Background to the Indonesian BSC FIP

2 link, because they use the value chain as a means to implement fisheries management. FIP participants are typically chain actors after Bolwig et al., 2010 and have to use the structure of the value chain to create incentives to change through the value chain. Within FIPs, the connection between the producers and global trade networks are important, since they determine the flow of commodity from the producers to the exporters and retailers, but also the reverse flow of information from the exporters and retailers back to the producers. When communicating the information through the value chain FIP participants are confronted with different actors that might capture and process information differently. Several studies have shown that fishers can have a different perception on the stock status than scientists due to the sources of information they capture and the way they interpret that information among others, Neis et al., 1999; Verweij et al., 2010. Perception differences about the status of the stock and which management measures would be effective have hindered multi-actor debates in finding appropriate management McClanahan et al., 2005; Verweij et al., 2010. Due to the different interpretation of the stock status, actors had differing perceptions on what measures could improve the stock status and whether the stock status had to be improved in the first place. When a management measure is implemented that is not in line with actors’ perception on the status of the stock, this might result in non-compliance. In her study on FIPs, Doddema 2012: p.66 indicated that “[a]s FIPs are geared towards providing sustainable seafood for the international market, there is a chance that fishermen will not really benefit from being sustainably managed.” It is exactly the response of the fishermen to the FIP management that will be investigated in this study. This will be done by looking at the role of information and perceptions on the implementation of the FIP measures; i.e. on the process of changing practices of actors in the value chain. Since FIPs have to deal with a variety of actors along different scales of the value chain it is deemed important to understand how the flows of information between these actors and perceptions of these actors influence the implementation of the measures. Analysing the actors’ responses to the FIP measures and their perceptions on improvement should provide insight in whether they benefit from the FIP management. Additionally, Doddema stated that in order to achieve their objectives, FIPs should consider the pre-existing relations and practices that shape fishers’ behaviour. In this study the practices of fishers in the value chain will be mapped out. The flow of information from the global trade network will be analysed as well as the actors’ perceptions. These analyses should give insight in determining factors for the practices of the actors. That way, they might contribute to the understanding of the previously introduced link between producers and the global network.

1.2 Background to the Indonesian BSC FIP

In this study, I will look at the implementation of one specific FIP and I will analyse its capacity to lead towards improvement. The case that will be studied is the Indonesian blue swimming crab BSC, Portunus pelagicus FIP. Indonesia is a country in which many fisheries are embedded in global production and trade networks. These fisheries often fail to meet the MSC principles for certification, because there is no fisheries management system at the level of the fishers, no information about stock statuses and no information about environmental impacts of the fishery. These are three performance indicators defined by the MSC on which a fishery is assessed in order to get MSC certified. Since these performance indicators are not met in Indonesia, the fisheries need to work 3 towards enabling assessment of the fishery on these indicators if they want to be considered sustainable in accordance with the standards of the MSC. That can be done through FIPs. Examples of FIPs in Indonesia are snapper, Indonesian tuna and the blue swimming crab BSC SFP, 2013. The latter is chosen as a subject of this study. Internationally, the BSC FIP is a praised example of a FIP. It is considered a frontrunner in implementing the FIP guidelines and trying to reach improvement. No previous studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of the BSC FIP. This study will contribute to the knowledge on FIPs, because it will analyse whether the BSC FIP has been able to lead to improvement in practices of actors in the value chain. The blue swimming crab fishery in Indonesia is a small-scale fishery in which an estimated 65,000 fishermen and 13,000 pickers are directly employed SFP, 2012a. Next to that, several thousands of other people are involved in the fishery, including middlemen, operators of mini-plants where initial processing takes place and final exporters processors who export the meat products SFP, 2012a. There is no governmental regulation of the BSC fishery on national level, which makes it an open- access system and at risk of overexploitation, following Hardin’s argumentation about the tragedy of the commons Hardin, 1968; Feeny et al., 1990. On the one hand the nature of the resource is such that it is difficult to exclude people from using it and therefore it can be commonly accessed. On the other hand, one person or actor group using the resource will always have a negative effect on another actor’s ability to exploit the resource Feeny et al., 1990; Berkes et al., 2001. As will be introduced more extensively later, the BSC FIP participants think the BSC population is being overfished at the moment. They consider this a problem and therefore they wanted to work towards sustainability. They chose the FIP concept as a means to do this, because it provided guidelines for achieving a sustainable state. I will assess if improvement of actors in the crab value chain already took place and what the influence of information and perceptions was on this process.

1.3 Research questions