Beach seine pukat tepi

6.3.4 Beach seine pukat tepi

Beach seine netting is technique used throughout West Sumatra where the seabed is sandy and free from obstacles that might snag the net. The net is several hundred meters long and one side of it is set on the trip out to sea in a sampan, before the sampan returns to the shore and sets the other side. A large U-shape of sea is enclosed in the net and two teams of up to 10 people per side pull in a side of the net each. A variety of species are caught in this manner, ikan teri are a staple species but larger pelagics are also caught. The whole process of setting and hauling the net takes about two hours, and the catch value is split 5050 between the owner and the labourers. In Sungai Pinang there is a fixed rota of which owner can use their net on which day. Nets are used continuously during day light hours and catches are highly variable rezeki harimau depending on whether a shoal of fish happened to be enclosed in the net at the time it was set. Beach seine netting is a highly complementary activity to other alternative livelihoods as labourers can chose to pull as many or as few nets as they want to be part of. For this reason, older members of the community, and children, who are unable to go sea often take part in pulling in the seine. Of the 25 respondents who worked in the beach seine sector, 15 were labourers and 10 were owners. Only 3 of these were from Ampang Pulai. Of all the labourer sectors, being a member of a beach seine is the most flexible. It is a livelihood strategy that can fit in with a wide range of alternatives and consequently nearly all labourers have a diverse source of income. Only 2 of the 15 beach seine labourers depended solely on that income. One of these was 71 years old and the income he received was viewed as spending money for that day rather than for supporting his children. The other normally worked in the sampan sector but his sampan was broken and he resorted to the beach seining while he worked out how to repair his boat. All other beach seine labourers as well as the 10 beach seine owners had an additional source of income. Mostly this was rice farming n=18 but also included other types of crop farming, trading fish, rearing livestock, buying and selling second hand goods and being the village medicine man In the physical field, the results do not demonstrate the extreme differences between owners and crew that were observed in the bagan and payang sectors but owners do score higher than all labourers apart from two labourers who scored 60 on the bad-good scale Figure 6.7, bottom right panel. One of these normally used his own sampan and fishing gear but his sampan was currently broken. He also had a supplementary income as he worked as a local government official. The other demonstrated real initiative because although he did not own a boat or fishing gear he bought fish, dried them, hired a motorbike and sold them in Padang. What made this alternative particularly sustainable for him was that the fish were bought on trust and only paid for once they had been sold-on thus reducing the cash flow requirement. In the human and financial fields there is overlap between owners and crew but generally owners score more highly than labourers in both of these fields Figure 6.7, middle left and top right panels. Despite owning a beach seine 50 of owners were classified as poor households according to the census. This is only marginally less than the 60 of beach seine labourers who had poor household status. One of the reasons why this may be the case is that the high number of beach seines on the rota in Sungai Pinang means that an individual seine net can only be used 3 times a week. Despite this limitation, the number of new seine nets continues to increase and 70 of owners reported that they had the capacity to save, compared to 20 of labourers. One respondent who also works in the sampan sector reported that the profits from the beach seine sector are much greater than what he receives from his sampan, with much less effort and few overheads. Although he was 55 it was only in the last three years since he had owned the beach seine that he had a surplus to spend on his house. There was further evidence of the potential for beach seining to generate a surplus income for owners from the bagan sector. One of the smaller bagan owners who also owns 4 beach seines reported that he was able to save up 15,000US over 7-8 years from the proceeds of beach seine netting and this was used to buy the bagan. Financially, owners had to find the 4-5,000US for a new seine net from somewhere and only one of them had borrowed from a bank. The others had bought their seine nets from a combination of savings accumulated through other fishing methods and trading fish, coupled with help from family members. No beach seine labourer owned a motorbike compared to 30 of beach seine owners and outside of their motorbike, none of the beach seine sector had anything they could use as collateral to secure a loan even if banking services were available. From the human attributes, on average beach seine owners tended to save more readily, were prepared to take more risks than labourers and higher educational aspirations for their children, perhaps because they also had a greater financial capacity to pay for that education. On average they were less hard working than labourers, had more children and had a higher household expenditure. Figure 6.7: Beach seine scores from MDS projected on a bad 0 to good 100 x- axis for all six fields of the analysis. The y-axis shows the similaritydissimilarity scores. Circle = crew members, triangle = beach seine owner. -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Natural -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Financial -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Human -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Institutional -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Social -40 -20 20 40 20 40 60 80 100 Physical In the natural field, all beach seine net owners reported a major decrease in catch volumes with one of them estimating average catches were only 10 of what they were 20 years ago. While most beach seine labourers agreed with this decline, 4 of them reported that there had been no change in catch volumes over the last 20 years. It is worth considering why their perceptions differed so starkly from the other 21 respondents. Each of them was 40 years old or above and had a long experience of beach seine netting. There was some inconsistency in their responses because they also said that there had not been a change in the revenue those fish had generated. Because fish prices have certainly increased over the last 20 years, catching the same volume would result in increasing revenue. While one possibility is that they are correct and the others are wrong, another possibility is that they do not want to accept that stocks are declining and they have few alternatives. These questions highlight some of the challenges of working in an environment where there are no stock assessments and researchers need to depend on triangulating perceptions. Even simple Catch Per Unit Effort CPUE measures would give fishery managers, extension officers and policy makers an indication if increasing fishing capacity is a useful livelihood strategy or a dead end road. As in all sectors of the fishing industry the results are poorest for the institutional field Figure 6.7, middle right panel. None of the 25 respondents had heard of or met an extension officer who was responsible for helping them develop their livelihoods. There was little in the way of current advocacy or training, however residents of Sungai Pinang did report on a multi-year project that took place in 2007 to develop seaweed farming in the village. An extension officer lived in the village and was able to help catalyze this new initiative but residents found the seaweed was eaten, reportedly by sea turtles. When it failed the project was discontinued but several respondents wanted to try again. In the social field, there was a broad range between 0-70 on the bad-good scale Figure 6.7, bottom left panel. Several respondents in both the beach seine sector argued that negative social capital was hindering the development of Sungai Pinang. In particular they stated that relationships are too close and this stops people speaking openly and having equality when it comes to government aid. If there was to be more aid it needs to be partly administered by external agents who are not tied up in these kinship relationships and who are free to enforce sanctions without fear. This fear of speaking out was apparent in the low scores for the attribute ‘right to speak out’. Only 25 of respondents in the beach seine sector believed that villagers could stand up without fear of negative repercussions. In a similar vein, although Sungai Pinang is a tightly related community through intermarriage, it does not follow that there is a deep level of trust and cooperation between everybody. Only 8 of respondents from the beach seine sector felt there was a good level of trust in the village, with 32 not wanting to form a fisher’s group because people were not honest, could not be trusted, were too jealous and it was much better to work on your own. The remaining 60 would consider being part of a fisher’s group but only if they could chose certain people. Others laid the blame at the feet of leadership who were too busy “building their own business without giving us enough attention”. In a context like Sungai Pinang where there is evidence of the ‘dark side’ of social capital Pretty, 2003, external change agents who are not caught up in the intricate kinship relationships are needed to bring objectivity, accountability and confidence that the livelihood programs are free from nepotism and fair. A leverage analysis demonstrated that the attributes ‘state of coastal resources’, ‘state of land resources’ and ‘natural disasters’ exerted the greatest leverage in the natural field Figure 6.8.. In the other fields all the other attributes scored below 9. Figure 6.8: Leverage exerted on the x-axis scores by each attribute for the beach seine sector. 5 10 15 Geographical_isolation Sheltered_mooring State_of_coastal_resources State_of_land_resources Natural_disasters Fishing_income Ability_to_save Collateral Origin_of_loan Goods_on_credit Savings Remittances Alternative_income Desire_to_save Market_awareness Hard_working Occupational_multiplicity_skills Risk Wife_working No_of_children Education_aspiration Education_reality Retirement_planning Household_expenditure Husband_spend_consumables Extension_officer Village_interventions Personal_interventions Advocacy Training_empowerment Community_spirit Trust Leadership Help_when_crisis Right_to_speak_out Sanctions_rule_of_law Boat_ownership Fishing_gear Other_asset_owned Processing_adding_value Ice_availability Housing Fish_auction Natural Field Instit. Field Social Field Finance Field Human Field Physical Field

6.3.5 Miscellaneous group