Indonesia would choose to do fishing again if they lived their life over Pollnac et al.,
2001. Interestingly, when they widened the question to include future generations only 9 of those satisfied fishers would choose for their children to
become fishers. The majority 61 would choose a government job presumably because of the stability and benefits that would bring. Many studies tackle the
issue from the perspective of a declining fishery and a desire to offer incentives to fishers to leave the fishery to take the pressure off natural resources. Crawford
2002 found that using alternative livelihood projects to reduce fishing pressure may not succeed in the long term. Boom and bust cycles coupled with
immigration of migrant workers during profitable seasons meant that fishers would return to fishing in lean years. This observation supports Cunningham’s
1993 model in which labour mobility leads to a wage equilibrium. Both Crawford 2002 and Pollnac et al. 2001 argue that livelihood diversification
may be a better policy objective than reducing fishing pressure. Cinner et al. 2009 emphasise that understanding the social context is crucial in order that
policy objectives target the right groups. Their study of fishers’ willingness to leave a declining fishery in East Africa showed that wealthy fishers with existing
occupational multiplicity were amongst the first to leave while those that stayed fishing were the poorest families caught in a poverty trap without the capacity to
change. A common technique advocated in poverty alleviation is the use of micro- credit initiatives but Crawford’s 2007 study of the village bank in Thailand
indicates that just 4 of loans were used to start new businesses. Part of this is because starting new businesses is inherently more risky than augmenting
currently operating ones. However, the implication of his study is that micro- credit may not encourage fishers to diversify or exit the industry. In summary,
policies designed to change behaviour and move fishers away from unsustainable fishing need to take account of the social context if they are to be successful in
meeting their objectives.
2.3.4 Aquaculture – Farming the Reef
The Indonesian Government clearly views aquaculture as a major driver for increasing aquatic resource production and improving the welfare of societies
Anon, 2009. Indeed, aquaculture has the potential to provide alternative
livelihoods for coastal communities and there is a rich source of literature reviewing the economic, ecological and social feasibility of finfish, shellfish and
seaweed species. Hundreds of studies have investigated different aspects of the culture and trade of groupers, seaweed, milkfish and shrimp among other species.
One of the driving factors for this research has been a concern that parts of the aquaculture industry are still dependent on wild stocks. Both Sadovy 2001 and
Pomeroy et al. 2006 identify the high percentage of wild seed being used for mariculture projects as a potential stumbling block but Sadovy 2001 also
recognises that the beneficiaries of wild seed capture are often traditional fishers. There is a risk that if operations shift towards hatchery production, profits may not
reach traditional fishers. The issue of how to develop the industry for the benefit of local, traditional communities is also present in the development of spiny
lobster mariculture in Lombok Priyambodo and Sarifin, 2009. This is an industry that started as a spin-off from seaweed and grouper farming when larvae
and juvenile lobsters were found to be settling on the cages and floats. They were captured by hand and grown in separate cages. This signalled the start of a new
venture. There are now more than 1,500 small scale lobster farms producing 4-5 t per year but with demand outstripping supply, lobster farming is set to develop
further. Pomeroy et al
. 2006 focus on the potential of “farming the reef” by providing a detailed economic feasibility assessment of the potential for grouper
and coral mariculture. While full-cycle aquaculture, and even a medium sized hatchery, requires too much financial capital for the majority of traditional fishers,
the initial capital costs including floating cages, water quality test kits and harvest equipment but excluding feed, fingerlings and transportation boxes for
growing out grouper Cromileptes altivelis is estimated at 1010 and loans could even be repaid within the first year. Sheriff et al. 2008 showed how grouper
culture is typically an activity for the wealthy but where the context is suitable and the project is implemented well, can provide an alternative livelihood for all. One
village they investigated had particularly suitable conditions because operators of grouper cages were able to make considerable cost savings by exchanging
financial capital for natural capital in the form of wild feed and seed. The grouper cycle fitted in neatly with existing activities and a variety of strategies for
growing-out gave flexibility for different attitudes to risk. Besides these contextual factors, two project factors were important in the success of this
project. Firstly, the provision of costly materials free of charge acted as a catalyst for the uptake of grouper rearing. Secondly, the requirement to pay back the cost
of those materials, so that other farmers could start, generated a revolving fund of capital.
The small- scale “backyard hatchery” style of aquaculture certainly seems
to have been a success in Bali Siar et al., 2002. Investors from different parts of Indonesia and further afield flooded in to take advantage of the successful
milkfish and grouper hatcheries. The catalyst for this success was the Gondol Research Institute for Mariculture in Bali which overcame technical limitations
such as a high mortality of juvenile milkfish and provided fertilised eggs for free in order to kick-start the local economy. The Institute effectively carried much of
the initial risk that would normally be faced by a private investor and this is a successful example of what can be achieved in the field of alternative livelihoods.
A further type of mariculture widely practised in Indonesia is shrimp farming. Although lacking baseline data, Tobey et al. 2001 state that locally operated
shrimp farms and hatcheries have provided major benefits to coastal communities in Lampung province Sumatra whose gross income is six times that of rice
farming. This has resulted in mangrove devastation and land degradation. The highly intensive method of shrimp cultivation yields the highest profits but has
also caused the most damage and once the land is degraded owners have sold up and moved on elsewhere. This environmentally exploitative form of alternative
livelihood development highlights the risk of emphasising one over the other two principles of community based management 1 poverty reduction, 2 natural
resource conservation and 3 good governance. Besides mariculture for food there is also a market for marine ornamentals
to the aquarium trade. Building on a 1978 experiment that showed 60 of the mortality of post-larvae unicornfish Naso unicornis occurred within 24 hours of
reef colonisation, Dufour 2002 showed how capture and feeding in captivity can considerably increase their survival rate. Much of the mortality of unicornfish
seems to be caused by on-going pelagic behaviour making them vulnerable to predation. Within 48 hours of being fed live plankton in captivity the unicornfish
adopted benthic behaviour. He argues that from a commercial perspective selling to the aquarium trade or releasing back into the wild are real possibilities. Having
conducted a feasibility analysis, Pomeroy et al. 2006 agree but they also clarified that the financial capital and technical competence required for
commercial viability was beyond that available to the majority of traditional fishers.
2.4 Critical Success Factors in Coastal Initiatives
