Correlating mariculture and household income generation: a case of panggang island initiative
EVITA FATHIA LUTHFINA
GRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BOGOR
(2)
DECLARATION
I, Evita Fathia Luthfina, hereby declare that the thesis entitled:
Correlating Mariculture and Household Income Generation: A Case of Panggang Island Initiative
Submitted to fulfill a requirement for the award of Master of Science in Agribusiness from Bogor Agricultural University is my own piece of work produced through the guidance of my academic advisors and to the best of my knowledge. It has not been submitted for the award of any degree in any other academic institutions. This thesis does not contain any pieces of work of other person, except those are duly acknowledge and referenced in the text.
Bogor, August 2013
Evita Fathia Luthfina
(3)
SUMMARY
EVITA FATHIA LUTHFINA, Correlating Mariculture and Household Income
Generation: A Case of Panggang Island Initiative (SUHARNO as a chairman,
NARNI FARMAYANTI, MATIN QAIM, and GABRIELE HÖ
RSTGEN-SCHWARK as member of advisory committee).
Aquaculture has an important role in reducing poverty and ensuring food security, particularly within coastal areas. Kepulauan Seribu is a part of the capital city of Indonesia, Jakarta, but it experiences severe losses due to pollution and environmental degradation. In fact, Kepulauan Seribu not only has the lowest Human Development Index (HDI) but also the highest poverty rate, compared to other areas in Jakarta. In order to improve the local community's welfare while conserve marine ecosystem, the local government and Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies (CCMRS-IPB) initiated a project called sea farming in Panggang Island, Kepulauan Seribu. Sea farming is a mariculture-based project to create sustainable marine resource management.
This study has two main objectives that include the following: (1) to identify which factors determine household participation in the project activities; and (2) to describe the project contribution to poverty alleviation by analyzing its impacts on household income generation as well as describing benefits and constraints of the project subjectively felt by community members particularly the participants. To address the research objectives, a survey of project participants (as the treatment group) and non-participants (as the control group) in the community was carried out. Two different sampling techniques were employed to select both groups. Stratified random sampling technique was employed to select the treatment group, while convenience sampling technique was employed to select the control group.
Quantitative data on household incomeand other socioeconomic characteristics were evaluated using statistical techniques to identify the determinants of sea farming participation and the impacts of the project to household income generation. In addition, survey responses to open-ended questions were analyzed to describe benefits and constraints of the project subjectively felt by community members particularly for the participants.
The determinants of sea farming participation were analyzed using probit model. The model shows that education, occupation, household size, and organization member are significant factors in influencing household decision to participate in the project. It also shows that all significant factors are reducing the probability of one person to participate in the project which is different from the initial hypothesis. This results indicates that the project is more attractive for those whom are less educated, have primary occupation not as a fisherman, have less household members, and less involvement in non-sea farming organization. It implies that the project manager and local government should socialize the objectives and positive impacts of the project effectively to attract the fishermen as the main beneficiaries.
The impacts of sea farming to household income generation were analyzed using OLS regression. The model shows that sea farming participation, age,
(4)
organization member, and mobile phone ownership are variables that have significant relationship to the total income. Almost all significant variables are positively related to total income except age. Sea farming participation gives the highest contribution to total income. It increased the total income by Rp14.6 million per period, ceteris paribus, at 1 percent significance level. The model indicates that the project successfully increase household income. It also shows networking is another important aspect for local community to increase their income. It implies that project manager and local government could optimize organization’s function as the media to gather public attention to join such project and to spread information and knowledge for local community to increase their income. From local community’s point of view, sea farming is perceived as a beneficial program because it gives alternative source of income. However, it still faced some constraints in its implementation.
In summary, the authors conclude that sea farming has a good concept to provide economic activity for rural coastal community. Nevertheless, the program requires improvements to be able to have huge and more significant impacts to increase household income and alleviating poverty in larger scale.
(5)
RINGKASAN
EVITA FATHIA LUTHFINA, Hubungan antara Budidaya Laut dan
Pendapatan Rumah Tangga: Sebuah Studi Kasus dari Pulau Panggang
(SUHARNO sebagai ketua komisi pembimbing, NARNI FARMAYANTI,
MATIN QAIM, dan GABRIELE HÖRSTGEN-SCHWARK sebagai anggota
komisi pembimbing).
Budidaya memiliki peran penting dalam pengentasan kemiskinan dan
menjamin ketahanan pangan (food security), khususnya di wilayah pesisir.
Kepulauan Seribu termasuk ke dalam wilayah ibukota Indonesia, Jakarta, tetapi wilayah ini mengalami kerugian yang parah akibat polusi dan degradasi lingkungan. Jika dibandingkan dengan wilayah lain di Jakarta, Kepulauan Seribu memiliki Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (IPM) yang terendah, sekaligus angka kemiskinan yang tertinggi. Dalam rangka meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat setempat serta melestarikan ekosistem laut, pemerintah daerah bekerja sama dengan Pusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Lautan
(PKSPL-IPB) dalam memprakarsai sebuah proyek yang dinamakan sea farming di Pulau
Panggang, Kepulauan Seribu. Sea farming adalah sebuah proyek berbasis
budidaya laut dengan tujuan akhir pada peningkatan stok sumberdaya perikanan dan menjadi pendukung bagi kegiatan pemanfaatan sumberdaya perairan lainnya sehingga dapat menciptakan pengelolaan sumber daya laut yang berkelanjutan.
Penelitian ini memiliki dua tujuan utama yang meliputi: (1) mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor yang menentukan partisipasi rumah tangga dalam proyek, dan (2) menggambarkan kontribusi proyek terhadap pengentasan kemiskinan dengan menganalisis dampak proyek tersebut terhadap pendapatan rumah tangga serta mendeskripsikan manfaat dan tantangan dari proyek berdasarkan pendapat masyarakat lokal khususnya dari para peserta proyek. Untuk menjawab dua tujuan utama penelitian tersebut, dilakukan sebuah survei terhadap rumah-rumah tangga yang berpartisipasi dalam proyek (sebagai
kelompok perlakuan atau treatment group) dan yang tidak berpartipasi (sebagai
kelompok pembanding atau control group) dengan menggunakan teknik
pengambilan sampel yang berbeda. Rumah-rumah tangga yang terpilih ke dalam kelompok perlakuan diseleksi dengan menggunakan teknik pengambilan sampel
secara acak dan bertingkat (stratified random sampling), sedangkan teknik
pengambilan sampel tidak acak yang disebut convenience sampling digunakan
untuk memilih rumah-rumah tangga yang termasuk ke dalam kelompok pembanding.
Data yang bersifat kuantitatif terkait pendapatan dan karakteristik sosial ekonomi dianalisis dengan menggunakan teknik statistik untuk mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor penentu partisipasi dalam sea farming serta menentukan dampak dari proyek tersebut terhadap pendapatan rumah tangga. Selain itu, data yang bersifat kualitatif digunakan menggambarkan manfaat dan tantangan dari proyek yang dirasakan secara subjektif oleh masyarakat lokal khususnya para peserta proyek.
(6)
Faktor-faktor penentu partisipasi dalam sea farming dianalisis dengan menggunakan probability unit (probit). Hasil analisis probit menunjukkan bahwa pendidikan, pekerjaan, ukuran rumah tangga, dan keanggotaan dalam organisasi merupakan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi keputusan rumah tangga untuk berpartisipasi dalam proyek secara signifikan. Berbeda dengan hipotesis awal, penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa seluruh faktor tersebut mengurangi peluang rumah tangga untuk berpartisipasi dalam proyek. Hasil analisis ini juga menunjukkan bahwa proyek ini lebih menarik bagi mereka yang kurang berpendidikan, memiliki pekerjaan utama bukan sebagai nelayan, memiliki sedikit tanggungan, dan kurang terlibat dalam organisasi kemasyarakatan. Hal ini menyiratkan bahwa manajer proyek dan pemerintah daerah harus dapat mensosialisasikan tujuan dan dampak positif dari proyek secara lebih efektif supaya dapat menarik perhatian dari para nelayan sebagai target utama proyek.
Dampak sea farming kepada pendapatan rumah tangga dianalisis dengan
menggunakan regresi ordinary least square (OLS regression). Hasil analisis
regresi menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi dalam sea farming, usia, keanggotaan
dalam organisasi, dan kepemilikan telepon genggam adalah variabel yang memiliki hubungan yang signifikan terhadap pendapatan total. Dari semua variabel yang signifikan tersebut, kecuali usia, memiliki hubungan yang positif
dengan pendapatan total. Partisipasi dalam sea farming memberikan kontribusi
terbesar terhadap pendapatan total. Partisipasi dalam sea farming meningkatkan
pendapatan total sebesar Rp14.6 juta/periode, ceteris paribus, pada tingkat signifikansi 1 persen. Model regresi menunjukkan bahwa proyek berhasil meningkatkan pendapatan total rumah tangga. Model tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa organisasi dan jaringan merupakan aspek lain yang penting bagi masyarakat setempat untuk meningkatkan pendapatan mereka. Hal ini menyiratkan bahwa manajer proyek dan pemerintah daerah dapat mengoptimalkan fungsi organisasi sebagai media untuk mensosialisasikan proyek kepada masyarakat sekaligus untuk menyebarkan informasi dan pengetahuan bagi masyarakat lokal yang dapat meningkatkan pendapatan dan
kesejahteraan mereka. Sea farming dipersepsi sebagai program yang bermanfaat
bagi masyarakat lokal. Namun, sea farming masih memiliki beberapa tantangan,
misalnya kualitas perairan dan serangan penyakit.
Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa sea farming memiliki konsep yang
bagus dalam menyediakan aktivitas ekonomi bagi masyarakat pesisir tetapi program ini masih membutuhkan beberapa perbaikan dalam beberapa aspek untuk dapat memberikan dampak yang lebih besar kepada masyarakat lokal.
(7)
Copyright
2013.
Bogor Agricultural University. All Rights Reserved.
1. No part of or entire of this thesis maybe excerpted without inclusion and mentioning the sources.
a. Excerption only for research and education use, writing for scientific papers, reporting, critical writing or reviewing of a problem.
b. Excerption does not inflict a financial loss in the proper interest of Bogor
Agricultural University.
2. No part of or entire of this thesis maybe translated and reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from Bogor Agricultural University.
(8)
(9)
CORRELATING MARICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD INCOME GENERATION:
A CASE OF PANGGANG ISLAND INITIATIVE
EVITA FATHIA LUTHFINA
A thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Master of Science Degree in
Agribusiness
GRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BOGOR
(10)
1. Thesis Examiner : Dr. Ir. Luky Adrianto, M.Sc 2. Study Program Representative : Dr. Ir. Netti Tinaprilla, MM
(11)
Thesis Tittle : Correlating Mariculture and Household Income Generation: A Case of Panggang Island Initiative Name : Evita Fathia Luthfina
Registration Number : H451100181
Approved
Advisory Committee
Dr. Ir. Suharno, M. Adev Chairman
Ir. Narni Farmayanti, M.Sc Member
Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim Member
Prof. Dr. Gabriele Hoerstgen-Schwark Member
Agreed
Coordinator of Major Agribusiness
Prof. Dr. Ir. Rita Nurmalina, MS
Dean of Graduate School
Dr. Ir. Dahrul Syah, M.Sc.Agr
(12)
PrJf. Dr. Gabri Registration Number H451100181
Approved
Advisory Committee
ｾ＠
Dr. Ir. Suhamo, M. Adev Ir. Nami Farmayanti, M.Sc
Chairman Member
ｾｪｊＩｾ
ｾ＠
I//A
Prof. Dr. Matin Oaim Member
Coordinator of Major Agribusiness
Prof. Dr. Ir. Rita Nurmalina, MS
(13)
(14)
PREFACE
First and foremost, I am deeply grateful to Allah SWT for given me tremendous blessing and protection to me. My deepest appreciation to my advisers, Dr. Ir. Suharno, M.Adev, Ir. Narni Farmayanti, M.Sc, Prof. Dr. Matin Qaim, and Prof. Dr. Gabriele Hörstgen-Schwark for their critical and valuable inputs, guidance, and encouragement through my thesis writing stage.
My appreciations also to Dr. Ir. Luky Adrianto, M.Sc and Dr. Ir. Netti Tinaprilla, MM for their valuable inputs on the master colloquium. I would like also to thank Prof. Dr. Ir. Rita Nurmalina, MS, Dr. Nunung Kusnadi, Dr. Ir. Andriyono Kilat Adhi, M.Sc, and Dr. Ir. Suharno, M.Adev with regard in supporting me to get the scholarship from Ministry of Education and Culture, Republic of Indonesia.
I would like also to acknowledge to many individuals who have helped me through the process although it does not make them responsible for the final text. Akhmad Solihin, for his insight on the basic ideas of this thesis, support during field visit, and providing literature from CCMRS-IPB. Ahmad Haerudin and enumerators, who helped me in the field. Respondents, who were willing to share their time for this study.
Dr. Enoch Kikulwe, for input in the preparation of proposals and questionnaires. Muhammad Saad Khan, Dhonny Yudhokusuma, and Iqbal Reza Fazlurrahman for proofreading my thesis. Simon Kimenju and his wife, for teaching me on operating STATA from the very beginning. Francisco Mourino, for input of the first two chapters. Luis Fernando Terrones, for teaching me the basic idea of probit and logit. Edwine Setia Purnama, for creating Panggang Island map. Deniey Purwanto, for valuable discussion.
Sincere thanks also to my friends who always supported me. Ami Sukma Utami, Anisa Dwi Utami and Ira Ratna Sari whom to let me stay at their place. Essy Harnelly, Cila Apriande, Ratna Sogian Siwang and “Roko Jaya” family, for their prayers and assistances during my study in Germany. Surya Farid and Anam Suwastika Suparno for their friendship and support for the last two years, I wish all the best for both of you. Friends in Master Science of Agribusiness (MSA), Sustainable International Agriculture (SIA), and Indonesian Student Associations Göttingen.
Finaly, I would like to pay thanks to my parents, Bapa and Mamah; my husband and son, Dhonny and Neo; my brother and sister, Reza and Dede for their tireless love, support, and always knew I could do this. To them I dedicate this study.
Bogor, August 2013
(15)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES xviii
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
LIST OF APPENDICES xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Research Questions 4
Research Objectives 5
Significance of the Study 5
Scope and Limitations of the Study 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
Definition, Types, Dimensions, and Measurement of Poverty 6 Contribution of Aquaculture to Poverty Alleviation in Developing
Countries and Least Developed Countries
8 Factors that Determine Individual Participation in the Project 11
Sea Farming in Panggang Island 12
a. The Basic Concepts 12
b. The Project Description 14
Research Operational Framework 17
3 RESEARCH METHOD 20
Study Site, Data, and Survey Design 20
Data Analysis 21
a. Model Estimation for Factors that Determine Individual Participation in Sea Farming
22 b. Model Estimation for Sea Farming Impacts on Household
Income
25
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27
Socioeconomic Condition 27
a. Socioeconomic Condition in Kepulauan Seribu Administrative Regency (KAKS)
27 b. Socioeconomic Condition of Sample Households in Panggang
Island
29
Are They Really Poor? 31
Grouper Culture Activity in Panggang Island 32
Estimation Result 35
a. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Households in Panggang Island 35 b. The Determinants of Sea Farming Participation 38 c. Sea Farming Impacts on Household Income 40
(16)
5 CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 45
Conclusion 45
Policy Implications 46
REFERENCES 47
APPENDICES 56
GLOSSARY 63
(17)
LIST OF TABLES
1 World Fisheries Production and Utilization 1
2 Income versus Expenditure in Measuring Poverty 7
3 Poverty Lines from Several Organizations 8
4 Sea Farming Member Classification 15
5 Project Description of Sea Farming in Panggang Island 17
6 Types and Sources of Data 21
7 Definition of Independent Variables for Determinants of Sea Farming Participation
23 8 Definition of Independent Variables for Sea Farming Impacts on
Household Income
26 9 Area and Population in Kepulauan Seribu by District and Village, 2010 27 10 Number of Households and Poor Households by District and Village in
Kepulauan Seribu, 2010
27 11 Percentage Populations of 10 Years and Above by Education Status
and Sex in Kepulauan Seribu, 2010
28 12 Number of Poor Sample Households in Panggang Island, 2012 32 13 Number of Mariculture Activities in Panggang Island Village, 2009 32 14 Characteristics of Brown Marbled Grouper and Humpback Grouper 33 15 Mean Comparisons of Sample Participants and Non-participants 37
16 Determinants of Sea Farming Participation 38
17 Sea Farming Impacts on Household Income 41
LIST OF FIGURES
1 World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production 2 2 Poverty Rate and HDI in DKI Jakarta Province, 2010 3 3 Linkage of Aquaculture to the Development Aspects of Individual and
Community
10
4 Concept of Sea Farming Institution 13
5 Facilities and Activities of Sea Farming 14
6 The Cycle of Sea Farming Revolving Fund 15
7 Research Operational Framework 19
8 Map of Panggang Island, Kepulauan Seribu 20
9 Percentage of Populations Distribution of 15 Years and Above who Work during the Previous Week by Sector and Sex in Kepulauan Seribu, 2010
28
10 Example of Trashion Products 29
11 Characteristics of Respondents in Panggang Island, 2012 30 12 Picture of Brown Marbled Grouper and Humpback Grouper 33
13 Grouper Culture Location of Respondents’ Owned 34
14 Number of Cage and Pen Culture of Respondents’ Owned 35
15 Respondents’ Perception to Sea Farming Benefits 43
16 Proportion of Respondents’ Perception to Restocking Activity 44
(18)
LIST OF APPENDICES
1 Indicators to Measure Poverty 56
2 System and Location for Mariculture Activity and Protected Shallow Open Sea in Semak Daun Island
57 3 Total Income and Monthly Income per Capita of Sample Households 58 4 Picture of Cage Culture and Pen Culture in Panggang Island 60 5 Stata Output for the Determinants of Sea Farming Participation 61 6 Stata Output for Sea Farming Impacts on Household Income 62
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistical Bureau)
CCMRS-IPB Center of Coastal and Marine Resources Study-Institut Pertanian Bogor
(Pusat Kajian Sumberdaya Pesisir dan Laut- Institut Pertanian Bogor)
CDF Cumulative Distribution Function
CPR Common Pool Resource
CSI Coastal Regions and Small Islands CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DC Developing Countries
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization HA Household Assets Ownership HC Household Characteristics HDI Human Development Index
IAA Integrated Aquaculture-Agriculture
IPB Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agricultural University)
IUU Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing KAKS Kabupaten Administratif Kepulauan Seribu
(Kepulauan Seribu Administrative Regency) LDC Least Developed Countries
MDG Millennium Development Goals NGO Non-governmental Organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PPA Participatory Poverty Assessment
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
RT Rukun Tetangga (Neighborhood)
RW Rukun Warga (Pillar of Residents)
SF Sea Farming
SFP Sea Farming Participation SSF Small-scale Fisheries
(19)
(20)
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The world fish food supply has been outpacing global population growth for the last five decades. During 1961–2009 the average growth rate of fish production remained at 3.2 percent per year and is outpacing the average growth
rate of world’s population, which increased by 1.7 percent per year in the same period (FAO 2012).
The world fish supply is the sum of capture fisheries and aquaculture. Capture fisheries refers to all the fish catch in the natural habitat such as seas, lakes, and freshwater. Aquaculture is defined as the production of aquatic plants and animals under controlled or semi-controlled conditions for direct or indirect human consumption (Stickney 2000). Aquaculture embraces culture in all salinities, from freshwater through brackish water and seawater to hypersaline water.
Table 1 shows data of world fisheries production and utilization, while the growth of world capture fisheries and aquaculture is shown on Figure 1. The data exhibits a staggering production of 148.5 million tonnes of fish in 2010. It also shows the growing demand of fish and fishery products. With the growing demand, there are some serious constraints on fulfilling this appetite by only capture fisheries as the amount of capture’s trend is decreasing since 2008 (Table 1 and Figure 1). The decrease of capture fisheries production were caused by illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU) and other irresponsible fishing activities that cause overfishing and resource depletion. The FAO has developed two special strategies in maintaining high growth in aquaculture and sustaining growth in capture fisheries to meet global sustainable food production system (FAO 2010). However if the growth of capture fisheries remain stagnant, the
Table 1 World Fisheries Production and Utilization
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
(Million tonnes) PRODUCTION
Capture
Inland 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 11.2 11.5
Marine 80.2 80.4 79.5 79.2 77.4 78.9
Total Capture 90.0 90.3 89.7 89.6 88.6 90.4
Aquaculture
Inland 31.3 33.4 36.0 38.1 41.7 44.3
Marine 16.0 16.6 16.9 17.6 18.1 19.3
Total Aquaculture 47.3 49.9 52.9 55.7 59.9 63.6
TOTAL WORLD FISHERIES 137.3 140.2 142.6 145.3 148.5 154.0
UTILIZATION
Human consumption 114.3 117.3 119.7 123.6 128.3 130.8
Non-food uses 23.0 23.0 22.9 21.8 20.2 23.2
Populations (billions) 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0
Per capita food fish supply (kg) 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.1 18.6 18.8 Source: FAO (2012)
Notes: Data exclude aquatic plants. Totals may not match due to rounding. Data for 2011 are provisional estimates.
(21)
future growth of aquaculture will surpass current production. Aquaculture’s share in world fisheries production is increasing every year and it has become the fastest growing animal food producing sector compared to beef, pork or poultry globally (OECD 2010; FAO 2012).
Aquaculture is spread widely and practiced successfully in Asia. The region accounts for 89 percent of world aquaculture production (FAO 2012). Rapid growth of aquaculture in Asia was driven by variety of factors, such as pre-existing aquaculture practices, population and economic growth, underdeveloped coastline with abundant supplies of water, less strict regulatory framework, and greater export opportunities (Stickney 2000; Bostock et al. 2010).
Being one of the largest archipelagic state in the world1, Indonesia has become the fourth largest producer of aquaculture products, which contributed 2.3 million tonnes (3.85 percent) to world aquaculture production in 2010 (FAO 2012). However, its potential is estimated to be 57.7 million tonnes per year (Trobos 2012) and there is around 16.6 million hectare area, which can be developed for aquaculture activities (KKP 2011). The Indonesian government has been trying to boost its aquaculture production through minapolitan, industrialization, and other programs. This is because of the increase in aquaculture production could also contribute to the improvement of crucial development indicators such as poverty alleviation, food security and malnutrition, women empowerment, and environmental sustainability.
The location of the study is at Kepulauan Seribu – DKI Jakarta Province, which lies on the Java Sea at the north of Jakarta (see Figure 8 on chapter 3). Formerly, Kepulauan Seribu is part of the North Jakarta city and its status was raised to independent administrative regency in 1999 in order to increase the development of the region (BPS KAKS 2011). There are 110 islands in the region but only eleven are inhabited with a population of 21,082 in 2010. The tendency
of population’s concentration in certain islands is influenced by two factors which are the availability of important natural resources, particularly potable water; and the restricted access to some islands due to conservation and tourism reasons (CSI-UNESCO 1999). According to BPS KAKS (2011), the main sources of
1 Indonesia has 13,466 islands (BAKOHUMAS 2012) and 95,181 km length of coastline (KKP 2009).
(22)
income in Kepulauan Seribu are fisheries, services, trade and tourism (38.5 percent, 22.73 percent, and 22.05 percent of total productive age citizens respectively).
Although Kepulauan Seribu is near the capital city, the local community did not enjoy the fruit of economic development. In fact, they are suffering from pollution and environmental degradation because of mining, marine transport, irresponsible and destructive fishing activities (Solihin et al. 2011). The head of statistical bureau of DKI Jakarta Province, Nyoto Widodo (2012), mentioned that the poverty rate gap between Kepulauan Seribu and other cities in DKI Jakarta Province are significant as illustrated on Figure 2. The figure shows that the poverty rate in Kepulauan Seribu is at 13.10 percent while poverty rate in other DKI Jakarta cities are ranging from 3.40 percent to 5.60 percent. It means that
Kepulauan Seribu’s poverty rate is two times higher than the highest poverty rate in other DKI Jakarta cities. In addition, Kepulauan Seribu also has the lowest Human Development Index (HDI) which means its life expectancy, educational attainment, and income indicators are lower compare to other DKI Jakarta cities (Figure 2).
In fisheries sector, most of local community in Kepulauan Seribu works on small-scale fisheries (SSF) and they have to face competition with the outsiders who use more sophisticated fishing gears and vessels. As a result, their fishing ground is overfished and this condition has prevailed since the beginning of 1990 (Solihin et al. 2011). To overcome two crucial problems in Kepulauan Seribu,
poverty and declining capture fisheries’ productivity, CCMRS-IPB2 (Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies-Institut Pertanian Bogor) and the local government were working together to create “sea farming project” in Panggang Island village. This village is part of Kepulauan Seribu Utara district, Kepulauan Seribu Administrative Regency. The project was implemented in 2005 until 2010. Even though the project was completed in 2010, to date, CCMRS-IPB still
2 CCMRS-IPB is a research institution for coastal, marine, and fisheries studies under Bogor Agricultural University.
13.10
3.80 3.40 4.00 3.80 5.60 70.82
79.47 78.95 78.41 78.84 77.63
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Kep. Seribu South Jakarta East Jakarta Central Jakarta West Jakarta North Jakarta Per ce n ta g e (% ) City/Regency Po HDI
(23)
provides counseling to sea farming members and raises fund from other organizations to maintain the sustainability of the program.
Sea farming is a project to create sustainable shallow marine resource management system. It uses mariculture3 as a base-activity and it expected to support other activities such as capture and marine ecotourism (CCMRS-IPB 2006). This project is consistent with the mainstream of recent development project to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) since its goals are
to improve local community’s welfare and to conserve marine ecosystem4 . The project activities are (1) setting up the regulation, institution and infrastructure; (2) provide knowledge and skill-based training; (3) provide fingerling; (4) connect sea farming members to the market; and (5) provide counseling. There were 75 households that participated in the project within the period of 2005 to 2008. At present, only 51 households remain actively conduct the mariculture activity due to the lack of fingerling stock (Rudiyanto 2011).
The mariculture activities in the project specifically focus on rearing of grouper5, namely brown marbled grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus) and humpback grouper (Chromileptes altivelis), which are considered to have relatively high economic value. They use floating cage culture technique to rear the groupers in the shallow water area (5-17 m depth), which has sandy and rocky substrate with 0.15-0.35 m/sec stream velocity (Solihin et al. 2011). CCMRS-IPB reported that member of sea farming produced 30 to 1,000 kg/year during 2006-20096. They sold their catch to the middlemen in Jakarta who in turn sell it to the local market and to exporters destined for consumption in Singapore, Malaysia, and Hongkong.
Previous studies on sea farming were focusing on the institutional analysis, transaction costs, strategic development, cost and benefit analysis, economies of scale, management performance, empowerment, and aquaculture technical issues (Haswanto 2006; Puspitasari 2008; Rangkuti 2008; Wahyuni 2008; Rahayu 2009; Rio 2009; Hariri 2010; Rudiyanto 2011). This study would like to evaluate whether or not the project is beneficial for the local community and can be applied in other areas. Thus it is necessary to evaluate the project’s impacts, which intends to determine whether the project had the expected effects on individuals, households, and institutions targeted by the intervention (Baker 2000).
Research Questions
Esping-Andersen (2000) mentions that poverty, years of schooling, and unemployment rates can be use as welfare indicators. Thus, this study is using poverty to learn whether the project achieved its goal in improving welfare of the
3 Mariculture is the production of organisms in seawater; thus, it is more exclusive than aquaculture which relates to
culture activities in both freshwater and marine ecosystem (Stickney 2000).
4 The sea farming goals are consistent with the first and seventh MDGs: eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, and
ensuring environmental sustainability.
5 Groupers are fish of any of a number of genera in the subfamily Epinephelinae of the family Serranidae, in the
order Perciformes. Serranids are highly valued for food; both small and large species are kept in aquariums. They live throughout most warm and temperate marine regions; and habitually eat fish, octopuses, and crustaceans (Stickney 2000).
6 Data are taken from CCMRS-IPB’s field facilitator who is responsible for sea farming in Panggang Island village (based
(24)
local community. There are three research questions that the study aims to answer, those are:
1. What are the factors that determine household participation in project activities?
2. What are the project impacts on household income generation?
3. What are other benefits and constraints of the project subjectively felt by community members?
Research Objectives
Given that research questions on previous section, the objectives of this ex-post study are:
1. To identify which factors determine household participation in the project activities.
2. To depict the project contribution to poverty alleviation by analyzing its impacts on household income as well as describing benefits and constraints of the project subjectively felt by community members.
Significance of the Study
This study would be useful as:
1. Inputs for development strategy of sea farming in Panggang Island to achieve its goal, particularly in increasing local community’s welfare and alleviating poverty.
2. Inputs for policy making related to sea farming in Panggang Island and other areas.
3. Reference for further research.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
Mariculture activity is the focus of this study; other activities such as capture fisheries, post-harvest, marketing, and eco-tourism, are excluded. In this study, one period refers to nine months. It used culture period of brown marbled grouper as the standard to calculate total income in one period because:
1. Income from aquaculture production does not take place every month due to seasonality. Meanwhile, income from capture fisheries and other activities take place daily or monthly.
2. Not all fish farmers in Panggang Island are culturing humpback grouper due to several reasons, i.e. more limited fingerling stock, more expensive fingerling price, and more complicated to treat.
Some limitations of this study are:
1. It does not have baseline survey for more accurate before-after comparison. It used a recall method for several household asset ownership variables to provide information of pre-project situation of both groups (participants and non-participants).
(25)
2. It does not consider selection bias and endogeneity problems which potentially emerged from household self-selection into the project (non-random participation in sea farming).
3. It has time and resource constraints, thus it selected internal control group for the comparison between participants and non-participants. The advantage of internal control group is they are exhibiting more identical characteristics to the beneficiaries compare to external control group. There might be spillover effect from the beneficiaries to the control group as they are living on the same island. Nevertheless, the authors did not consider spillover effect in this study. Another limitation caused by time and resource constraints is the sampling technique. A non-random sampling technique was employed to choose the control group. The consequence of this method is less representativeness of the general population in Panggang Island.
4. It does not considered any other treatments that local community received from other institutions.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition, Types, Dimensions, and Measurement of Poverty
Defining poverty is complicated because it is critical to some debates about the concept from political, policy and academic point of views (Lister 2004). Hence there are several poverty definitions, though in general it can be categorized into two main schools of thoughts, which based on monetary terms and more broad-based concept (Klasen 2000). On the World Bank Development Report 2000/2001, poverty defined as “pronounced deprivation in well-being”
(World Bank 2000:15). The first group views well-being as command over commodities and the poor as those who do not have sufficient income or consumption to fulfill their needs (Haughton and Khandker 2009), whilst the second group views well-being from the capability of individual to function in a community rather than just the inadequacy of income (Sen 2001).
Based on two different approaches in defining poverty, the authors consider two types of poverty that is absolute poverty and relative poverty (Giddens 2009). Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree7 define absolute poverty as lacking sufficient money to meet basic physical needs (Lister 2004). Meanwhile, Townsend8 (1979) defines relative poverty as lacking of the resources required to obtain the types of diet, participate in activities, and enjoy living standards that are customary or widely accepted in the society where they belong. In spite of two different approaches in defining poverty, Hagenaars and de Vos (1988:212) argue that basically “all poverty definitions can be fit into one of the following categories:
1. Poverty is having less than an objectively defined, absolute minimum (absolute
poverty);
2. Poverty is having less than others in society (relative poverty); and
7 Charles Booth (1840-1916) and Seebohm Rowntree (1871-1954) are the pioneers of modern poverty research in the 19th
century.
(26)
3. Poverty is feeling you do not have enough to get along (absolute, relative or
somewhere in between absolute and relative poverty).”
Nowadays, poverty is viewed as multidisciplinary issue since every discipline has different perspectives on it (Kakwani and Silber 2007). It also has multiple dimensions, such as income, life expectancy (longevity) and health, malnutrition, literacy and education, unemployment, inadequate shelter, vulnerability, voicelessness and powerlessness, freedom, security, opportunities, social exclusion, capabilities, and functioning (World Bank 2000; Sen 2001; Thorbecke 2007).
There are a number of conceptual approaches to measure poverty and the broader the definition of poverty, the more difficult is its measurement. However, by considering the complexity of poverty and its very-broad dimensions, as well as the scope of this study, the poverty definition used in this study is the one that is based on monetary term.
The most common approach to measure poverty based on monetary term is using household income and consumption expenditure (World Bank 2000). The two approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Table 2 describes advantages and disadvantages of both approaches according to Haughton and Khandker (2009).
Table 2 Income versus Expenditure in Measuring Poverty
Income Expenditure
Advantages a. Easy to measure.
b. Measures degree of household
“command” over resources.
c. Less expensive in data collection.
a. Shows current actual standard of living.
b. Less understated (easier to recall). c. More stable indicator in long term. Disadvantages a. Likely to be under-reported.
b. Possible to be affected by short-term fluctuations.
c. Some parts of income are difficult to observe (e.g. informal sector). d. Income and welfare relationship is not
always clear.
e. Reporting period might not capture householdaverage income.
a. Household consumption choices may be misleading (e.g. modest lifestyle of rich household).
b. Household may not be able to smooth consumption (e.g. borrowing). c. Some expenses are not incurred
regularly (may cause noisy data). d. Difficult to measure some
components of consumption. Source: Haughton and Khandker (2009)
In this study, the poverty is measured using income approach. Poverty line ( ) is used to distinguish between the poor and non-poor based on income. It is the minimum level of real income required to satisfy basic needs (World Bank 2011). It can be defined for local, national, and international level (Haughton and Khandker 2009). Table 3 shows some of poverty lines from several organizations.
The number of poor in a specific area can be estimated by using poverty line. This line can be used to calculate macro profile indicators of poverty using several indicators, such as poverty rate or headcount index (P0) which shows the incidence of poverty, poverty gap index (P1) which shows depth of poverty, and squared poverty gap index (P2) which shows poverty severity. Other poverty indicators are FGT-Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index, ASP-Amartya Sen’s Poverty index, and MPI-Multi Dimensional Poverty index. Appendix 1 shows more detailed information about the poverty indicators. Qualitative approach can also be used to measure poverty such as PPA-Participatory Poverty Assessment (ODI
(27)
2001). In this study, the authors only calculated the number of poor respondents by comparing their income with the poverty line presented on Table 3.
Table 3 Poverty Lines from Several Organizations
Organization Type of Poverty Line
Poverty Line Threshold
Remarks
World Bank Absolute, objective
a. Extreme poverty: US $1.25/day (as of 2008) b. Poverty: US
$2/day
a. The international poverty line was developed by World Bank in 1990 for international comparison/statistics.
b. The first international poverty line was US $1/day at 1985 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and adjusted to US $1.08/day at 1993 PPP.
BPS Absolute, objective
Rp259, 520/month (as of September 2012)
a. The national poverty line is constructed using the Cost-of-Basic-Needs method (stipulate a consumption bundle consist of food and non-food; then estimate the cost of bundle for each subgroup, e.g. urban and rural).
The food expenditure is calculate using the minimum nutritional requirement of good health which proposed by FAO, i.e. 2,100 kcal per person per day. Food consumption bundle consist of 52 commodities (e.g. rice, fish, meat, milk, egg, vegetables, beans, fruit, cooking oil).
The non-food expenditure is the total cost to fulfill other basic needs, such as housing/shelter, clothes, education, health, transportation, and electricity. Non-food consumption bundle consist of 51 commodities in urban area and 47 commodities in rural area.
b. The main data source to determine the poverty line is
Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (SUSENAS).
BPS Jakarta Absolute, objective
Rp392,571/month (as of September 2012)
The method used by BPS Jakarta is the same as BPS above. It is adjusted to Jakarta’s condition.
Source: World Bank (1990), UN (2009), Widodo (2012), BPS (2013) Notes: Rp refers to Indonesian Rupiah (IDR).
Contribution of Aquaculture to Poverty Alleviation in Developing Countries and Least Developed Countries
The development of the agricultural sector is believed as one of the main impetus for reducing poverty and ensuring food security in rural areas (Halwart 2005). Aquaculture forms an important component within agriculture particularly in coastal areas. Aquaculture development has been used by donor countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to reduce poverty and hunger in developing countries (DC) and least-developed countries (LDC), such as in Sub-Saharan Africa since 1980s (Beveridge et al. 2010).
Nevertheless, the contribution of aquaculture to poverty alleviation and other development issues are remains questionable. Some empirical studies show that aquaculture has positive contribution to poverty alleviation (Edwards 2000; Irz et al. 2007; Kaliba et al. 2007), food security and malnutrition (Thilsted 1997; Ahmed and Lorica 2002; Dey et al. 2008), women empowerment (Amarasinghe and Nguyen 2010; Gurung et al. 2010), and environmental sustainability (Umesh et al. 2010; Weimin 2010).
Meanwhile others argue that aquaculture only benefitted few people in society (Bailey 1988; Mulekom 2006; Bergquist 2007) and perceived as unsustainable and environmentally degrading (Naylor et al. 1998; Aldhous 2004;
(28)
Mulekom et al. 2006; Allsopp et al. 2008). However, most of these negative perceptions refer to shrimp and salmonid aquaculture, the two practices that contribute less than 10 percent by volume and approximately 16 percent by value to overall global production (De Silva and Davy 2010). Figure 3 shows the contribution of aquaculture to the development aspects of individual and community.
Aquaculture contributes in poverty alleviation as it generates job opportunities, both in the sector itself as well as in supporting sectors (Halwart 2005; Aye et al. 2007; Dey et al. 2008; Nguyen and Dang 2010). In Vietnam, the striped catfish farming become extremely important on the aquaculture sector when it accepted as “white flesh” fish substitutes in Western countries. Its production and export reached 1,200,000 tons which are worth of US $1 billion in 2007, and most importantly, it became the trigger for the development of processing sector which provides 150,000 livelihoods mostly for rural women (Nguyen and Dang 2010).
In some African countries, where aquaculture performance is not as spectacular as in Asia, aquaculture development has the potential in reducing poverty for example in Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda (Jamu and Ayinla 2003; Kaliba et al. 2007; Hiheglo 2008; Russel et al. 2008; Ogundari and Ojo 2009; WorldFish Center 2011). Research of Dey et al. (2007) as cited in Russel et al. (2008) and WorldFish Center (2011) shows that the Integrated Aquaculture-Agriculture (IAA) practice in Malawi has the following main benefits:
1. Improving total farm productivity by 10 percent; 2. Increasing per hectare farm income by 134 percent; 3. Increasing total farm income by 61 percent;
4. Increasing technical efficiency by 40 percent; and
5. Increasing household consumption of fresh fish by 208 percent and dried fish by 21 percent.
Moreover, the IAA practice generates positive effects to the environment as it reduces nitrogen loss due to efficiency improvement (Dey et al. 2007 as cited by Russel et al. 2008). It also elevates social status for some IAA households in their communities, which reflected in their greater access to better land and water resources as well as becoming the role model and advisor in IAA program (Russel et al. 2008).
Despite the controversy between the pro and cons of aquaculture activities, its impacts on poverty alleviation and other development issues may be different in each location. The impacts would depend on various aspects, such as location, resource management, institution, policy, regulation and law enforcement including time of research. As contribution defined as “the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance”
(Oxford 2013), the contribution of aquaculture to poverty alleviation in this study would be captured by analyzing the impacts of aquaculture activities to household income generation and other benefits subjectively felt by community particularly the project participants as the beneficiaries of the project.
(29)
Aquaculture
Community
Impacts
Positive Negative
Poverty Alleviation
Employment
Income Generation
Assets Ownership
Individual/ Household Income
Foreign Exchange
Food Security and Malnutrition
Food Availability
Affordable Price
Source of High-quality Protein and
Other Essential Nutrients (e.g. vitamin A, iron,
and calcium)
Empowerment
Rural Poor
Women
Environmental Sustainability
Efficient Resource Utilization
Others Environmental Degradation
Benefit Few People
Others
Remark:
---
Aspects cover by this studyFigure 3Linkage of Aquaculture to the Development Aspects of Individual and Community
(30)
Factors that Determine Individual Participation in the Project
One of the key successes for project implementation is the participation, and in most cases, it is related to adoption of innovation or technology that introduced in the projects. Factors affecting participation in the project have been widely studied (e.g. Nagubadi et al. 1996; Lynch and Lovell 2001; Zbinden and Lee 2005; Siebert et al. 2006; Sindato et al. 2008; Lashgarara and Saharkhiz 2012) as well as study to determine factors affecting adoption (e.g. Feder et al. 1985; Kapanda et al. 2003; Pollock 2005; Kabunga 2011; Amlaku et al. 2012).
Rogers (2003) mentions that the adoption of technology depends on the socioeconomic characteristics, preferences, and communication behavior of individual as well as technology and environments where individual adopt the technology. She also argues that early adopters are usually wealthier, more educated, have higher social status, and greater degree of upward social mobility than the late adopters. Pollock (2005) discovered an interesting finding that is contrary to Roger’s theory of adoption when she studied about the integration of aquaculture with irrigation system in two Sri Lankan villages. Despite small number of respondents, she finds that education and wealth do not have any relationship between adopters and non-adopters in cage-based tilapia fattening project, while other factors such as social capital, proximity to cage location, and the level of ease in obtaining fish for stocking are important factors to such adoption.
Another interesting finding in Pollock’s study (2005) is the reasons behind discontinuation of adoption in both villages. She analyzed it using qualitative method. In Usgala Siyambalangamuwa village, where all adopters are male, the reasons that cause discontinuation of doing cage-based tilapia fattening activity are participant involvement in other activity, cage deterioration (technical constraint), and difficulty to obtain fish for stocking. In Rajangana village, there are male and female adopters who fail to continue the adoption. For male adopters, unsuitable cage location, involvement in other activities, and discouragement of initial mortality are the reasons of discontinuation. Meanwhile, female adopters are challenged by their inability to catch fish for stocking by themselves, no help from other household members, and discouragement of initial mortality. She also reveals that the cage-based fattening tilapia adoption in both villages failed to achieve significant impact on household income security, even though it helped to provide emergency fund for urgent household expenses (Pollock 2005).
Other studies specifying other factors that influence aquaculture adoption are personal characteristics (e.g. sex and age), assets ownership (Kapanda et al. 2003); physical potential, local demand for consumption and marketing (Dey et al. 2008); extension information and access to information (Russel et al. 2008); imitation of other successful farmers, knowledge, accessible training, as well as institutional and policy environment (Pouomogne and Pemsl 2008). The study of Lashgarara and Saharkhiz (2012) mentions that economic factors and working experience are two influencing factors of fish farmer participation in extensional education courses in Fars province, Iran.
Two classical quantitative methods to determine participation or adoption are probit (Rahm and Huffman 1984; Nagubadi et al. 1996; Holloway et al. 2002;
(31)
Amlaku et al. 2012) and logit (Kapanda et al. 2003; Zbinden and Lee 2005). Combination of the two and other methods are also used such as probit and average treatment effect (Kabunga 2011), probit and tobit (Ghadim et al. 2005). Other methods that are also possible are discriminant analysis (Yapa and Mayfield 1978) and contingent valuation analysis (Stone et al. 2008).
Probit and logit models specify a functional relational between the probability of participation in a project/adoption of technology, as qualitative binary variable on the left hand side, and various explanatory variables on the right hand side (Feder et al. 1985). Both model give substantially similar result in many cases (Cameron and Trivedi 2010), thus the decision to choose the model is a matter of preference specifically for small data sets. Probit and logit are also more preferable for analyzing adoption decisions compared with other methods, e.g. discriminant analysis (Feder et al. 1985), because they are more statistically robust in practice and easier to use (Lea 1997). In this study, probit model is chosen to determine factors that influence individual participation on sea farming project.
Sea Farming in Panggang Island
In this section, information related to sea farming project in Panggang Island will be described. This section would help to understand the basic concepts and description of sea farming project.
a. The Basic Concepts
Sea farming project in Panggang Island was adopted from sea ranching in combination with community-based agribusiness system’s concept. Sea ranching has being practiced in Norway, United States and Japan since the 17th century. Sea ranching is defined as the activities to produce fish seed and release it—in a form of egg, larvae or juvenile—to the sea in the light of recapture the fish for fishery production as well as increase the fish population (Effendi 2006). Most common sea farming systems are based on artificial reefs (e.g. India and Taiwan) and cage nets (e.g. China, Japan).
Sea farming is different from mariculture although it is perceived as similar phenomena by the local community in Panggang Island. Indeed, mariculture is the main activity in sea farming project. The idea of creating the project was to give an alternative source of income to the local community particularly for the ones who work on SSF sector. Thus to ensure successful implementation of sea farming project, CCMRS-IPB involved local government along with local community, and other stakeholders in designing the sea farming institution and its operational rules. This collaboration of all stakeholders was expected to become a successful co-management institution in managing marine ecosystem as the CPR (Adrianto 2011).
Another reason behind sea farming project is to increase fish population in the marine ecosystem through restocking i.e. the activity of producing juvenile and releasing it into the natural water for restoring the fish stock until it reach the substantial level for sustainable utilization. This activity is urgently needed since the local fishermen complained that their fishing productivity was decreasing.
(32)
Restocking activity is also beneficial for conserving the marine ecosystem and creating sustainable fisheries management.
Sea farming project was designed as a system composed from three sub-systems, i.e. input, process, and output. Figure 4 presents the concept of sea farming institution. The first sub-system is the supporting factors for mariculture activities in the second sub-system. In the first sub-system, demarcated fishing rights were created using the result of preliminary study of geophysical and oceanography as well as participatory research (CCMRS-IPB 2006). It determines territorial waters around Semak Daun Island as sea farming demarcated fishing rights which shown on Appendix 2a. The area was selected because it has protected shallow open sea area as shown in Appendix 2b. The agreement also determines the appropriators who can utilize the right to use of the agreed area which is not a property right and is non-tradable.
The second sub-system is the heart of the project since economic input and output of the project come from this sub-system. Figure 4 also illustrate that mariculture activity starts from the hatchery, fry-rearing until grower. Local community was encouraged to involve on all activities in the second sub-system, so the direct and indirect economic benefits of the program will give positive effects to the local community. In practice, most of the fish farmers (participant and non-participant) in Panggang Island were focused on grouper’s rearing or
Figure 4 Concept of Sea Farming Institution (CCMRS-IPB 2006)
Panggang Island
Population SF Actor Definition
SF Location Demarcated Fishing Rights
Local Agreement
Community Based Agribusiness
System SF Implementation
Community Based Counseling, Monitoring and
Evaluation
Community Based Counseling, Monitoring and
Evaluation Hatchery Fry-rearing 1 Fry-rearing 2
Fry-rearing 3 Grower
Community Based Counseling, Monitoring and
Evaluation Market
Fishermen Distribution
Trade Stock Enhancement
(33)
growing, while the local hatchery9 and fry-rearing is not well-established yet. There are local hatcheries in the region but they are not able to produce a good-quality grouper fingerling. Thus, CCMRS-IPB provides the fingerlings from external hatchery. They will raise it until it reach about 7 to 10 cm in size on sea farming center before distributing it to the members. The last component is sub-system output and it covers distribution, marketing and conservation (CCMRS-IPB 2006).
b. The Project Description
Sea farming project is developed to empower rural coastal community while sustaining the environment. The project was mainly funded by local government of Kepulauan Seribu Administrative Regency, DKI Jakarta Province. The target beneficiaries are fishermen and fish farmers because small-scale fishermen in Indonesia are vulnerable to become poor since they are exposed to high risks and uncertainties. The project was organized by CCMRS-IPB and the project’s beneficiaries are organized into one group. This organization is self-managed by the community under CCMRS-IPB’s supervision.
The project activities are (1) setting up the regulation, institution and infrastructure; (2) provide knowledge and skill-based training; (3) provide fingerling; (4) connect sea farming member to the market; and (5) provide counseling. In its first activity, CCMRS-IPB conducted preliminary study which covers geophysical, oceanography, and socioeconomic aspect to set up regulation, institution and infrastructure of the project. They also conducted rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal, and participatory action research in analyzing the institutional-building aspect and constructed operational rules for sea farming project in Panggang Island. In terms of providing infrastructure, local government built sea farming hall (Figure 5a) as a place for meeting, training and other activities for sea farming member.
The second activity is providing training (Figure 5b), particularly for new members. The training would cover some modules related to mariculture techniques and skills, managerial and entrepreneurship skills, including achievement motivation training.
9 Local government built a local hatchery in Tidung Island, a part of Kepulauan Seribu Selatan district. It is established
since 2008, but no significant contribution for local community because it does not function well.
Figure 5 Facilities and Activities of Sea Farming (CCMRS-IPB 2007)
(34)
The third activity is providing the fingerling for the members using
“revolving fund mechanism”. In this case, CCMRS-IPB bought fingerling from external hatchery in East Java and Bali then it is distributed to all members as loan. Then the loan repayment from the members will be used as fund to buy another fingerling stock for the next period. This activity is repeated from one period to the next, Figure 6 shows the cycle of sea farming revolving fund.
Each new member who wants to conduct mariculture would get 200 fingerlings as the project loan. They have to repay the loan if they finally succeed to harvest the fish. The amount of loan is dependent on the price and size of the fingerling. For example, they usually get 10 cm fingerling and the price of the fingerling is around Rp1,300/cm. It means they have to return the loan of Rp2.6 million (calculated from 200 pieces x Rp1,300/cm x 10 cm).
The members are able to up-grade their membership categories whenever they can manage to pay the loan on time. Then, they will have additional loan to buy the extra fingerling in the next period. CCMRS-IPB categorized the sea farming members into four different classes (Table 4).
Table 4Sea Farming Member Classification
Classes Number of
Fingerlings
(pieces)
Criteria
Platinum 800 Already harvesting and more independent
Gold 600 Already harvesting but still have some technical and
non-technical constraints.
Silver 400 Sea farming member and already conducting
mariculture activity.
Still have some constraints in doing the mariculture activity.
Biru 200 Sea farming members but not conducting any
mariculture activity yet.
Source: Rangkuti (2008); Rudiyanto (2011)
As an illustration, Mr. A decided to join sea farming project in 2005. After he completes the training program he will get a certificate of membership. Then
he is categorized as a “Biru” member. When he started his mariculture activity, he
Buy Fingerling
Distribute to SF Members Loan
Repayment
CCMRS-IPB
Figure 6 The Cycle of Sea Farming Revolving Fund
Local Government
Fund
1 2
3 4
(35)
received 200 fingerlings as the project’s loan. After nine months, he successfully cultured the grouper and sold his harvest. Consequently, he have to pay the Rp2.6 million to CCMRS-IPB. If he paid the loan soon after he sold his production, then he will get extra 200 fingerlings for the next period. Now, he had up-graded his
membership to “Silver” class and receives 400 fingerlings in total for his second
year. Every time one is successful conducting his mariculture activity and repay the loan on time, the project will give “award” through an up-grade of his membership, e.g. from Biru to Silver or Silver to Gold. The advantage of this membership up-grade is to provide additional fingerlings as the incentive for work harder and honest.
This project also gives dispensation for its member by giving a possibility to repay the loan in installment method especially for those who have any urgent matters, such as sickness of family member and children wedding. In an extreme case, one may cheat by confessing that his fish were dead or stolen in order to get dispensation to eliminate his responsibility to pay the loan. If he is convicted lying, then he will be punished by not getting any fingerlings on the next period. This irresponsible member usually will discontinue his membership. In this case, internal group monitoring is applied.
Besides providing fingerling, CCMRS-IPB also provides loan in a form of mariculture production means, such as nets, drums and feed, on limited number. It distribution is based on sea farming committee’s decision. The mechanism of repayment method is the same with fingerling’s loan.
In the fourth activity, connecting sea farming member to the market, CCMRS-IPB invited buyer and trader from Muara Angke, Jakarta. This is not really effective because most of members have their own buyer. In practice, the member will sold their production directly to the buyer or middlemen who came to Panggang Island. As an alternative, they will send their production directly to Muara Angke. The first option is preferable compared to the second option because it is less costly and easier.
In the fifth activity, CCMRS-IPB provides field facilitators whom are responsible for giving assistance/counseling of any technical and non-technical issues and also managing the loan. Only if the member faced any serious problems, such as diseases in larger scale, the dedicated aquaculture expert from CCMRS-IPB would come and check to make any necessary treatment.
Restocking is another activity which should be attached to sea farming project because it is the mean to reach its second objective, conserving the marine ecosystem through juvenile release. Formally, the agreement between local government, CCMRS-IPB, and sea farming members regulate that every member should contribute 5 percent from their production for restocking purpose. In practice, the regulation cannot be successfully implemented yet because of the lack of fingerling stock. Thus, no official restocking activity conducted by sea farming member up to now. There are two restocking activities in 2010 which used fund from the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia and CNOOC10. In summary, the project description of sea farming is presented on Table 5.
10 CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation) is Chinese offshore oil multinational company and its involvement
(36)
Table 5 Project Description of Sea Farming in Panggang Island
Items Explanation
Program Sea farming is a project to create sustainable shallow marine resource management system which uses maricultureas a base-activity.
Financing Local government fund (Kepulauan Seribu Administrative Regency, DKI Jakarta Province).
Partnership Local government as the main sponsor and CCMRS-IPB as the project manager.
Target Groups People who work in SSF such as fishermen and small-scale fish farmers. Other occupations are additional.
Objectives (Goals) a. Improving local community’s welfare; and
b. Conserving marine ecosystem.
Activities a. Setting up the regulation, institution and infrastructure; b. Providing knowledge and skill-based training; c. Providing fingerling;
d. Connecting sea farming member to the market; and
e. Providing counseling (particularly for handling any disease case).
Source: CCMRS-IPB (2006, 2007)
Research Operational Framework
The increasing human population and the demand of fisheries products have pushed the increase of global fish supply. This market pressure has exploited the natural resources which caused overfishing and declining capture fisheries. To fulfill the gap between the demand and supply, aquaculture is one of the alternative solutions to this problem.
There are many aquaculture projects that have been implemented in DCs and LDCs to fulfill the increasing demand of fisheries products, both for domestic and export market. Besides fulfilling the demand, most of these projects are mainly aimed to improve some of crucial development indicators such as poverty alleviation, food security and malnutrition, women empowerment, as well as environmental sustainability. In line with that, sea farming project in Panggang Island, Kepulauan Seribu was implemented with two main goals which are
improving local community’s welfare and conserving marine ecosystem. This project was designed as co-management in fisheries management which involves local government, local community, and other stakeholders. In this type of fisheries management, all parties are sharing their responsibilities in managing the CPR.
In this study, there are two main objectives which are identifying the determinants of household participation in the project activities and depict the projects contribution to poverty alleviation on household income based on quantitative analysis and descriptive analysis. Probit model was used to analyze which factors that are determine participation in the project. On the first model estimation, sea farming participation (SFP) served as the dependent variable and there are two groups of independent variables, i.e. household characteristics (HC) and household assets (HA). The independent variables that categorized as household characteristics are age, education, occupation, household size, and membership in non-sea farming organization (organization member); whilst
(37)
independent variables that categorized as household assets ownership are television, mobile phone, and boat ownership.
OLS regression was used to analyze the impacts of the project in improving local community welfare and alleviating poverty through household income generation. On the second model estimation, household income served as the dependent variable and there are three groups of independent variables, i.e. household characteristics (HC), household assets (HA), and sea farming (SF). Independent variables that categorized as household characteristics are age, education, and membership in non-sea farming organization (organization member); independent variables that categorized as household assets ownership are mobile phone and boat ownership; and sea farming participation as independent variable in sea farming group. In addition to the OLS regression, descriptive analysis was used to understand the benefits and constraints subjectively felt by the local community. Figure 7 illustrates the operational framework of this study.
(38)
Increasing Demand of Fisheries Products Increasing Population
GAP
Alternative Solution:
Aquaculture
Co-management
SEA FARMING (SF)
Goal 1 of SF: Community
Poverty Alleviation and Social Welfare
Sustainable Fisheries
Overfishing, Resource Depletion
Market Pressure
Goal 2 of SF: Marine Environment
a.OLS Regression b.Descriptive Analysis
Local Government
Local Community
CCMRS-IPB and Other Stakeholders
Restocking Activity
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
HH Assets Ownership (HA) Variables: TV, mobile phone, and boat ownership
HH Income Generation
Declining Capture Fisheries Productivity
The Determinants of SF Participation HH Characteristics (HC) Variables:
age, education, occupation, HH size, and organization member
Probit Model
Mariculture Activity
SF Impact SF Impact
Improve Knowledge and Skill (Mariculture and Business)
Increase Fish Stock Ecotourism
Other Variables: HC: age, education, and organization
member
HA: mobile phone and boat ownership
Remarks:
Research Area Interaction Line
Data Analysis Tools Research Objective
Independent Variables
SF Participation
(39)
3
RESEARCH METHOD
Study Site, Data, and Survey Design
The selection of the study site was purposeful rather than random. Panggang Island is selected as it is the only successful sea farming project in Indonesia since other projects failed to be implemented due to the lack of local government support. The location of Panggang Island is shown on Figure 8. It is located around 45 kilometers from Jakarta and it needs about 60 to 120 minutes by middle-speed boat. There are 13 islands in the Panggang Island village and only two islands are populated with 5,123 inhabitants (BPS KAKS 2011). The two populated islands are Pramuka Island as the capital of KAKS, and Panggang Island as the most populated island in the region.
This study is categorized as ex-post study because the observation was conducted after the event is completed. Both primary and secondary data were used in this study as described on Table 6. The primary data were based on a survey of rural coastal households in Panggang Island since all sea farming members live on this island.
The author and enumerators administered the pretested structured questionnaire to sample household, which domiciled on three Rukun Warga (RW) and 21 Rukun Tetangga (RT)11 in Panggang Island. The survey was conducted on August 2012 and a total of 82 households were interviewed. It consists of 39 sea farming members (participants) as the treatment group while the control group consists of 43 non-participants. However, there are only 77 households that are
11 RT and RW are two lowest zones under village level in Indonesia, but they do not included in the official division of
Indonesian government administration.
(1)
Appendix 4 Picture of Cage Culture and Pen Culture in Panggang Island
(a) Cage Culture
(2)
Appendix 5 Stata Output for the Determinants of Sea Farming Participation
a. Probit Model
b. Marginal Effects
_cons 3.200172 1.519209 2.11 0.035 .2225775 6.177767 bt05 .6786631 .4108673 1.65 0.099 -.126622 1.483948 mp05 .4629199 .394178 1.17 0.240 -.3096548 1.235495 tv05 .3628455 .3182177 1.14 0.254 -.2608498 .9865407 org_member -2.620722 .7022593 -3.73 0.000 -3.997125 -1.244319 hhsz -.4255302 .1971478 -2.16 0.031 -.8119327 -.0391277 fishermen -2.385916 .9595941 -2.49 0.013 -4.266686 -.5051461 educt -2.290199 .8454526 -2.71 0.007 -3.947256 -.6331427 age .022184 .0294612 0.75 0.451 -.0355589 .079927 sfp Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] Log likelihood = -25.640236 Pseudo R2 = 0.5148 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 LR chi2(8) = 54.41 Probit regression Number of obs = 77 Iteration 5: log likelihood = -25.640236
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -25.640236 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -25.640268 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -25.654653 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -26.653023 Iteration 0: log likelihood = -52.845155
. probit sfp age educt fishermen hhsz org_member tv05 mp05 bt05
(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
bt05 .2576824 .15851 1.63 0.104 -.052982 .568347 .428571 mp05 .1757667 .14918 1.18 0.239 -.116626 .46816 .350649 tv05 .1377693 .11993 1.15 0.251 -.097282 .37282 .714286 org_me~r* -.6645339 .09587 -6.93 0.000 -.852426 -.476641 .298701 hhsz -.1615701 .07536 -2.14 0.032 -.309271 -.013869 4.63636 fisher~n* -.7158144 .1354 -5.29 0.000 -.981198 -.450431 .831169 educt* -.4936739 .10086 -4.89 0.000 -.691351 -.295997 .142857 age .0084231 .01121 0.75 0.453 -.013553 .030399 37.8182 variable dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X = .37656683
y = Pr(sfp) (predict) Marginal effects after probit . mfx
(3)
Appendix 6 Stata Output for Sea Farming Impacts on Household Income
a. OLS Regression
b. Two-sample t-test with Unequal Variances
_cons 2.55e+07 7031691 3.62 0.001 1.14e+07 3.95e+07 bt10 4109026 3285448 1.25 0.215 -2445263 1.07e+07 mp10 4203126 1463784 2.87 0.005 1282957 7123296 org_member 1.25e+07 4338943 2.87 0.005 3807210 2.11e+07 educt 789456.8 5192503 0.15 0.880 -9569304 1.11e+07 age -347216.6 170580.9 -2.04 0.046 -687516.2 -6917.043 sfp 1.46e+07 4187734 3.49 0.001 6255193 2.30e+07 totinc Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] Total 1.9850e+16 75 2.6466e+14 Root MSE = 1.5e+07 Adj R-squared = 0.1995 Residual 1.4618e+16 69 2.1186e+14 R-squared = 0.2635 Model 5.2312e+15 6 8.7187e+14 Prob > F = 0.0014 F( 6, 69) = 4.12 Source SS df MS Number of obs = 76 . regress totinc sfp age educt org_member mp10 bt10
combined 77 3.16e+07 1845087 1.62e+07 2.79e+07 3.52e+07 1 34 3.52e+07 2924901 1.71e+07 2.92e+07 4.11e+07 0 43 2.87e+07 2297679 1.51e+07 2.41e+07 3.34e+07 Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval] Two-sample t test with unequal variances
(4)
GLOSSARY
Aquaculture
The production of aquatic plants and animals under controlled or semi-controlled conditions for direct or indirect human consumption.
Absolute poverty
It is lacking sufficient money to meet basic physical needs.
Cage culture
Rearing of aquatic organisms in enclosures generally constructed of wire or netting as bags supported rigid frames which are floated or suspended in large bodies of water.
Capability
Denotes what a person can do or be, that is, the range of choices that are open to her.
Capture fisheries
Refers to all the catch done in the natural habitat of the fish such as seas, lakes and in freshwater.
Control group
A group of subjects that is matched as closely as possible with an experimental group but it is not exposed to any experimental treatment, it is used as a standard against which to detect and measure changes that may occur due to experimental treatment.
Early adopter
Individual whose time-of-adoption is greater than one standard deviation earlier than the average time-of-adoption.
Ecosystem approach to aquaculture
A strategy for the integration of the activity within the wider ecosystem in such a way that it promotes sustainable development, equity and resilience of interlinked social and ecological systems.
Extensive culture
Naturally occuring microflora and microfauna supply all nutritional requirements.
Fingerling
A very young fish.
Fisheries co-management
A partnership arrangement in which the government, community, and other stakeholders share the responsibility and authority for marine and coastal fisheries management.
Functioning
Refers to what a person actually manages to do or be; they range from elementary nourishment to more sophisticated levels such as participation in the life of the community and the achievement of self-respect.
Grouper
Groupers are fish of any of a number of genera in the subfamily Epinephelinae of the family Serranidae, in the order Perciformes. They live throughout most warm and temperate marine regions, serranids are highly valued for food, and both small and large species are kept in aquariums. They habitually eat fish, octopuses, and crustaceans.
Household
One or more persons, whether related or unrelated, who share common living quarters.
Human Development Index
A global index created by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to measure development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment, and income into a composite HDI. The index range between 0 and 1 and it implies whether a country is developed, developing, or underdeveloped. Indonesia ranks of 121 out of 187 countries.
(5)
Minapolitan
Clustering system which integrate marine and fisheries economic activities into one area consisting center of production, processing, marketing/trade, and also housing (particularly for fishermen, fish farmers, and traders).
Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA)
An instrument for including poor people's perspectives in the analysis of poverty and the formulation of poverty reduction strategies
Poverty
It is pronounced deprivation in well-being.
Poverty rate
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line.
Pen culture
Fixed enclosure in which the bottom is the bed of the water body.
Purchasing Power Parity
An economic theory that estimates the amount of adjustment needed on the exchange rate between countries in order for the exchange to be equivalent to each currency's purchasing power.
Rearing
It is an activity for raising fish to expected size.
Relative poverty
It is lacking of the resources required to obtain the types of diet, participate in activities, and enjoy living standards that are customary or widely accepted in the society where they belong.
Risk mitigation
It consists of certain activities that reduce the frequency or severity of losses.
Salmonid
It is belong to or characteristic of the family Salmonidae, which includes the salmon, trout, and white fish.
Semi-intensive culture
Ponds are intentionally fertilized with nutrients (e.g. manure, phosphates) to stimulate natural food production, or when supplement feed is added.
Social exclusion
The outcome of multiple deprivations which prevent individuals or groups from participating fully in the economic, social, and political life of the society in which they are located.
Social network
A network of social interactions and personal relationships.
Social quality
The extent to which citizens (and other residents) are able to participate in the social and economic life of their communities under conditions which enhance their well-being and individual potential.
Vulnerability
An assessment of the magnitude of the threat of poverty, measured ex-ante, before uncertainty is resolved.
Well-being
(6)