (M
onEv
) of l
ongt
ail s
had,
Ten
ulos
a m
acru
raM
onito
ring
follo
w u
p ac
tions
of fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t pla
n (R
PP) o
f Tel
uk T
omin
iM
onito
ring
follo
w u
p ac
tions
of fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t pla
n in
Java
Sea
mul
ti-la
tera
l coo
pera
tion
(CCS
BT, I
OTC
, BO
BLM
E) a
nd p
repa
re th
e m
embe
rshi
p of
Indo
nesi
a in
CCS
BT a
nd W
CPFC
Nati
onal
FKP
PS (fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t for
um) m
eetin
gon
boar
d ob
serv
er o
n fis
hing
ves
sels
(SIP
O)
onbo
ard
obse
rver
pro
gram
polic
y fo
rmul
ation
on
capt
ure
fishe
ry m
anag
emen
t and
urg
ency
of m
embe
rshi
p of
Indo
nesi
a in
CCS
BT a
nd W
CPFC
Stud
y on
by-
catc
h uti
lizati
on a
nd m
anag
emen
t of t
raw
l fish
ery
in A
rafu
ra S
eaW
orks
hop
on fi
sher
y m
anag
emen
t pla
n (R
PP) o
f Mal
acca
Str
ait
deve
lopm
ent o
f cap
ture
fis
heri
esco
ntro
l of o
vers
eas
empl
oyee
s w
orki
ng a
t nati
onal
fish
ing
vess
els
form
ulati
on o
f mas
ter
plan
and
str
ateg
ic p
lan
(Ren
stra
) for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f sm
all s
cale
fish
erie
s (P
UPT
SK)
man
agem
ent i
nfor
mati
on s
yste
m fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t of c
aptu
re fi
sher
ies
polic
y fo
rmul
ation
on
open
oce
an c
aptu
re fi
sher
y
48
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
49
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyD
evel
opm
ent o
f fish
ery
stati
stics
anal
yses
of t
he w
orld
fish
ery
App
reci
ation
of d
ata
colle
ction
sys
tem
for
tuna
fish
ery
appr
ecia
tion
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f sta
tistic
al s
yste
m fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
(SIS
PT)
data
ana
lyse
s an
d pr
esen
tatio
n on
fish
ing
boat
s/sh
ips
> 30
GT
data
ana
lyse
s an
d pr
esen
tatio
n on
sta
tistic
s fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
data
ana
lyse
s an
d pr
esen
tatio
n on
sta
tistic
s of
cap
ture
fish
ery
data
ana
lyse
s on
wor
ld fi
sher
yda
ta a
naly
sis
and
pres
enta
tion
on fi
shin
g bo
ats
fishi
ng p
ower
> 3
0 G
Tda
ta c
olle
ction
sys
tem
for
tuna
fish
ery
data
col
lecti
on s
yste
m fo
r tu
na fi
sher
y in
Indi
an O
cean
data
col
lecti
on s
yste
m fo
r tu
na fi
sher
y in
Pac
ific
area
data
col
lecti
on s
yste
m fo
r tu
na fi
sher
y in
Pac
ific
data
val
idati
on o
n st
atisti
cs fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
stati
stics
for
capt
ure
fishe
ries
valid
ating
sta
tistic
s of
cap
ture
fish
ery
deve
lopm
ent o
f fish
ing
vess
els
and
gear
sde
cisi
on o
n th
e de
sign
of n
ation
al s
tand
ard
inde
x (S
NI)
for
fishi
ng v
esse
ls a
nd g
ears
desi
gn o
f SN
I (N
ation
al S
tand
ard
Inde
x) fo
r fis
hing
ves
sels
and
gea
rgu
idel
ine
to m
easu
re fi
shin
g ve
ssel
dim
ensi
ons
iden
tifica
tion
and
map
ping
of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
s in
fish
ing
port
sIm
plem
enta
tion
of T
ED (t
rain
ing)
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
TED
trai
ning
on
iden
tifica
tion
and
mea
sure
men
t of fi
shin
g ve
ssel
dim
ensi
ons
fishi
ng li
cens
efis
hing
lice
nse
cont
rol
50
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
51
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyim
prov
e se
rvic
e on
fis
hing
lice
nsin
gfie
ld e
xten
sion
on
allo
catio
n an
d fis
hing
lice
nsin
gfie
ld e
xten
sion
on
allo
catio
n an
d lic
ense
for
capt
ure
fishe
ryH
R de
velo
pmen
t in
rela
tion
to c
aptu
re fi
sher
y lic
ensi
ngO
pera
tiona
l and
mai
nten
ance
of i
nfor
mati
on s
yste
mre
view
on
smal
l pel
agic
fish
ery
in M
akas
sar
Stra
it an
d Fl
ores
Sea
revi
ew o
n sm
all-p
elag
ic fi
sher
y in
Mak
assa
r St
rait
and
Flor
es S
eaup
dat
e lic
ensi
ng s
yste
m fo
r ca
ptur
e fis
hery
up d
ating
fish
ing
licen
sing
sys
tem
for
capt
ure
fishe
ryin
vest
men
t and
job
crea
tion
impr
ove
serv
ice
on fi
shin
g lic
ense
OPT
IKA
PIRe
vita
lizin
g FK
PPS
(Fis
hery
man
agem
ent f
orum
) and
Fis
heri
es M
anaj
emen
Pla
nse
rvic
e an
d co
ntro
l of
fishi
ng li
cens
elic
ense
for
fishi
ng v
esse
ls
50
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
51
App
endi
x Ta
ble
6 —
Acti
viti
es b
y Ri
sk (M
MA
F D
G-M
arin
e Co
asts
& S
mal
l Isl
ands
)Ri
sk R
ating
Prog
ram
Acti
vity
Very
Hig
hD
evel
opm
ent o
f fis
heri
es re
sour
ces
Faci
litati
ng S
PDN
(fue
l sta
tion
for
fishe
rs) d
evel
opm
ent
Indu
stri
tekn
olog
i tep
at g
una
(inte
rmed
iate
tech
nolo
gy in
dust
ry)
Empo
wer
men
t of t
radi
tiona
l fish
ing
boat
bui
lder
s Lo
cal t
echn
olog
y de
velo
pmen
tFi
sher
men
Reg
ener
ation
to im
prov
e th
e qu
ality
of h
uman
reso
urce
s in
coa
stal
com
mun
ities
Man
agem
ent
and
utiliz
ation
of s
mal
l is
land
s
capi
tal a
id (w
ater
car
rier
shi
p an
d fis
hing
boa
ts)
Inve
ntor
y th
e re
cipi
ents
of s
mar
t shi
ps
Hig
hD
evel
opm
ent o
f fis
heri
es re
sour
ces
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
sher
men
insu
ranc
e sy
stem
Real
izati
on o
f ent
erpr
ise
capi
tal
LKM
Sya
riah
(Sya
riah
Mic
roFi
nanc
e es
tabl
ishm
ent)
Man
agem
ent
and
utiliz
ation
of s
mal
l is
land
s
Live
lihoo
d ca
pita
l aid
or
coas
tal c
omm
uniti
es a
t tra
ns b
ound
ary
area
sPr
omot
e in
vest
men
t for
sm
all i
slan
ds
Mod
erat
eCo
nser
vati
on o
f Mar
ine
Nati
onal
Par
kD
atab
ase
deve
lopm
ent a
nd m
anag
emen
t for
mar
ine
cons
erva
tion
area
s (K
KL)
Dev
elop
men
t and
m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al
smal
l-isl
and
reso
urce
s
Confl
ict r
esol
ution
s fo
r pr
oble
ms
in a
nd a
roun
d fis
hing
por
t at 9
diff
eren
t site
sCo
ordi
natio
n an
d fa
cilit
ation
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of s
trat
egic
miti
gatio
n of
coa
stal
are
asCo
ordi
natio
n, fa
cilit
ation
and
coa
chin
g to
sup
port
revi
taliz
ation
of L
osar
i Bea
chFi
eld
exte
nsio
n on
gen
eral
gui
delin
e of
RPK
P at
5 p
rovi
nces
Form
ulat
e po
licy
on m
itiga
tion
to ts
unam
i in
Wes
t Sum
ater
aM
ater
ial p
rodu
ction
and
dis
sem
inati
on o
f coa
stal
miti
gatio
nPr
ovid
e su
ppor
t to
revi
taliz
ation
of L
osar
i, M
akas
sar
Publ
icati
on o
n m
arin
e, c
oast
al a
nd s
mal
l isl
and
activ
ities
(pro
gram
s)Re
view
des
ign
of th
e re
vita
lizati
on o
f Kup
ang
Bay
52
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
53
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Dev
elop
men
t of
fish
erie
s re
sour
ces
Dev
elop
men
t of e
mpo
wer
men
t and
ser
vice
cen
ter
for
coas
tal c
omm
uniti
esD
evel
opm
ent o
f pro
fit s
hari
ng m
echa
nism
for
fishe
ries
(Bal
i and
Java
)D
evel
opm
ent o
f TPD
net
wor
kEx
tens
ion
and
docu
men
tatio
n of
PEM
P Pr
ogra
mCo
rpor
atiza
tion
of fi
sher
men
and
fish
farm
ers
Mar
itim
e cu
ltura
l dev
elop
men
t thr
ough
Wal
lace
a’s
insti
tutio
nD
evel
opm
ent o
f new
coo
pera
tives
/mic
rofin
ance
age
ncie
sD
evel
opm
ent o
f coa
stal
sho
ps (
Keda
i Pes
isir
)Em
pow
erm
ent o
f coa
stal
com
mun
ity e
cono
my
(PEM
P), s
endi
ng m
ater
ials
Empo
wer
men
t of c
oast
al c
omm
uniti
es th
roug
h sm
all s
cale
mar
ine
tour
ism
Empo
wer
men
t of c
oast
al c
omm
uniti
es th
roug
h in
term
edia
te te
chno
logy
Impl
emen
tatio
nEm
pow
erm
ent o
f coa
stal
wom
en th
roug
h de
velo
pmen
t of fi
sher
ies
prod
uct w
aste
s D
evel
opm
ent o
f LE
PP M
3/fis
heri
es c
oope
rativ
es n
etw
orks
.D
evel
opm
ent o
f coa
stal
com
mun
ity c
redi
t-ba
nkin
g (B
PR P
esis
ir).
Impr
ovem
ent o
f the
role
of L
EPP-
M3
thro
ugh
deve
lopm
ent o
f sup
er-m
arke
ts (W
aser
da).
Impr
ovem
ent o
f wom
en ro
le fo
r ho
useh
old
econ
omy
deve
lopm
ent
Dis
trib
ution
of b
ank-
cred
it to
LEP
PM3/
Fis
heri
es c
oope
rativ
esPu
blic
ation
of c
oast
al a
nd P
PK a
ctivi
ties
on c
oast
al c
omm
unity
em
pow
erm
ent
Man
agem
ent a
nd
utiliz
ation
of s
mal
l isl
ands
Dat
a m
anag
emen
t on
PPK
Dev
elop
men
t of i
nteg
rate
d m
arin
e to
uris
m in
Sul
sel,
Saun
ek, B
atam
, Lem
bong
an, M
oyo,
San
gihe
Dis
sem
inati
on o
f Min
iste
rial
Dec
ree,
Kep
men
Ped
um In
vest
asi a
t 5 D
istr
icts
/Citi
esFi
eld
visi
ts (c
oord
inati
on) t
o co
asta
l and
sm
all i
slan
ds a
reas
Mon
itori
ng-E
valu
ation
(Mon
Ev) o
fthe
impl
emen
tatio
n of
PPK
Mon
itori
ng o
n th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of fa
cilit
y ai
dsPr
omot
e th
e de
velo
pmen
t of m
arin
e to
uris
mW
orks
hop
and
road
sho
w o
n to
uris
m d
evel
opm
ent i
n co
asta
l and
sm
all i
slan
d ar
eas
52
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
53
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
mar
ine
reso
urce
s m
anag
emen
tco
asta
l con
stru
ction
in s
uppo
rt o
f rev
italiz
ation
of L
osar
i Bea
ch (p
hase
III)
coas
tal d
evel
opm
ent i
n su
ppor
t of r
evita
lizati
on o
f Kup
ang
Bay
Dev
elop
men
t of W
areh
ouse
BM
KTfie
ld e
xten
sion
, tec
hnic
al a
ssis
tant
& m
onito
ring
of t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of c
oast
al v
illag
e de
velo
pmen
tFo
rmul
ate
draft
of g
over
nmen
t reg
ulati
on o
n m
itiga
ting
from
dis
aste
r fo
r co
asta
l com
mun
ities
Form
ulat
e st
rate
gic
plan
to m
itiga
te ts
unam
i in
Indo
nesi
aid
entifi
catio
n on
the
pote
ntial
use
of u
nuse
d (e
xs) O
il Ri
gIn
vent
ory
and
dist
ribu
tion
of B
MKT
to lo
cal m
useu
ms
Miti
gatio
n to
Tsu
nam
i with
Soft
Str
uctu
reO
pera
tiona
lizati
on o
f nati
onal
sec
reta
riat
of B
MKT
Revi
sitin
g Pr
esid
entia
l Dec
ree
107/
2000
, 25/
1992
and
Min
iste
rial
Dec
ree
KP 3
9/20
00Tr
aini
ng o
n BM
KT h
andl
ing
and
man
agem
ent
MCR
MP
- mar
ine
and
coas
tal r
esou
rces
m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
Acc
ompl
ishm
ent o
f rep
orts
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
acti
vitie
s in
Ace
h to
AD
BA
dmin
acti
vitie
sCo
ordi
natio
n m
eetin
g on
BLN
Dev
elop
men
t of fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ts (c
entr
al a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
ts)
Dev
elop
men
t of y
earl
y pl
an w
ith p
rovi
ncia
l and
dis
tric
t lev
el in
stitu
tions
Dis
cuss
ion
on th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of S
NRM
Mee
ting
on p
roje
ct e
valu
ation
Mee
ting
on p
roje
ct m
onito
ring
Mee
ting
to e
valu
ate
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
reha
bilit
ation
and
reco
nstr
uctio
n of
NA
DM
eetin
g to
revi
ew A
DB
mis
sion
orga
niza
tiona
l str
uctu
re o
f wor
king
gro
up o
n re
habi
litati
on a
nd re
cons
truc
tion
of N
AD
Regu
lar
mee
ting
of P
MO
Spati
al p
lan
for
coas
tal
and
smal
l-isl
ands
Soft
war
e m
anag
emen
t (sa
telli
te im
ager
ies)
- G
IS
Low
(Pos
itive
?)D
evel
opm
ent a
nd
man
agem
ent o
f coa
stal
sm
all-i
slan
d re
sour
ces
Dev
elop
men
t of c
oast
al v
illag
e in
Dis
tric
t Gia
nyar
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f coa
stal
vill
ages
at 7
site
sIm
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
velo
pmen
t of c
oast
al v
illag
es in
dis
tric
t Pon
tiana
k
Mon
itori
ng th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
velo
pmen
t of c
oast
al v
illag
es
54
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
55
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Posi
tive
Cons
erva
tion
of M
arin
e N
ation
al P
ark
Tech
nica
l gui
danc
e on
met
hods
for
mon
itori
ng o
f cor
al re
efs
eval
uatio
nD
emon
stra
tion
plot
of c
oral
tran
spla
ntati
on a
nd te
chni
cal t
rain
ing
in 4
loca
tions
Dev
elop
dra
ft M
inis
teri
al D
ecre
e on
pro
tecti
on o
f fish
spe
cies
Dev
elop
gui
delin
e bo
ok fo
r co
ral i
denti
ficati
on (3
rd e
ditio
n)D
evel
op g
uide
line
on s
usta
inab
le u
se o
f mar
ine
biot
a in
side
MPA
sD
evel
op in
form
ation
mat
eria
ls a
nd p
rom
otion
to M
PAs
Dev
elop
men
t and
man
agem
ent o
f Wak
atob
i.D
evel
opm
ent o
f dra
ft g
over
nmen
t reg
ulati
on o
n co
nser
vatio
n of
fish
ery
reso
urce
sD
evel
opm
ent o
f man
agem
ent p
lan
for
loca
l MPA
s (K
KLD
)D
evel
opm
ent o
f MPA
s in
Bat
ek Is
land
, Saw
u an
d th
e su
rrou
ndin
g ar
eas
Dis
sem
inati
on o
f MPA
gaz
ettem
ent
Doc
umen
tatio
n an
d pu
blic
ation
of M
PAs
in c
oast
al a
nd s
mal
l isl
and
area
sFa
cilit
ate
actio
n pl
an fo
r SS
ME
and
natio
nal c
omm
ittee
on
mar
ine
cons
erva
tion
Insti
tutio
nal e
stab
lishm
ent f
or n
ew M
PAs
and
faci
litat
e th
e de
velo
pmen
t of a
ction
pla
nIn
vent
ory
and
sele
ction
of c
andi
date
MPA
s at
4 s
ites
(Sab
ang-
NA
D, S
imeu
leu-
NA
D, P
aloh
-Kal
bar,
P. E
ngga
no-
Beng
kulu
)In
vent
ory
of M
PAs
Mon
itori
ng a
nd fa
cilit
ation
of c
oral
tran
spla
ntati
onFa
cilit
ation
and
mon
itori
ng o
f buff
er z
ones
for
mar
ine
cons
erva
tion
Stre
ngth
enin
g th
e co
mm
unity
aro
und
buffe
r zo
nes
of m
arin
e na
tiona
l par
ksG
iant
cla
m re
stoc
king
in d
istr
ict L
ombo
k Ti
mur
, Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
raCo
ral R
ehab
ilita
tion
in K
awas
an L
oka
Budi
daya
Lau
t Lom
bok.
Sync
hron
ize
the
MPA
s m
anag
emen
t
54
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
55
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Dev
elop
men
t an
d m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al
smal
l-isl
and
reso
urce
s
Coor
dina
tion,
faci
litat
e th
e de
velo
pmen
t of p
lan
for
coas
t lin
e m
anag
emen
tCo
ral r
eef t
rans
plan
tatio
nsD
evel
op m
itiga
tion
stra
tegy
for
coas
tal e
cosy
stem
Dev
elop
men
t of c
ompr
ehen
sive
regu
latio
ns (c
entr
al-p
rovi
nce-
dist
rict
s) th
at u
sed
as g
uide
line
for
gove
rnm
ents
an
d st
akeh
olde
rsD
evel
opm
ent o
f com
pute
rize
d da
ta s
yste
m fo
r m
angr
ove
Dev
elop
men
t of g
ener
al g
uide
line
on m
anag
emen
t of b
ays
Dev
elop
men
t of g
ener
al g
uide
line
on m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
line
Dev
elop
men
t of g
ener
al g
uide
line
on m
anag
emen
t of e
stua
rine
are
asD
evel
opm
ent o
f gen
eral
gui
delin
e on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f coa
stal
vill
ages
Exte
nsio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of B
each
Cle
anin
g (G
BPL)
.Ex
tens
ion,
coo
rdin
ation
and
mon
itori
ng th
e ac
tivity
on
miti
gatio
n to
coa
stal
eco
syst
emEx
tens
ion,
sup
ervi
sion
and
faci
litati
on o
n m
onito
ring
of m
arin
e po
llutio
nFo
rmul
ation
of n
ation
al s
trat
egy
and
actio
n pl
an to
con
trol
mar
ine
pollu
tion
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
cle
an c
oast
al v
illag
es in
Sem
aran
gIm
plem
enta
tion
of G
BPL
at 5
diff
eren
t site
sM
itiga
tion
to c
oral
reef
des
truc
tions
in B
iak
Papu
a.M
itiga
tion
to d
egra
datio
n of
coa
stal
env
ironm
ent a
t Dis
tric
t Dem
akm
onito
ring
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n to
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f coa
stal
are
as a
nd m
angr
ove
reha
bilit
ation
Nati
onal
wor
ksho
p on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f str
ateg
ic p
lann
ing
of W
est S
umat
era
Pilo
t Pro
ject
on
cont
rol o
f mar
ine
pollu
tion
caus
ed b
y fis
herm
en b
oats
Prep
are
gove
rnm
ent r
egul
ation
s on
the
man
agem
ent o
f coa
stal
and
mar
ine
area
sPu
blic
con
sulta
tion
for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f str
ateg
ic p
lan
of m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al a
rea
in W
est S
umat
era
Wor
ksho
p to
dev
elop
gen
eral
gui
delin
e on
reha
bilit
ation
and
opti
mal
use
of c
oast
al a
reas
Dev
elop
men
t of
fish
erie
s re
sour
ces
Revi
taliz
ation
of s
ocia
l inf
rast
ruct
ure
in m
arin
e an
d co
asta
l res
ourc
es u
tiliz
ation
and
man
agem
ent
56
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
57
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Man
agem
ent
and
utiliz
ation
of s
mal
l isl
ands
Dat
a m
anag
emen
t on
smal
l isl
and
usin
g G
IS b
ase
date
Dev
elop
pro
file
of s
mal
l isl
and
in In
done
sia
Dev
elop
men
t Ind
ex o
f sm
all i
slan
ds, e
cono
mic
val
uatio
n of
sm
all i
slan
dsEc
osys
tem
impr
ovem
ent o
f coa
stal
and
sm
all i
slan
ds a
reas
Ecos
yste
m re
habi
litati
on a
nd o
ptim
al u
se o
f coa
stal
and
sm
all i
slan
dsFa
cilit
y an
d ca
pita
l aid
and
eco
syst
em re
habi
litati
on o
f coa
stal
and
sm
all i
slan
dsIn
vent
ory
of is
land
s in
Indo
nesi
aM
onito
ring
on
cora
l ree
f tra
nspl
anta
tion
Surv
ey o
n sm
all i
slan
ds in
Indo
nesi
am
arin
e re
sour
ces
man
agem
ent
Coas
tal a
nd m
arin
e cl
ean
up (G
BPL)
at t
wo
loca
tions
Com
mun
ity a
war
enes
s on
miti
gatio
n fr
om d
isas
ter
and
pollu
tion
coor
dina
tion,
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nt &
ext
ensi
on o
f the
mar
ine
polic
ies
data
man
agem
ent o
n po
tenti
al re
sour
ces
of c
oast
al v
illag
esde
velo
p co
ncep
t on
man
grov
e co
nver
sion
mec
hani
smD
evel
op g
uide
line
to m
easu
re In
dica
tor
Perf
orm
ance
of I
nteg
rate
d Co
asta
l Man
agem
ent (
ICM
)de
velo
p te
chni
cal g
uide
line
on p
lann
ing
docu
men
t of c
oast
al v
illag
e m
anag
emen
tEx
tens
ion,
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nt &
mon
itori
ng o
n th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of m
itiga
tion
of c
oast
al e
nviro
nmen
tfie
ld e
xten
sion
on
natio
nal s
trat
egy
of m
angr
ove
man
agem
ent
field
ext
ensi
on, t
echn
ical
ass
ista
nt &
mon
itori
ng o
f the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
man
grov
e re
habi
litati
onFo
rmul
ate
draft
Min
iste
rial
Dec
ree
on s
tand
ardi
zed
inte
grat
ed m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al a
reas
form
ulat
e dr
aft o
f Pre
side
ntial
regu
latio
n on
coa
stal
eco
syst
em m
anag
emen
tFo
rmul
ate
draft
of P
resi
denti
al R
egul
ation
on
recl
amati
onFo
rmul
ate
draft
on
zoni
ng p
lan
for
coas
tal a
rea
in L
ampu
ng B
ayFo
rmul
ate
draft
on
zoni
ng p
lan
for
coas
tal a
reas
(thr
ee s
ites)
form
ulati
on o
f str
ateg
ic p
lan
on m
itiga
tion
of p
ollu
tion
in th
e Ja
kart
a Ba
yH
ouse
Aid
(res
ista
nt to
dis
aste
r an
d po
llutio
n) in
5 lo
catio
nsId
entifi
catio
n an
d in
vent
ory
of m
arin
e re
sour
ces
impr
ove
perf
orm
ance
of n
ation
al c
omm
ittee
of m
angr
ove
in In
done
sia
Info
rmati
on s
yste
m o
n m
itiga
tion
from
Tsu
nam
i in
fishe
ry fa
cilit
y ar
eas
56
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
57
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
inte
grat
ed p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f Pal
u Ba
y, C
entr
al S
ulaw
esi
inte
grat
ed p
lann
ing
and
man
agem
ent o
f coa
stal
vill
age
at 4
loca
tions
(Lak
udo,
Ban
yuas
in, T
ojo
Una
-Una
, Lom
bok
Teng
ah)
Lam
pung
, Jep
ara,
Sid
oarj
o, B
ali,
Nun
ukan
)M
itiga
ting
pollu
tion
thro
ugh
vege
tatio
nM
itiga
tion
to b
each
ero
sion
in T
egal
Miti
gatio
n to
cor
al re
ef d
egra
datio
nsM
itiga
tion
to p
ollu
tion
in D
emaK
Opti
mal
use
of D
elta
Mah
akam
Proj
ect m
onito
ring
and
eva
luati
onSt
rate
gic
plan
ning
on
inte
grat
ed m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al a
reas
Tech
nica
l coa
chin
g on
inte
grat
ed m
anag
emen
t of c
oast
al a
reas
trai
ning
on
Scie
ntific
Div
ing
Upd
ating
Dat
a on
man
grov
e ec
osys
tem
(8 lo
catio
n)W
orks
hop
and
TOT
on m
itiga
tion
to d
isas
ter
and
pollu
tion
58
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
59
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
MCR
MP
- mar
ine
and
coas
tal r
esou
rces
m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
acco
mpl
ishm
ent o
f qua
rter
ly M
CRM
Pac
com
plis
hmen
t of y
earl
y re
port
sA
ppre
ciati
on o
n un
it w
ork
man
agem
ent (
Peng
elol
a Sa
tuan
Ker
ja)
Cons
ulta
nt s
ervi
ce o
n pr
olon
ged
MCR
MD
iscu
ssio
n on
loca
l reg
ulati
ons
(pro
vinc
ial a
nd d
istr
ict l
evel
) reg
ardi
ng c
oast
al a
rea
man
agem
ent (
PWP)
Exhi
bitio
n an
d di
ssem
inati
on o
f MCR
MP
resu
ltsH
R de
velo
pmen
t on
adva
nce
GIS
and
rem
ote
sens
ing
HR
deve
lopm
ent o
n co
asta
l pla
nnin
g an
d de
velo
pmen
tH
R de
velo
pmen
t on
proj
ect p
lann
ing
and
man
agem
ent
HR
deve
lopm
ent o
n sp
atial
dat
a up
dat
e an
d m
anag
emen
tIn
tern
ation
al P
racti
cal o
n Att
achm
ent I
CZPM
Mee
ting
disc
ussi
on o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of p
rovi
ncia
l lev
el s
patia
l inf
orm
ation
cen
ter
Mee
ting
to d
iscu
ss re
port
s an
d re
sults
of M
CRM
pro
ject
sN
ation
al w
orks
hop
on c
onsu
ltatio
n of
coa
stal
and
mar
ine
regu
latio
nsPr
ojec
t Man
agem
ent O
ffice
(PM
O)
Regi
onal
mee
ting
- Kal
iman
tan
& N
usa
Teng
gara
Regi
onal
mee
ting
- Sul
awes
iRe
gion
al m
eetin
g - S
umat
era
Shor
t Cou
rse
on IC
ZPM
and
Mar
ine
Polic
yW
orks
hop
on d
isse
min
ation
of M
CRM
P re
sults
Wor
ksho
p on
ext
ensi
on o
f the
ope
ratio
naliz
ation
of s
patia
l inf
orm
ation
cen
ter
at p
rovi
ncia
l lev
elW
orks
hop
to s
ocia
lize
ICM
at p
rovi
ncia
l lev
els
of n
on M
CRM
P re
cipi
ent
58
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
59
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Spati
al p
lan
for
coas
tal a
nd
smal
l-isl
ands
Cond
uct c
oord
inati
on, M
onito
ring
-Eva
luati
on (M
onEv
) of t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of L
P3K
spati
al p
lann
ing
Cond
uct e
valu
ation
and
form
ulat
e po
licy
reco
mm
enda
tions
on
spati
al p
lan
of L
P3K.
Cond
uct i
denti
ficati
on, a
naly
ses
and
form
ulat
e sp
atial
pla
n fo
r so
me
stra
tegi
c/pr
iori
ty a
reas
Cond
uct i
denti
ficati
on, a
naly
ses
and
form
ulat
e sp
atial
pla
nnin
g fo
r st
rate
gic
or p
rior
ity a
reas
Dat
abas
e M
anag
emen
t Sys
tem
on
mar
ine
spati
al p
lan
Dev
elop
doc
umen
tary
film
s an
d pu
blic
ation
on
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
spa
tial p
lan
of m
arin
e, c
oast
al a
nd s
mal
l is
land
s (L
P3K)
Dev
elop
gui
delin
e da
ta id
entifi
catio
n fo
r sp
atial
pla
nnin
g of
mar
ine,
coa
stal
and
sm
all i
slan
dD
evel
op g
uide
line
for
the
utiliz
ation
of s
mal
l-isl
and
area
s (c
lust
er)
Dev
elop
gui
delin
e in
Mon
itori
ng-E
valu
ation
(Mon
Ev) o
f spa
tial p
lann
ing
for
mar
ine,
coa
stal
and
sm
all i
slan
dD
evel
op s
patia
l pla
nnin
g fo
r Ba
likpa
pan
Bay
Dev
elop
men
t of s
patia
l pla
nnin
g of
12
Dis
tric
ts/C
ities
Fiel
d ex
tens
ion
and
insti
tutio
nal s
tren
gthe
ning
in s
patia
l pla
nnin
g fo
r m
arin
e, c
oast
al a
nd s
mal
l isl
ands
Form
ulat
e gu
idel
ine
for
spati
al p
lann
ing
of c
oast
al c
ityFo
rmul
ate
guid
elin
e to
esti
mat
e ca
rryi
ng c
apac
ity o
f sm
all i
slan
dsFo
rmul
ate
impl
emen
tatio
n gu
idel
ine
for
Kepm
en K
P N
o. 3
4/ 2
002
on s
patia
l pla
nnin
gM
anag
emen
t of T
RLP3
K ne
twor
k sy
stem
Prov
inci
al c
oord
inati
on m
eetin
g fo
r ar
rang
emen
t of b
etw
een
prov
ince
MPA
Spati
al a
naly
ses
on c
oast
al a
nd m
arin
e re
sour
ces
Spati
al p
lann
ing
for
Riau
and
Sul
sel
60
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
61
App
endi
x Ta
ble
7 —
Acti
viti
es b
y Ri
sk (M
MA
F D
G-P
rodu
ct P
roce
ssin
g &
Mar
keti
ng)
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
tyVe
ry H
igh
Busi
ness
dev
elop
men
t on
proc
essi
ng a
nd
mar
ketin
g of
fish
ery
prod
ucts
Impr
ovem
ent o
f pub
lic s
ervi
ce, H
R de
velo
pmen
t and
goo
d go
vern
ance
Follo
w u
p ac
tions
to th
e fis
hery
revi
taliz
ation
pla
nD
evel
opm
ent p
lann
ing
Hig
hBu
sine
ss d
evel
opm
ent o
n pr
oces
sing
and
m
arke
ting
of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsD
evel
op in
form
ation
sys
tem
on
Busi
ness
and
inve
stm
ent
Dev
elop
patt
ern
for
dom
estic
and
fore
ign
capi
tal a
nd in
vest
men
tEn
gage
men
t of fi
nanc
ial c
onsu
ltant
to e
mpo
wer
UM
KM p
artn
ersh
ip w
ith
bank
Soci
aliz
ation
and
faci
litati
ng b
ank
SKIM
cre
dit f
or fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsM
oder
ate
Busi
ness
dev
elop
men
t on
proc
essi
ng a
nd
mar
keti
ng o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Dev
elop
bus
ines
s pa
rtne
rshi
pD
evel
op fo
rmat
dat
a st
atisti
cs o
n pr
oces
sing
and
mar
ketin
g of
fish
ery
prod
ucts
Dev
elop
Ent
repr
eneu
rshi
pFa
cilit
ate
part
ners
hip
in p
roce
ssin
g an
d m
arke
ting
Impr
ove
serv
ice
on re
gion
al b
usin
ess
and
inve
stm
ent c
oope
ratio
n in
fish
erie
sIn
stitu
tiona
l em
pow
erm
ent t
o se
a w
eed
indu
stri
esIn
vent
ory
of la
bors
em
ploy
ed in
fish
pro
cess
ing
and
mar
ketin
g in
dust
ries
part
ners
hip
patt
ern
in p
roce
ssin
g an
d m
arke
ting
Prom
otion
for
natio
nal,
regi
onal
and
inte
rnati
onal
inve
stm
ents
Prom
otion
on
mar
ketin
g, in
dust
ries
and
inve
stm
ents
Impr
ove
qual
ity
and
deve
lopm
ent o
f pr
oces
sing
for
fishe
ry p
rodu
ctH
arm
oniz
ation
and
coo
pera
tion
in s
tand
ardi
zing
Impr
ove
natio
nal p
rogr
am o
n m
onito
ring
of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsO
pera
tiona
l of t
echn
ical
com
mitt
eePr
e-co
nsen
sus
and
cons
ensu
spr
epar
e m
ater
ials
and
pro
duce
boo
k on
SN
I and
SN
I rev
isio
nPr
oble
m id
entifi
catio
n fo
r fis
h pr
oces
sing
indu
stri
esSo
cial
izati
on o
f nati
onal
sta
ndar
d in
dex
(SN
I) fo
r fis
hery
pro
duct
sSt
akeh
olde
r co
ordi
natio
n fo
rum
on
fishe
ry in
dust
ries
60
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
61
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Impr
ovem
ent o
f pub
lic s
ervi
ce, H
R de
velo
pmen
t and
goo
d go
vern
ance
Dev
elop
dat
a-ba
se o
n pr
oces
sing
of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsD
evel
op in
form
ation
sys
tem
on
proc
essi
ng a
nd m
arke
ting
of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsD
evel
opm
ent o
f ext
erna
l affa
irsD
evel
opm
ent o
f pro
gram
and
tech
nica
l wor
k pl
anD
evel
opm
ent o
f sta
tistic
s on
fish
ery
proc
essi
ng a
nd m
arke
ting
Faci
litat
e co
mm
issi
ons,
ass
ocia
tions
and
oth
er in
stitu
tions
on
proc
essi
ng a
nd
mar
ketin
g of
fish
ery
prod
uct
HR
deve
lopm
ent
Iden
tifica
tion
of n
ation
al tu
na in
dust
ries
and
soc
ializ
ation
of t
he e
stab
lishm
ent o
f In
done
sian
Com
mitt
ee o
n Tu
na (K
TI)
Impr
ovem
ent o
f wor
king
eth
ics
Insti
tutio
nal d
evel
opm
ent a
nd p
ublic
rela
tion
Mon
itori
ng a
nd e
valu
ation
Ope
ratio
nal f
or g
ener
al a
dmin
istr
ation
ser
vice
Org
aniz
ation
dev
elop
men
tO
utre
achi
ng th
e fis
hery
pro
duct
sPr
ocur
emen
t of f
urni
ture
Proc
urem
ent o
f offi
cial
uni
form
Proc
urem
ent o
f too
l and
dat
a pr
oces
sors
Publ
ic re
latio
n an
d pr
otoc
olRe
sear
ch a
nd D
evel
opm
ent o
n Le
gal A
spec
ts
62
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
63
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Mar
keti
ng d
evel
opm
ent a
nd im
prov
emen
t of
fishe
ry p
rodu
cts
Arr
ange
pro
file
of m
arke
t for
exp
ort
Aud
it th
e ne
ed fo
r im
port
sCa
mpa
ign
on e
ating
fish
Dev
elop
mis
sion
and
dip
lom
acy
for
over
seas
mar
ketin
gD
evel
op p
atter
n an
d di
stri
butio
n of
mar
ketin
g sy
stem
for
fishe
ry p
rodu
cts
Dev
elop
pro
moti
on a
nd e
xpor
t mar
ket f
or n
on tr
aditi
onal
fish
ery
prod
ucts
Dev
elop
men
t of i
mpo
rt m
anag
emen
t for
fish
ery
prod
ucts
Dev
elop
men
t of i
nfor
mati
on a
naly
sis
on o
vers
eas
mar
ketin
gD
evel
opm
ent o
f mar
ket i
nfor
mati
on s
yste
mD
evel
opm
ent o
f mar
ketin
g in
stitu
tions
Dev
elop
men
t of n
on-t
radi
tiona
l mar
ket
Empo
wer
men
t of d
omes
tic m
arke
ting
info
rmati
on s
yste
mEm
pow
erm
ent o
f exp
orte
rs a
nd d
istr
ibuti
on n
etw
ork
Exhi
bitio
n of
IMFS
200
5Fa
cilit
ate
esta
blis
hmen
t and
dev
elop
men
t of d
omes
tic m
arke
ting
faci
lities
Impa
ct a
naly
ses
for
impo
rtIm
prov
e do
mes
tic m
arke
ting
dist
ribu
tion
and
netw
ork
Impr
ove
expo
rt o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Incr
ease
fish
con
sum
ption
thro
ugh
natio
nal p
rogr
am o
f GEM
ARI
KAN
and
pr
omoti
on o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Insti
tutio
nal s
tren
gthe
ning
of d
omes
tic m
arke
ting
syst
emm
arke
t ana
lyse
s fo
r ex
port
Ope
ratio
nal o
f fis
h ra
iser
Ove
rsea
s m
arke
ting
dipl
omac
ies
Prom
otion
and
mis
sion
of o
vers
eas
mar
ketin
g
Prom
otion
to fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsSi
mul
ation
on
Bila
tera
l-Reg
iona
l-Mul
tilat
eral
fish
trad
ing
Tech
nica
l con
sulta
tion
on c
onst
rain
ts fo
r ex
port
62
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
63
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Low
(Pos
itive
?)Im
prov
e qu
alit
y an
d de
velo
pmen
t of
proc
essi
ng fo
r fis
hery
pro
duct
Acc
ompa
nyin
g th
e EU
insp
ectio
n vi
sit
App
reci
ation
on
fish
hand
ling
in fi
sh la
ndin
g si
tes
(TPI
/PPI
) for
go
vern
men
t offi
cial
sA
ppre
ciati
on o
n ha
ndlin
g te
chni
que
for
smal
l and
med
ium
sca
le fi
sh
proc
essi
ng u
nits
App
reci
ation
on
onbo
ard
fish
hand
ling
tech
niqu
es fo
r tr
aditi
onal
fis
herm
enA
ppre
ciati
on o
n va
lue
adde
d pr
oces
sing
tech
nolo
gies
Busi
ness
mee
ting
in re
latio
n to
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f val
ue a
dded
pro
duct
sCo
achi
ng fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t of v
alue
add
ed fi
sh p
rodu
cts
Dev
elop
mec
hani
sm to
har
mon
ize
betw
een
stoc
k of
sal
ts a
nd s
alt h
arve
st
seas
on a
t fiel
d le
vel
Dev
elop
qua
lity
stan
dard
Dev
elop
sta
ndar
d po
licy
on e
mpo
wer
men
t of s
alt i
ndus
trie
sde
velo
p st
anda
rd p
olic
y on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f fish
pro
cess
ing
indu
stri
esD
evel
opm
ent o
f Coo
l-Cha
in S
yste
m (C
CS)
Dev
elop
men
t of h
igh-
adde
d va
lue
prod
ucts
Eval
uatio
n to
labo
rato
ry fa
ciliti
esEv
alua
tion
to L
PPM
HP
as a
genc
y to
pro
vide
cer
tifica
tion
Eval
uatio
n to
san
itatio
n m
onito
ring
pro
gram
field
revi
ew o
n op
port
uniti
es to
dev
elop
sal
t pro
cess
ing
indu
stry
for
smal
l-sca
le fi
sher
men
Har
mon
ize
with
inte
rnati
onal
sta
ndar
d on
qua
lity
Iden
tifica
tion
of fi
sh p
roce
ssin
g un
it ba
sed
on b
usin
ess-
scal
eId
entifi
catio
n of
fish
ery
prod
ucts
to h
amon
ize
qual
ity s
tand
ard
Iden
tifica
tion
on fi
sh p
roce
ssin
g fa
ciliti
esId
entif
y fa
ciliti
es n
eede
d fo
r th
e la
bora
tory
qua
lity-
cont
rol o
n fis
hery
pr
oduc
ts (L
PPM
HP)
and
fish
pro
cess
ing
units
(UPI
)Im
prov
e co
mpe
tenc
e of
cer
tifica
tion
agen
cies
Impr
ove
com
pete
ncy
of q
ualit
y-co
ntro
l lab
orat
orie
sim
prov
e qu
ality
of r
efer
ence
labo
rato
ries
64
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
65
Risk
Rati
ngPr
ogra
mA
ctivi
ty
Insp
ectio
n an
d co
ntro
l to
the
use
of c
hem
ical
sub
stan
ces
in s
mal
l- an
d m
ediu
m s
cale
fish
pro
cess
ing
units
(UPI
/UKM
)M
onito
ring
-Eva
luati
on (M
onEv
) of l
osse
s of
fish
ery
prod
ucts
and
type
s an
d vo
lum
e of
val
ue a
dded
pro
duct
sD
evel
opm
ent o
f fish
erie
s pr
oduc
t pro
cess
ing
cent
ers
Pre-
accr
edita
tion
prep
are
mat
eria
ls fo
r go
vern
men
t reg
ulati
on o
n sa
fety
and
qua
lity
guar
ante
e of
fish
ery
prod
ucts
qual
ity a
nd s
afet
y co
ntro
l of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tsRe
stru
ctur
ing
and
revi
taliz
ation
of fi
sh p
roce
ssin
g in
dust
ries
Soci
aliz
ation
of C
OD
EX a
nd S
PSSo
cial
izati
on o
n po
licy
rega
rdin
g th
e em
pow
erm
ent o
f sla
t pro
cess
ing
indu
stri
esso
cial
izati
on o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of v
alue
add
ed p
rodu
cts
Surv
eilla
nce
to L
abor
ator
y of
qua
lity
testi
ng fo
r fis
hery
pro
duct
s (L
PPM
HP)
tech
nica
l coa
chin
g on
onb
oard
fish
han
dlin
gTe
chni
cal m
eetin
g fo
r qu
ality
insp
ecto
r in
Indo
nesi
aTe
chni
cal m
eetin
g of
LPP
MH
P in
Indo
nesi
ate
chno
logy
man
ipul
ation
in p
roce
ssin
g an
d qu
ality
con
trol
of fi
sher
y pr
oduc
tstr
aini
ng e
ntre
pren
eurs
hip
for
smal
l and
med
ium
sca
le p
roce
ssin
g un
itsTr
aini
ng o
n in
tern
al v
erifi
catio
n an
d au
dit
Trai
ning
on
qual
ity c
ontr
ol o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Trai
ning
PPC
and
qua
lity
syst
emVe
rific
ation
on
the
use
of P
MM
T in
UPI
, cas
e ha
ndlin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
to
‘App
rova
l Num
ber’
Mar
keti
ng d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
impr
ovem
ent o
f fish
ery
prod
ucts
Empo
wer
men
t of h
ygie
nic
fish
mar
ket a
nd o
rnam
enta
l fish
mar
ket
Posi
tive
Impr
ovem
ent o
f pub
lic s
ervi
ce, H
R de
velo
pmen
t and
goo
d go
vern
ance
Dev
elop
men
t of m
anag
emen
t of i
nfor
mati
on s
yste
mFo
rmul
ation
, im
prov
emen
t and
soc
ializ
ation
of fi
sher
y re
gula
tions
64
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
65
App
endi
x Ta
ble
8 —
Sur
vey
Resu
lts
(Bal
i Str
ait F
ishe
rs)
Bali
Stra
itBa
nyuw
angi
Jem
bran
a
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
%
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
“Yes
” Re
plie
s%
“Ye
s”
BBM
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e
186
62.0
%18
610
0.0%
Incr
easi
ng T
rip
dura
tion/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity h
ad in
crea
sed
catc
h18
662
.0%
186
100.
0%Re
duce
d fu
el p
rice
had
incr
ease
d tr
ip d
urati
on/fi
shin
g in
tens
ity18
662
.0%
186
100.
0%
Boat
/Gea
r
Boat
aid
had
incr
ease
d nu
mbe
rs o
f cre
w26
8.7%
623
.1%
8227
.3%
8097
.6%
Fish
ing
gear
aid
had
incr
ease
d fis
hing
acti
vity
268.
7%6
23.1
%82
27.3
%82
100.
0%In
crea
sed
in c
rew
num
bers
had
incr
ease
d ca
tch
268.
7%6
23.1
%82
27.3
%80
97.6
%
Fish
Box
Fish
box
aid
had
impr
oved
the
qual
ity o
f cat
ch
144.
7%13
92.9
%In
crea
se in
fish
pri
ce h
ad in
crea
sed
inco
me
144.
7%14
100.
0%In
crea
se in
fish
qua
lity
had
incr
ease
d fis
h pr
ice
144.
7%14
100.
0%
Han
dlin
g Tr
aini
ng
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
had
decr
ease
cat
ch d
amag
e
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity (F
resh
fish
be
bett
er)
Trai
ning
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
skill
had
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh
hand
ling
Mac
hine
Car
e &
Equ
ipm
ent
Trai
ning
Add
age
of s
hip
and
fishi
ng e
quip
men
t
Add
kno
wle
dge
and
skill
abo
ut m
achi
ne c
are
and
fishi
ng
equi
pmen
tSh
are
info
rmati
on a
bout
shi
p, m
achi
ne a
nd fi
shin
g eq
uipm
ent
care
Port
infr
astr
uctu
re
Auc
tion
activ
ities
had
incr
ease
d fis
h pr
ice
300
100.
0%20
769
.0%
300
100.
0%27
190
.3%
Impr
oved
fish
ing
activ
ities
had
incr
ease
d fis
hing
inte
nsity
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%29
999
.7%
Incr
ease
in fi
sh p
rice
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e30
010
0.0%
245
81.7
%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%Im
prov
ed h
arbo
r/la
ndin
g pl
ace
impr
oved
fish
mar
ketin
g (a
uctio
n)30
010
0.0%
298
99.3
%30
010
0.0%
297
99.0
%Im
prov
ed h
arbo
r/la
ndin
g pl
ace
impr
oved
fish
ing
activ
ities
and
pr
oces
sing
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%29
999
.7%
66
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
67
Bali
Stra
itBa
nyuw
angi
Jem
bran
a
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
%
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
“Yes
” Re
plie
s%
“Ye
s”
Qua
lity
&
Proc
essi
ng
Trai
ning
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
sing
had
dec
reas
e ca
tch
dam
age
8929
.7%
8910
0.0%
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity (F
resh
fish
be
bett
er)
8929
.7%
8910
0.0%
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of fi
sh q
ualit
y sk
ill a
nd p
roce
ssin
g ha
d in
crea
sed
capa
bilit
y in
fish
qua
lity
and
proc
essi
ng89
29.7
%84
94.4
%
Revo
lvin
g Fu
nd
Capi
tal s
uppo
rt (r
evol
ving
fund
) had
incr
ease
d tr
ip d
urati
on/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity
4414
.7%
4410
0.0%
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e44
14.7
%44
100.
0%In
crea
sing
Tri
p du
ratio
n/fis
hing
inte
nsity
had
incr
ease
d ca
tch
4414
.7%
4410
0.0%
Sani
tatio
n &
So
cial
izati
on
Impr
ovem
ent i
n sa
nita
tion
and
soci
aliz
ation
of fi
sh h
andl
ing
8428
.0%
7184
.5%
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
had
decr
ease
cat
ch d
amag
e84
28.0
%84
100.
0%In
crea
sed
catc
h qu
ality
(Fre
sh fi
sh b
e be
tter
)84
28.0
%84
100.
0%
Tech
nolo
gy
Trai
ning
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad in
crea
sed
catc
h4
1.3%
375
.0%
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad in
crea
sed
catc
h qu
ality
41.
3%4
100.
0%Tr
aini
ng in
fish
ing
tech
nolo
gy s
kill
had
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in
fishi
ng o
pera
tion
41.
3%3
75.0
%
66
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
67
App
endi
x Ta
ble
9 —
Sur
vey
Resu
lt (J
ava
Sea
Fish
ers)
Java
Sea
Bata
ngPa
tiPe
kalo
ngan
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
BBM
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e21
672
.0%
216
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%26
488
.0%
263
99.6
%
Incr
easi
ng T
rip
dura
tion/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
216
72.0
%21
499
.1%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
264
88.0
%24
693
.2%
Redu
ced
fuel
pri
ce h
ad
incr
ease
d tr
ip d
urati
on/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity21
672
.0%
216
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%26
488
.0%
261
98.9
%
Boat
/Gea
r
Boat
aid
had
incr
ease
d nu
mbe
rs o
f cre
w94
31.3
%63
67.0
%46
15.3
%40
87.0
%2
0.7%
150
.0%
Fish
ing
gear
aid
had
in
crea
sed
fishi
ng a
ctivi
ty94
31.3
%85
90.4
%46
15.3
%46
100.
0%2
0.7%
210
0.0%
Incr
ease
d in
cre
w n
umbe
rs
had
incr
ease
d ca
tch
9431
.3%
6063
.8%
4615
.3%
4291
.3%
20.
7%1
50.0
%
Fish
Box
Fish
box
aid
had
impr
oved
th
e qu
ality
of c
atch
Incr
ease
in fi
sh p
rice
had
in
crea
sed
inco
me
Incr
ease
in fi
sh q
ualit
y ha
d in
crea
sed
fish
pric
e
68
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
69
Java
Sea
Bata
ngPa
tiPe
kalo
ngan
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Han
dlin
g Tr
aini
ng
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh
hand
ling
had
decr
ease
cat
ch
dam
age
6722
.3%
6710
0.0%
141
47.0
%36
25.5
%
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity
(Fre
sh fi
sh b
e be
tter
)67
22.3
%67
100.
0%14
147
.0%
1913
.5%
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of
fish
han
dlin
g sk
ill h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh
hand
ling
6722
.3%
6710
0.0%
141
47.0
%14
110
0.0%
Mac
hine
Car
e &
Equ
ipm
ent
Trai
ning
Add
age
of s
hip
and
fishi
ng
equi
pmen
t46
15.3
%39
84.8
%
Add
kno
wle
dge
and
skill
ab
out m
achi
ne c
are
and
fishi
ng e
quip
men
t46
15.3
%46
100.
0%
Shar
e in
form
ation
abo
ut
ship
, mac
hine
and
fish
ing
equi
pmen
t car
e46
15.3
%46
100.
0%
68
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
69
Java
Sea
Bata
ngPa
tiPe
kalo
ngan
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Port
in
fras
truc
ture
Auc
tion
activ
ities
had
in
crea
sed
fish
pric
e30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
250
83.3
%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%
Impr
oved
fish
ing
activ
ities
ha
d in
crea
sed
fishi
ng
inte
nsity
300
100.
0%29
899
.3%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%29
297
.3%
Incr
ease
in fi
sh p
rice
had
in
crea
sed
inco
me
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
The
exis
tenc
e of
fish
ing
harb
or/l
andi
ng p
lace
had
im
prov
ed fi
sh m
arke
ting
(auc
tion)
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%29
799
.0%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
The
exis
tenc
e of
fish
ing
harb
or/l
andi
ng p
lace
had
im
prov
ed fi
shin
g ac
tiviti
es
(logi
stic
serv
ice,
pro
cess
ing)
300
100.
0%29
899
.3%
300
100.
0%29
999
.7%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
Qua
lity
&
Proc
essi
ng
Trai
ning
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh
qual
ity a
nd p
roce
ssin
g ha
d de
crea
se c
atch
dam
age
4314
.3%
4310
0.0%
258.
3%25
100.
0%
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity
(Fre
sh fi
sh b
e be
tter
)43
14.3
%30
69.8
%25
8.3%
2392
.0%
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of
fish
qua
lity
skill
and
pr
oces
sing
had
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
sing
4314
.3%
3888
.4%
258.
3%25
100.
0%
70
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
71
Java
Sea
Bata
ngPa
tiPe
kalo
ngan
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
(300
Rec
ipie
nts)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Revo
lvin
g Fu
nd
Capi
tal s
uppo
rt (p
rovi
sion
of
revo
lvin
g fu
nd) h
ad
incr
ease
d tr
ip d
urati
on/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity
In
crea
sed
catc
h ha
d in
crea
sed
inco
me
Incr
easi
ng T
rip
dura
tion/
fishi
ng in
tens
ity h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
Sani
tatio
n &
So
cial
izati
on
Impr
ovem
ent i
n sa
nita
tion
and
soci
aliz
ation
of fi
sh
hand
ling
In
crea
sed
capa
bilit
y in
fish
ha
ndlin
g ha
d de
crea
se c
atch
da
mag
e
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity
(Fre
sh fi
sh b
e be
tter
)
Tech
nolo
gy
Trai
ning
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
299.
7%29
100.
0%73
24.3
%66
90.4
%27
9.0%
2385
.2%
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity29
9.7%
2379
.3%
7324
.3%
6183
.6%
279.
0%19
70.4
%
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of
fish
ing
tech
nolo
gy s
kill
had
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in
fishi
ng o
pera
tion
299.
7%21
72.4
%73
24.3
%52
71.2
%27
9.0%
2074
.1%
70
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
71
App
endi
x Ta
ble
10 —
Sur
vey
Resu
lts
(Nus
a Te
ngga
ra F
ishe
rs)
Ea
st N
usa
Teng
gara
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
raKu
pang
*Lo
mbo
k Ti
mur
(2
68 R
ecip
ient
s)(3
00 R
ecip
ient
s)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
BBM
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e21
178
.7%
211
100.
0%13
244
.0%
132
100.
0%
Incr
easi
ng T
rip
dura
tion/
fishi
ng
inte
nsity
had
incr
ease
d ca
tch
211
78.7
%21
110
0.0%
132
44.0
%13
210
0.0%
Redu
ced
fuel
pri
ce h
ad in
crea
sed
trip
dur
ation
/fish
ing
inte
nsity
211
78.7
%21
110
0.0%
132
44.0
%10
277
.3%
Boat
/Gea
r
Boat
aid
had
incr
ease
d nu
mbe
rs
of c
rew
3613
.4%
616
.7%
148
49.3
%14
698
.6%
Fish
ing
gear
aid
had
incr
ease
d fis
hing
acti
vity
3613
.4%
3610
0.0%
148
49.3
%14
810
0.0%
Incr
ease
d in
cre
w n
umbe
rs h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
3613
.4%
411
.1%
148
49.3
%14
810
0.0%
Fish
Box
Fish
box
aid
had
impr
oved
the
qual
ity o
f cat
ch90
33.6
%83
92.2
%
Incr
ease
in fi
sh p
rice
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e90
33.6
%90
100.
0%
Incr
ease
in fi
sh q
ualit
y ha
d in
crea
sed
fish
pric
e90
33.6
%90
100.
0%
* In
clud
es in
terv
iew
s co
nduc
ted
in th
e ne
ighb
orin
g lo
caliti
es o
f Oeb
aba,
Oes
apa,
and
Kab
upat
en K
upan
g. S
ee T
able
5 a
nd E
ndno
te 2
1.
72
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
73
Ea
st N
usa
Teng
gara
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
raKu
pang
*Lo
mbo
k Ti
mur
(2
68 R
ecip
ient
s)(3
00 R
ecip
ient
s)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Han
dlin
g Tr
aini
ng
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
had
decr
ease
cat
ch d
amag
e
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity (F
resh
fish
be
bett
er)
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of fi
sh
hand
ling
skill
had
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
Mac
hine
Car
e &
Eq
uipm
ent T
rain
ing
Add
age
of s
hip
and
fishi
ng
equi
pmen
t
Add
kno
wle
dge
and
skill
abo
ut
mac
hine
car
e an
d fis
hing
eq
uipm
ent
Shar
e in
form
ation
abo
ut s
hip,
m
achi
ne a
nd fi
shin
g eq
uipm
ent
care
72
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
73
Ea
st N
usa
Teng
gara
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
raKu
pang
*Lo
mbo
k Ti
mur
(2
68 R
ecip
ient
s)(3
00 R
ecip
ient
s)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Port
infr
astr
uctu
re
Auc
tion
activ
ities
had
incr
ease
d fis
h pr
ice
253
94.4
%21
083
.0%
300
100.
0%29
698
.7%
Impr
oved
fish
ing
activ
ities
had
in
crea
sed
fishi
ng in
tens
ity25
394
.4%
253
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
292
97.3
%
Incr
ease
in fi
sh p
rice
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e25
394
.4%
253
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
286
95.3
%
The
exis
tenc
e of
fish
ing
harb
or/
land
ing
plac
e ha
d im
prov
ed fi
sh
mar
ketin
g (a
uctio
n)25
394
.4%
252
99.6
%30
010
0.0%
300
100.
0%
The
exis
tenc
e of
fish
ing
harb
or/
land
ing
plac
e ha
d im
prov
ed
fishi
ng a
ctivi
ties
(logi
stic
serv
ice,
pr
oces
sing
)
253
94.4
%25
310
0.0%
300
100.
0%30
010
0.0%
Qua
lity
&
Proc
essi
ng T
rain
ing
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
sing
had
dec
reas
e ca
tch
dam
age
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity (F
resh
fish
be
bett
er)
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of fi
sh
qual
ity s
kill
and
proc
essi
ng h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
sing
74
Sele
cted
Indo
nesi
an F
ishe
ries
Subs
idie
s: Q
uanti
tativ
e an
d Q
ualit
ative
Ass
essm
ent o
f Pol
icy
Cohe
renc
e an
d Eff
ectiv
enes
s
Ea
st N
usa
Teng
gara
Wes
t Nus
a Te
ngga
raKu
pang
*Lo
mbo
k Ti
mur
(2
68 R
ecip
ient
s)(3
00 R
ecip
ient
s)
Subs
idy
Type
Perc
eive
d Im
pact
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Num
ber
Getti
ng
Subs
idy
% G
etting
Su
bsid
y“Y
es”
Repl
ies
% “
Yes”
Revo
lvin
g Fu
nd
Capi
tal s
uppo
rt (p
rovi
sion
of
revo
lvin
g fu
nd) h
ad in
crea
sed
trip
du
ratio
n/fis
hing
inte
nsity
227.
3%22
100.
0%
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
had
incr
ease
d in
com
e
22
7.3%
2210
0.0%
Incr
easi
ng T
rip
dura
tion/
fishi
ng
inte
nsity
had
incr
ease
d ca
tch
227.
3%22
100.
0%
Sani
tatio
n &
So
cial
izati
on
Impr
ovem
ent i
n sa
nita
tion
and
soci
aliz
ation
of fi
sh h
andl
ing
Incr
ease
d ca
pabi
lity
in fi
sh h
andl
ing
had
decr
ease
cat
ch d
amag
e
Incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity (F
resh
fish
be
bett
er)
Tech
nolo
gy T
rain
ing
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
31.
0%3
100.
0%
Skill
ed fi
shin
g op
erati
on h
ad
incr
ease
d ca
tch
qual
ity
3
1.0%
310
0.0%
Trai
ning
in im
prov
emen
t of fi
shin
g te
chno
logy
ski
ll ha
d in
crea
sed
capa
bilit
y in
fish
ing
oper
ation
31.
0%3
100.
0%
74 75
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Literature Cited
Antara News (2006a). “Govt provides subsidized fuel supply for fishermen”, Antara News (Jakarta), 20 April 2006. (http://www.antara.co.id)
Antara News, (2006b) “Marine and Fishery Ministry to build 300 ships in 2006”, Antara News (Jakarata), 24 May 2006. (http://www.antara.co.id).
Antara News (2007). “Govt may use cards system to distribution of subsidized oils: observer” Antara News (Jakarta), 8 January 2007), (http://www.antara.co.id)
Asian Development Bank (2004). Technical Assistance to the Republic of Indonesia for the Marine and Fisheries Sector Strategy Study, ADB Doc. No. TAR:INO 37762 (December 2004)
FAO (2002). State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2002 (Rome, FAO 2002) (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7300e/y7300e00.htm)
FAO (2003). Report of the Expert Consultation on Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry. Rome, 3-6 December 2002. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 698. Rome, FAO. 2003.
FAO (2008). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profile: Indonesia / Fishery Production Statistics (online publication, accessed 19 November 2008). (http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_ID/3/en)
FAO FishStat Database. (Note: FAO continually updates FishStat, including retrospectively, so that data results can vary over time. FishStat is available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat).
Komnas Kajiskan (2007). Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan, Rekomendasi No: 012/Komnaskajiskan/X/2007, 21 Oktober 2007 kepada Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia. (“The National Commission for Fish Resources Assessment Recommendation No. 012/Komnaskajiskan/X/2007, 21 October 2007 to the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries”) 9pp. (original available only in Bahasa Indonesia; translated here by A. Ghofar)
Komnas Kajiskan (2007a). “Exploitation levels of major fish resources in each Indonesian fisheries management zone” (original available only in Bahasa Indonesia; translated here by A. Ghofar)
Mercapesca (2008). “Indonesian Govt urged to subsidize fishermen`s fuel oil” (editorial and news article), Mercapesca (an international online service for the fishing industry) 28 April 2008. (www.mercapesca.net)
Milazzo (1998). Subsidies in world fisheries: A reexamination. World Bank Technical Paper No. 406 (World Bank 1998)
76
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
MMAF (2005), Management Plan of the Java Sea Small Pelagic Fishery, (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2005) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)
MMAF (2006). Strategi pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan tahun 2007 (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2006) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)
MMAF (2006a). Estimasi kebutuhan BBM per ukuran kapal secara nasional, (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2006) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)
MMAF (2008). Pembangunan Kelautan dan Perikanan – refleksi capaian tahun 2007 dan sasaran sampai dengan tahun 2009 (“Marine and Fisheries Development – a reflection of 2007 achievement and direction/targets towards 2009”), paper presented at MMAF National Coordination Meeting (“Rakornas”) 26-28 March 2008.19pp.
MMAF (2008a). Pencapaian kinerja 2007, perkiraan pencapaian 2008 dan prioritas kegiatan tahun 2009 (“Performance achievement 2007, achievement estimate 2008, and forecast of priority activities 2009”), paper presented by MMAF Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DJPT) at MMAF National Coordination Meeting (“Rakornas”) 26-28 March 2008. 21pp.
MMAF (2008b). Rangkuman hasil rapat koordinasi nasional tahun 2008 (“Summary of the 2008 National Coordination Meeting”). 7pp.
Porter (2002). Fisheries subsidies and overfishing: Towards a structured discussion. (UNEP 2002) (http://www.unep.ch/etu/etp/acts/capbld/rdtwo/FE_vol_1.pdf)
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000), Study Into the Nature and Extent of Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector of APEC Members Economies (report prepared for the Fisheries Working Group of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation) (APEC 2000). (http://www.apec.org/apec/publications/all_publications/fisheries_working.html)
Purwanto (2003), “Status and Management of the Java Sea Fisheries”, in G. Silvestre, et al., Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceeding 67 (WorldFish Center 2003)
Reuters (2008). “Indonesia to cut fuel subsidies”, Reuters (Jakarta), 23 May 2008. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/23/business/23indofuel.php)
Schorr (2004), Healthy Fisheries, Sustainable Trade, (WWF 2004) (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/healthyfisheriessustainabletradefinal.pdf)
Schorr & Caddy (2007). Sustainability Criteria for Fisheries Subsidies: Options for the WTO and Beyond (UNEP & WWF, 2007)
(http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/fishierSubsidiesEnvironment/UNEPWWF_FinalRevi09102007.pdf)
Squires, et al, (2003). “Excess capacity and sustainable development in Java Sea fisheries”, in Environment and Development Economics Vol. 8, pp. 105–127 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).
77
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Sutijastoto (2006). “Energy Efficiency Policy of Indonesia”, slides of presentation at International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer Training Course for Asian Countries on Energy Efficiency (Japan, 31 July – 4 August 2006) (http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/O105UF1947.pdf)
Sumaila & Pauly (2006). Catching More Bait: a bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies, Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6) (Univ. British Columbia Fisheries Centre, 2006)
UNEP (2008). Fisheries Subsidies: A Critical Issue for Trade and Sustainable Development at the WTO — An Introductory Guide (UNEP, 2008) ( http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/pdf/UNEP-ETB%20Brochure%20on%20Fisheries%20Subsidies_May2008.pdf)
WWF (2001). Fishing in the dark: A symposium on access to environmental information and government accountability in fishing subsidy programs (WWF 2001) (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fishinginthedarkproceedings.pdf)
78
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
Endnotes
1 Komnas Kajiskan (2007).
2 See especially Law No. 31/2004, Arts. 2 & 6; The text of Law No. 31/2004 in English is available on the FAO website at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins51065.pdf.
3 Komnas Kajiskan (2007). The use of FMPs is also explicitly required by Law 31/2004 Art. 7(1)(a).
4 MMAF (2006). In oral statements, MMAF officials have subsequently indicated that production increases should be in value rather than quantity of landings. Such a focus on value and quality is clearly consistent with policies to increase fisheries revenues without further depleting resources.
5 MMAF (2008).
6 MMAF (2008a).
7 For a good overview of the fisheries subsidies negotiations at the WTO, see UNEP (2008).
8 See, e.g.,Law 31/2004, Art. 3.
9 Asian Development Bank (2004), ¶ 6.
10 The field work was conducted from July to November, 2007. At each site, the field teams spent several days conducting interviews with between 250 and 350 local fishermen, fish processors, and fish traders. Each interview required an average of 180 minutes to administer. In all, the field teams conducted more than 1800 interviews, spending a total of more than 220 person-days in the field.
11 This figure was calculated by assuming that the data made available to us was representative of an average year or set of years for each locality. Thus, where we had data for one year, this was assumed to be the amount for the other two years in the 2005-07 period. Where we had data for two out of three years, the third year was filled in using their average.
12 PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000).
13 Sumaila & Pauly (2006).
14 The three methods used were:
1. Looking only at all available data for all years combined;
2. Looking at available data, interpolating missing years of MMAF data by adding a third year of data for each of DG-P2HP and DG-K3PK, using the average for each activity type of the two years for which data was available from those two DGs; and
3. Adding to the last method data for years missing from provincial and district level budgets, which was done by adding one or two years of data (as needed), using the average for each activity type of the years for which data was available from those sub-national authorities.
15 MMAF (2006a). MMAF estimated total fuel consumption by the Indonesian fishery sector in 2005 and 2006 to be 2,092,680 kilolitres and 2,131,605 kilolitres, respectively. It also estimated a subsidy level of Rp1,700 per liter, based on the difference in price between fuel generally available on the Indonesian market and the more heavily subsidized price made available to fishers. Note that if the baseline for calculating the subsidy had been the world price for similar fuel, the subsidy would likely have been much higher, since fuel consumption is subsidized in Indonesia generally.
16 Antara News (2006a).
17 Antara News (2007).
18 Reuters (2008).
19 See Sutijastoto (2006). Mr. Sutijastoto apparently was at the time an official in the Data and Information Centre of the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. His 22nd slide, titled “POLICY ON PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE SUBSIDY” set out a table that appears to set out the phases by which various sectors of the Indonesian economy will lose fuel subsidies. “Traditional fish catching boats” fell into one of the last categories to be liberalized (along private cars, public transport, and maritime transport). Only subsidies for poor households were to be phased out later.
79
Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness
20 See, e.g., Mercapesca (2008).
21 See, e.g., Schorr (2004); Porter (2002); Milazzo (1998) .
22 Porter (2002).
23 See generally, Schorr & Caddy (2007).
24 The four sites visited in East Nusa Tenggara were all quite small, and included one (Oebaba) which is more properly a landing site than a village. A total of approximately 300 interviews were conducted in these four localities, and are reported together in Appendix Table 10 under the heading “Kupang”.
25 Antara News (2006b).
26 Purwanto (2003).
27 Squires, et al,(2003).
28 See, e.g., MMAF (2005) (reporting that almost all of the major Java Sea fish stocks are overexploited, in some cases exceeding sustainable utilization levels by as much as 37%)
29 MMAF (2008b).
30 Regarding declines in CPUE in the Java Sea fisheries, see Squires et al., (2003)
31 See, e.g., WWF (2001).
32 Asian Development Bank (2004), ¶ 3, (citing MMAF’s annual report for 2002).
33 See Id. (reporting without citation USD $1.75 billion in exports in 2002); see also FAO FishStat database, which reports total annual fisheries exports from Indonesia as ranging from USD $1.5-2.0 billion from 2002 to 2006.
34 See Schorr (2004), § I.D & fn. 54 (citing 1992 FAO State of World Agriculture and Fisheries Special Chapter).
35 The only reference to fisheries subsidies in an international instrument approved by FAO members appears to be in ¶¶ 25-26 of the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, which calls on FAO members to eliminate subsidies and other incentives that contribute to overcapacity. The term “subsidy” is not defined in that text.
36 See generally, FAO (2003) (hereafter, “FAO Expert Consultation Report”).
37 FAO (2002), p. 92.
38 FAO (2003), at pp. 27-28.
39 NB—The FAO presents these categories as a nested set, such that each category includes the subsidies of preceding categories. Thus, read literally, FAO Category 4 includes all of the subsidies covered by Categories 1-3, as well as “regulatory benefits” etc. For purposes of clarity, the categories are presented here as containing only those subsidies unique to each of them, so that speaking of “Category 4” subsidies means only the “regulatory benefits” etc. added by Category 4.
40 For an “overview and gap analysis” of how current WTO rules cover fisheries subsidies, see Schorr (2004), Part IV.
41 Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 14 November 2001 (“Doha Declaration”), WTO Doc. No. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (20 November 2001), ¶ 28.
42 Doha Work Programme — Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 18 December 2005, (“Hong Kong Declaration”), WTO Doc. No. WT/MIN(05)/DEC (22 December 2005), Annex D, ¶ I.9.
43 Draft Consolidated Chair Texts Of The AD and SCM Agreements, WTO Doc. No. TN/RL/W/213 (30 November 2007), Annex VII (pp. 87 ff.).
44 Id., Art. I.1(g).
45 Sumaila & Pauly, (2006)
46 Id. at pp. 11 ff.