action plan indonesian tropical reef fish sector · foreword 7 introduction 8 1. governance and...

Report published by MMAF in collaboration with WWF

September 2011

Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia dan WWFIndonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries & WWF

Action PlanIndonesian Tropical Reef Fish Sector Better management practices for moving toward responsible and sustainable reef fish fisheries

2

Indonesian Reef Fish Sector Action Plan: Better management practices for moving toward responsible and sustainable reef fish fisheries

This report is compiled by Richard Banks and Peter J. Mouse from Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management

© 2011, Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries & WWF

Cover Photo © WWF-Indonesia / Candhika YUSUF

To get the copy of this document, please contact Secretariat of Fisheries Improvement Program.

Disclaimer

Any redistribution, reproduction or citation of part or all of the contents in any form shall clearly state Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries & WWF as the main source.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks for support, assistance, and contribution from all stakeholders getting involved on Reef Fish Fisheries Improvements consultation workshop: Saut P. Hutagalung (Foreign Market Affairs-MMAF), Nur Andriyani (Provincial Fishery Department-Selayar), Ridwan Malik (Fishery Resources-MMAF), Azis Said (Provincial Fishery Department-South Sulawesi), Wudianto (Research Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources/P4KSI), Fery Sutyawan (Fishery Resources-MMAF), Bambang Sumiono (Marine Research Agency/BRPL), Sri Turni H (Marine Research Agency/BRPL), S. Kamarijah (Fishery Resources-MMAF), Peter Mous (fisheries scientist); Heri Rasdiana (Fish and Area Conservation/KKJI-MMAF), Liliek Soeprijadi (Directorate General Capture Fisheries-MMAF), Blane Olson (ANOVA), Geoffrey Muldoon (WWF), Sadarma S. Saragih (Foreign Market Affairs-MMAF), Richard Banks (Poseidon Consulting), Jesse Marsh (WWF), Anita Setianing V (Fish and Area Conservation/KKJI-MMAF), M. Haryono (DJPB-MMAF); Maksun (Provinsial Fishery Department-Pangkajene Islands); Abdullah Habibi (WWF-Id), and Imam Musthofa Z (WWF-Id). Also thanks for review and input from Geoffrey Muldoon (WWF), Jesse Marsh (WWF), Abdullah Habibi (WWF-Id), Lida Pet Soede (WWF), and Purwito Martosubroto (National Committee on Fish Stock Assessment/Komnas KAJISKAN).

The finalisation of this document is fully supported by Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and World Wildlife Fund.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYM 6

FOREWORD 7

INTRODUCTION 8

1. GOVERNANCE AND DEFINITION OF NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 9

1.1 Refine objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at provincial and district level 9

1.2 Extension of the management system to Local level 10

1.3 Development of fisheries specific management plans (Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan) 11

1.4 Development of Territorial User Rights for Fisheries 12

1.5 Delineate no-take zones 12

2. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 13

2.1 Improve the structure of the fishery management system 13

2.2 Identification of responsibility and capacity building across the range of implementing bodies 15

2.2.1 The Regional Fishery Manager 16

2.2.2 District KP 16

2.2.3 Defining eligible participants / Community groups 17

3. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 18

3.1 Strengthening human and institutional capacity for stock assessment in Indonesia 18

3.2. Literature Review 18

3.3 Risk assessment 19

3.3.1 Training of trainers implemented 19

3.3.2 Rapid Rural Appraisal 19

3.3.3 Undertake a bycatch risk assessment (retained, discards and ETPs) and develop mitigation strategies for high risk species 19

3.4 Stock abundance and stock assessment 20

5

3.5. Fleet composition 21

3.6 Stock productivity 21

3.7 Bycatch data collection 22

3.7.1 Review of available information 22

3.7.2 Observer programme 22

3.8 Underwater mapping 22

3.9 Ecosystem modeling 23

3.10: Peer review of the effectiveness of the Research Programme. 23

4. COMPLIANCE STRENGTHENING 24

4.1 Defining the role of POKMASWAS and determining actions. 24

4.2 Review legislation and violation sanctions 24

4.3 Developing education outreach 25

4.4 Establish data collection systems on infringements detected with reporting of incidents to Reef Fish Management Council and its members 26

5. OTHERS 26

5.1 Subsidies creating incentives that undermine sustainability 26

APPENDIX 1: Outline of proposed tasks for Indonesian Reef Fish FIP Action Plan 27

6

ACRONYM

BPPL Balai Penelitian Perikanan Laut Marine Fishery Research Agency

BPSDM KPBadan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia Kelautan dan Perikanan

Marine and Fisheries Human Resources Development Agency

BBRSE Balai Besar Riset Sosial dan Ekonomi Research Agency on Social and Economy DKP Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan Fisheries offices at provincial & district level

FKPPSForum Komunikasi Pengelolaan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya ikan

Forum on Fishery Resources Utilization Management

KAPI Kapal dan Alat Penangkap Ikan Vessel and Fishing GearKOMNAS KAJISKAN Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Stok Ikan

National Committee on Fish Stock Assessment

KKJI Konservasi Kawasan dan Jenis Ikan Fish and Area ConservationPOKMASWAS Kelompok Masyarakat Pengawas Community Surveillance GroupPUP Pelayanan Usaha Perikanan Fishing ServicesPDN Pemasaran Dalam Negeri Domestic MarketingPLN Pemasaran Luar Negeri Foreign Marketing

PSDKPPengawasan Sumberdaya Kelautan dan Perikanan Surveillance of Marine and Fishery Resources

PH Pengolahan hasil Harvest processing

P4KSIPusat Penelitian Pengelolaan Perikanan dan Konservasi Sumberdaya Ikan

Research Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources

RPP Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan Fishery Management PlanSDI Sumberdaya ikan Fishery ResourcesWPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Fishery Management Areas

EAFMPendekatan ekosistem dalam pengelolaan perikanan

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

FIP Program perbaikan perikanan Fishery Improvement ProgramKKLD Kawasan Konservasi Laut Daerah Marine Conservation AreaMSC Dewan Pengawas Kelautan Marine Stewardship Council

PRAKeikutsertaan dalam proses Rapid Rural Appraisal

Participatory Rural Appraisal

PAFMPrinsip Kehati-Hatian dalam Pengelolaan Perikanan

Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management

PSA Analisis Produktivitas dan Kerentanan Productivity Susceptibility AnalysisRRA Mengkaji desa secara cepat Rapid Rural AppraisalRBF Kerangka Berbasis Resiko Risk Based FrameworkSICA Analisis Skala, Intensitas dan Akibat Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis

TURFHak pemanfaatan teritorial untuk perikanan

Territorial User Rights for Fisheries

7

FOREWORD

Following the widespread agreement that the sustainability of the fishery resources is very substantial to maintain food security and to ensure the long-term sustainable livelihood of fishers and fishing communities, many importers are now committed to only sourcing sustainable fish products/MSC-certified products.

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries/MMAF fully realises that MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) certification is one of the pre-conditions to win competition in the global markets, especially European and North American buyers where the demand for fish products taken from well-managed fisheries continuous to grow. To identify barriers to sustainability, MMAF is collaborating with Marine Program of WWF-Indonesia to facilitate MSC pre-assessment in some Indonesian tuna and reef fish fisheries. This is taken as the first step to identify the improvements needed to meet MSC standard. The initial study includes data collection on stock and its exploitation, impacts on ecosystem, and management systems applied in some tuna fisheries (handline, pole and line, longline, troll line, > 30 GT purse seiner, < 30 GT purse seiner, Danish seine, and drift gillnet) and reef fish: grouper, snapper, emperor, and sweetlip fisheries (handline, bottom trawl, and troll line).

The result of pre-assessment suggests that there are some positive points that should be maintained and some issues that should be addressed. A set of consultations were convened from September – October 2010 to identify solutions and stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of a fishery improvement project that will move the fishery toward the MSC standard. Three key documents were prepared: Action Plan for Indonesian Tuna Fisheries Sector, Indonesian Tuna Fisheries Management Plan, and Action Plan for Indonesian Tropical Reef Fish Sector.

With considerable supports and strong commitments from all stakeholders, MMAF is optimistic that plans and associated activities specified on the three documents can be implemented successfully. It is hoped that the long term livelihood of coastal community can be preserved, and fisheries sector can contribute significant income to the nation.

Ir. Saut Parulian Hutagalung, MSc.

Director of Foreign Marketing, Directorate General of Fisheries Products Processing and Marketing

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

8

INTRODUCTION

As a response to the growing demand for sustainable fish products/MSC-certified products in the global markets, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries/MMAF, facilitated by WWF, develops a fishery improvement project that will move the fishery toward the sustainable standard of MSC. MSC pre assessment was conducted from December 2009 to June 2010 in several tuna and reef fish fisheries as the first step to identify barriers to sustainability. The initial study includes data collection on stock and its exploitation, impacts on ecosystem, and management systems applied in some Indonesian reef fish (grouper, snapper, emperor, and sweetlip) fisheries using handline, bottom trawl, and troll line.

MSC pre-assessment results (see Figure 1) suggest some improvements that should be taken to strengthen the performance of management system applied in Indonesian reef fish fisheries. Red and H (High) indicate low fisheries performance linked to some priority steps should be taken to improve the governance and management systems, yellow and M (Medium) mean medium fisheries performance linked to some components and priorities should be taken to improve the governance and management systems, and green and L (Low) show high fisheries performance linked to some related components and recommendations to maintain the good governance and management.

Figure 1. MSC pre-assessment results to fishing practices and management performance of some Indonesian reef fish fisheries (grouper, snapper, emperor, sweetlip)

The purpose of this document is to provide general background information on the number of ongoing and new projects tasks that were proposed during workshop on Fisheries Improvement Project for Indonesian reef fish fisheries. The projects represent the outputs from a stakeholder workshop held in Bogor, Indonesia from 1-2 November 2010. This includes information on the level of priority (high or medium), current status (ongoing or new) and expected timeframe to complete the initial tasks. The priority level for each project was assigned according to the highest level within the FIP scoping document (see Appendix 1 for further details of scoring MSC performance indicators).

9

The following target species1 are included in the scoping document:

Onable • (Aethaloperca rogaa)Banded grouper • (Epinephelus amblycepalus)Duskytail grouper • (Epinephelus bleeckeri)Speckled blue grouper • (Epinephelus cyanopodus)Longspine grouper • (Epinephelus longispinis) Highfin grouper • (Epinephelus maculatus)Speckled grouper • (Epinephelus magniscuttis)Camouflage grouper • (E. polyphekadion)Red-tipped grouper • (E. retouti)Six bar grouper • (E. sexfasciatus)Tiger grouper• (E. fuscoguttatus)Green grouper (• E. coioides)Malabar grouper • (E. malabaricus)Wavy-lined grouper • (E. undulosus)Malabar blood snapper • (Lutjanus malabaricus)Emperor red snapper • (Lutjanus sebae)Two spot red snapper • (Lutjanus bohar)Ruby snapper • (Etelis carbunculus)Crimson jobfish • (Pristipomoides filamentosus)Goldband jobfish • (P. multidens)Smalltooth emperor • (Lethrinus microdon)Longface emperor • (L. olivaceus)Ornate emperor • (L. ornatus)Yellowlip emperor • (L. xantochilus)Pink ear emperor • (L. lentjan)Many-lined Sweetlips • (Plectorhinchus multivittatus)Yellow-banded sweetlips • (Plectorhinchus lineatus)

The unit of certification is the combined hand-line and bottom long line fishery. All boats are less than 5 GT.

It is anticipated that DKP Provinsi, Districts (South Sulawesi) in partnership with ANOVA Food/Chen Woo Fishery and WWF will lead the FIP Action Plan and co-ordinate the development of each task. This document serves primarily as a guide to the type of tasks required in the Action Plan to reach the MSC standard. The Plan itself is further developed to include timings. The results generated from the Action Plan should have periodic internal and external reviews to ensure they are continuing to progress toward meeting the MSC Standard will meet the MSC standard.

A summary of all tasks is provided in Appendix 1.

1. GOVERNANCE AND DEFINITION OF NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVESIn order to protect fishing communities it is important to ensure the long-term sustainability of fishery resources. The MSC scoring guidepost emphasizes compliance with fishery sustainability, precautionary harvest strategies and ecosystem based management principles. Adherence to these principles will require a fundamental shift in Indonesian practices, to sustaining fish stocks as a contributor to economic growth, as opposed to promoting uncontrolled growth, which may risk sustainability. If this shift in understanding is achieved and can be applied, coastal communities will themselves be able to thrive in the medium to long term.

1.1 Refine objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at provincial and district level

The Indonesian Fisheries Act / Law 31/2004 contains reference to stock sustainability. Policies and management

1 The MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology allows for the grouping of species of common characteristics, as and when a full as-sessment is made.

10

actions need to focus on applying the precautionary approach, superseding current expansionist policies, which encompass the small-scale sector. There is also a need to incorporate the Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management into management measures introduced in coastal fisheries, consistent with the high level scoring guideposts outlined in MSC Principle 2. These may be incorporated into National Legislation or appropriate references and decisions contained within any Fisheries specific management Plans applied at District level (1.4).

Working GroupSDI, P4KSI, Fishery agency (KKP and Provincial and District of South Sulawesi), Biro Hukum Sekjen (Legal Buraeau Secretariat General)

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1 year

MSC Performance Indicator(s)

3.1.1 Legal & customary framework3.1.3 Long Term Objectives

1.2 Extension of the management system to Local level

It is also noted that Autonomy Law No 22/1999 makes reference to devolution of authority to Provincial and District administrations. Local Government Law 32/2004 places the seas up to 12 nm offshore under the responsibility of provincial government, and coastal waters (within 4 nautical miles) under the district authorities. This assumes that the central authorities, KKP and research organisations can provide a facilitating and mentoring role to ensure that (a) development of regulations in support of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries TURFs2 and (b) management strategies are correctly formulated, probably through support of sub FKPPs. However, there are presently some conflicts between national expansionist policies (KKP Ministrial Regulation 6 of 2010 on the strategic plan for 2010-2014) and MSC desired goals. Provincial and District policies will have to ensure that the precautionary and ecosystem based approaches are incorporated and are binding at local management level, and are implemented by District level, Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan. A desired process to be followed would include the following stages:

FKPPS specialist National Management Council to confirm acceptance of core harvest control •strategies (BMSY, EAFM/PAFM3);

Sub FKPPS/Provincial and District organizations to implement Provincial decrees, determine TURF •boundaries and arrange facilitation process through Provincial and District offices.

District offices empowering local fishing communities by creating community fishery management •groups and apportioning these rights to Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs).

A process of continued mentoring from key members of the Management Council – e.g. •BALITBANG KP (BRPL), KKP and key NGOs to sub FKPPS;

Assigning a Fishery Manager at the sub FKPPS level that can over see management •implementation and performance for the relevant fishery/fisheries.

The processes need to be enshrined through National and Provincial legislation, supported by various MoUs, outlining clear roles and responsibilities for each organization.

A legal expert should be engaged to determine the most appropriate areas for integration of the precautionary approach and ecosystem based management into formal management decision-making at Provincial and District level, the option being integration into Provincial and District Decrees, or the dedicated FKPPS

2 The legal status of establishing TURFs already identified UU 27/2007. More is required in the form of development of regulations that support TURFs. These should include references to EAFM and PAFM.3 This principle’s most characteristic attributes are that: (a) it requires authorities to take preventive action when there is a risk of severe and irrevers-ible damage to human beings; (b) action is required even in the absence of certainty about the damage and without having to wait for full scientific proof of the cause-effect relationship, and (c) when there is disagreement on the need to take action, the burden of providing the proof is reversed and placed on those who contend that the activity has or will have no impact http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w1238E/W1238E01.htm#ch1.1.2)

11

Management Plan4 template.

Working Group SDI, Fishery Agency, Biro Hukum-Sekjen

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1 year


3.1.1 Legal & customary framework3.1.3 Long Term Objectives3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives3.2.2 Decision making processes

1.3 Development of fisheries specific management plans (Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan)

The Fisheries Law (Law 31/2004) lays down a requirement to implement a Fisheries Management Plan. No over-arching management plan has been prepared for the reef fish sector, nor any sub components of these. The result is that only limited levels of control may be applied to reef fish fishing, the sole measure being compliance with Marine Protected Area zoning5. These have had limited affect to date by virtue of their limited coverage and broad levels of non-compliance with the measures by local and mobile fishers.

Indonesia needs to develop non expansionist management objectives for its reef fish fisheries. These objectives need to be elaborated to specific reef fish management plans, which in turn may be administered by DKP District, under the guidance of sub FKPPS, with each plan covering specific reef fish systems.

The Plans must contain well-defined, measurable and short-term objectives, which achieve the outcomes of sustainable fisheries, and incorporate the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Actions will incorporate the following:

Definition of fishery specific goals and outcomes, e.g. BMSY, PAFM, EAFM.•

Sub FKPPs to designate management areas within each Fishery Management Area (WPP), where •each management area will become a TURF area (there would be various TURFs within the waters of each district);

Stipulate that delegation of management authority is conditional on adherence to aforementioned •national objectives and conditional on a reef by reef specific management plan, prepared by the stakeholder/community group under guidance from DKP, and facilitated where possible by NGOs. The plan will show how it is to achieve the objectives.

Sub FKPPS/Provinsi providing guidelines to DKP District on how to delegate management authority •to a group (typically an organization of fishers and traders);

Community groups implementing reef specific tools, agreed in consultation with the assigned •Territorial Use Rights users for each reef fish fishery (TURFs), and setting aside 30% of reefs as no-take area or harvest refugia (i.e., these will not be part of a TURF).

Adopting a management plan review process (internal and external)•

It should be noted that MSC does not specify which tools should be used, more that a set of tools are applied and the system is expected to be effective as a result.

Possible harvest control tools to be considered would be moratoriums on < 5 GT licenses6, temporal access 4 The MSC FAM states that these principles are explicit within the required management policy. It does not require a change to the Act, but incorporation into the actions of the Management Plan. In many countries, ongoing revisions to national fisheries law, include references to the precautionary approach and EAFM.5 Currently Marine Protected areas fall under the responsibility of Taman Nasional (National Parks, administereted by the Ministry of Forestry and Nature Conservation). KKPD is the term used for Marine Conservation Area under the management of MMAF. 6 It is noted that Law 45 of 2009 categorizes these as small-scale fishers (nelayan kecil), which means that they are presently exempt from licensing

12

shares, setting no take zones equivalent to 30% of the reef system (ensuring NO derogations on zoned access), establishing Minimum Landing sizes (MLS) based on specific groups of species, closed seasons during spawning periods and return of vulnerable species (the pre assessment identified Epinephelus bleeckeri are classified as near threatened on the IUCN list, with Malabar grouper (E malabaricus) and Wavy lined grouper (E undulosus) having very high vulnerability)7.

Working Group SDI, Fishery agency, PUPI, SDI, P4KSI

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-3 years


1.2.1 Harvest strategy1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools2.3.2 ETP species management strategy2.4.2 Habitats management strategy2.5.2 Ecosystem management strategy3.1.1 Legal & customary framework3.2.1 Fishery specific Management System

1.4 Development of Territorial User Rights for Fisheries

Develop subsidiary regulations under the small island and coastal zone management law (UU27/2007) to strengthen the legal basis of TURFs (3.1.1). This will also require the development of technical guidelines for district and provincial fisheries services to administer and monitoring of TURFs (1.2.1, 3.2.2) including focus on identification of an entity that can function as a TURF licensee. The technical guidelines will need to focus on strengthening fisher community groups, definability of boundaries, management regimes to be implemented within TURFs, and exclusion of migratory fishers8.

This should be followed by extensive workshop processes with fisher communities, DKP, middlemen and buyers.

Working Group SDI, Fishery agency, Community fishers, NGOs (TNC/WWF), Hasanudin University in Makassar

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-3 years and ongoing


1.2.1 Harvest strategy1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework3.2.1 Fishery specific Management System

1.5 Delineate no-take zones

No-take areas are complementary to TURFs: whereas TURFs give local groups a right to manage and an exclusive right to utilize, no-take areas, or harvest refugia provide a guarantee against the failure of TURF-based management. In order to fulfill this function, no-take areas must encompass appropriate benchmarks, e.g. 30% of fishing grounds, and each no-take area must be at least (but not much larger

7 The IUCN list identified vulnerability to species on a global scale. These vulnerabilities would need to be tested at local level.8 http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/T0507E/T0507E04.htm

13

than) 1000 ha (10 km2)9 . Whereas TURF licensees must be involved in enforcement of no-take areas, in most cases district governments must take responsibility for delineating meaningful no-take areas and for setting up and funding community-based surveillance units. This means that district fisheries services must allocate a budget for establishment and operation of community-based surveillance units. District fisheries services should look into mechanisms to recover costs, for example from a TURF license fee. In the case where local government encounters limitations on delineating no-take areas, stakeholder involvement in initiating no take areas establishment should be permitted, including the fishing industry or non government organizations These same stakeholders may also take part in the management and regulation and setting up of financing systems associated with these no take areas in support sustainable fisheries management.

Working Group KKJI, Fishery agency, Community fishers, NGOs (WWF/TNC)

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-3 years and ongoing


1.2.1 Harvest strategy1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework3.2.1 Fishery specific Management System

2. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Improve the structure of the fishery management system

Figure 1 identifies a structure outlined in the reef fish fisheries workshop held in Bogor. The core requirement is to introduce a Reef Fish Management Council, an independent organization reporting to the FKPPS. The Reef Fish Management Council will formally undertake responsibility for creating the environment for support of TURF management planning and mentoring DKP District, under the auspices of the sub FKPPS (combining several Provinces, one of which would cover the South Sulawesi fishery10). Council members should be drawn from the principal stakeholders. The Minister would usually make the decision on the appointment of members of the Council. Options for the composition of the Council to include:

An independent chairman•The sub FKPPS fisheries managers (appointed potentially from within the ranks of DKP Provinsi)•Industry champions derived from the main reef producing areas•Representatives of the principal buying companies and middlemen•A fisheries scientist•A fisheries economist•A fisheries lawyer•A Non Governmental Organisation•

The Chairman must be fully independent without any linkage to existing stakeholders. He/she must be able to promote the objectives that will support the formulation of TURF specific management plans. It is important he/she and the co-opted industry members possess strong charisma to ensure the support of the wider industry, but are independent of the wider industry and able to work within the operational requirements of the FKPPS’s terms of reference.

The Council should have the following functions:

To approve annual management plans submitted from community fishing groups, via the sub 1. FKPPS. The Sub FKPPS will support provide technical input and management advice, before

9 Roberts, C. M.; Halpern, B.; Palumbi, S. R. & Warner, R. R. (2001), ‘Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small, Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough’, Conservation in Practice 2, 10-17; Shanks, A. L.; Grantham, B. A. & Carr, M. H. (2003), ‘Propagule disper-sal distance and the size and spacing of marine reserves.’, Ecological Applications 13(1) Supplement:, S159-S169. Mora, C.; Andréfouët, S.; Costello, M. J.; Kranenburg, C.; Rollo, A.; Veron, J.; Gaston, K. J. & Myers, R. A. (2006), ‘Coral reefs and the global network of Marine Protected Areas.’, Science 312, 1750-1751.10 This Fisheries Improvement Project is designed to support the development of the South Sulawesi fishery. There may be other complimentary initiatives and fisheries supported by WWF Indonesia (e.g. that for live fish) which may evolve through the same structure. Pilot programmes would thus need to develop which are complimentary, using the same sub FKPPS/FKPP management structure.

14

submitting to the Council; If appropriate, the Council will advise on management measures that ensure that the plans can 2. be implemented effectively;To prepare or promote codes of practice/Management requirements and an outline of performance 3. indicators;To promote the co-management of fisheries; 4. To regularly seek to accept relevant information, including local knowledge, and to explain how 5. this information has been used, or incorporated into decision makingTo promote research, education and training in relation to fisheries and the management of 6. fisheries; To determine the fee structure to pay for a research and development fund, the operating expenses 7. for the council and an independent peer review.

Figure 1: Proposed organogram for reef fish fisheries management in Indonesia and definition of reporting structure and institutional hierarchy Change Council to Council

The frequency of meetings should be quarterly, as opposed to the current ad hoc process.

Minister

FKPPS Minister’s appointed experts Law 31/2004, RMFO CCMs and National and Regional

Decrees

NGOs: WWF, Industry champions

Reef Fish Management

Council

Government: KKPCapture fihseries, KKP Resources, Directorate General for PSDKP, DKP Provinsi (4 positions for main production areas), P4KSDI (BRPL, KAPI, Research Centre for Social Economics, BPSDMKP, PLN, PDN

Management Plan Design

Sub-FKPPs

Regional Fishery Manager

DG Districts

Community Fishing Groups

POKMASWAS

Coastal reef fish fisheries (< 5GT)

National Plan coordination and reporting

National Fishery Management Plan implementation

Compliance

Fisheries Managed effectively

Sub FKPPSs are to ensure that regionally specific fisheries are correctly managed at district level, following pre set national objectives, as determined relevant by the Reef Fish Management Council. General rules on harvest strategies should be applied, following formulation of basic concepts at national level, with reef specific actions and limits and harvest control tools set within the community specific management plans. It should also be stressed that sub FKPPS are there to facilitate effective management, and not to advocate top down authoritative and bureaucratic barriers nor seek to expedite rentals (e.g. retribusi), which could

15

undermine the process of community inspired management initiatives.

The national and reef specific management plans should aim to achieve outcomes that are consistent with sustainability objectives for the management of the species and the supporting ecosystem. The Plan11 should:

Identify levels of species and site vulnerability according to stock and ecosystem status;•Set out the fishery-specific management objectives and implement a strategy for achieving these;•Identify research needs and priorities;•Set out the resources required to implement the plan;•Describe the biological, economic and social characteristics of the fishery; •Identify any ecological factors that could have an impact on the performance of the fishery; •Assess the risks to the ecosystem and set out strategies for addressing those risks; and •Set out methods for monitoring the performance of the fishery and the effectiveness of the plan, •including performance indicators, trigger points for review, or action and progress reporting.

Working Group SDI, Agency of KKP in province and district, NGOs (WWF/TNC), stakeholders as described above.

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1 year


3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities3.2.2 Decision making processes3.2.5 Monitoring management performance

2.2 Identification of responsibility and capacity building across the range of implementing bodies

Each South Sulawesi TURF management plan will identify clear activities, which will require allocation to specific stakeholders. Some key assumptions that will need to be established or addressed are as follows:

The willingness from all key stakeholders to facilitate bottom up community actions, and to establish •Community fishery management organizations and Territorial UseRights for Fisheries (TURFs);The buy-in from the Community itself;•Template structures for Community groups management systems should be clearly set out by the sub •FKPPS with the support of the Council (See section 2.2.2 below);Socialisation and facilitation is being promoted by a DKP (Province and District), drawing from the •relevant national institutions to support community development and fisheries management;The Legal status of UU 27, 2007 should be implemented.•Demonstrated capacity of KKP/DKP staff and stakeholder support groups to implement their tasks; •this will almost certainly require needs assessment and capacity strengthening;Clear definition of the relationships between national and provincial governance to ensure replicability •in tasks can be avoided ).Deliverables and timelines set for the various tasks to ensure appropriate support to the activities •defined by the FKPPS/The Council;Compliance functions and responsibilities for POKMAS determined by the Community, but with a •required support structure from District/Provinsi and PSDKP.

Working Group SDI, Agency of KKP in province and district, stakeholders as described above.

Priority High

11 A management plan can be introduced at any level, including community, provided that it is consistent with local, national and international laws (PI 3.1.1)

16

Status New

Timeframe 1 year



2.2.1 The Regional Fishery Manager

Fishery manager to be appointed from within the ranks of DKP Provinsi, reporting to the sub FKPPs, and task defined. He/she will be responsible for the following duties:

Liaison with KKP/DG Capture Fisheries on required changes to the National Laws to allow co-•management and the implementation of TURFS, with special reference to exclusivity, security, permanence/durability);Identifying, with the support of the sub FKPPS, the specific reef units that would qualify for TURFs;•Clarifying the required outputs needed to form an acceptable management plan - stock assessment •report, ecosystem impact assessments, Compliance actions, economic reports, industry feed-back;Facilitating access to technical support from relevant institutions to support the evolution of •Community and participatory based management system;Defining roles of the support institutions – DKP Provinsi, DKP District, BRPL and NGOs, and •working with dedicated professionals within these organizations to facilitate the required changes;Implementing appropriate socialisation processes by supporting DKP, to ensure understanding of •the harvest strategy, and support tools that should be implemented;Ensure that community organizations have a clear understanding of their role – formulation of •management plans, support in the collection of data, enforcement of no take zones; Provide continuous mentoring all those stakeholder groups involved;•Provide feed-back to the sub FKPPS on the development of Community groups and the •experiences gained from the operations of TURFs.


Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1 year



2.2.2 District KP

DKP district will be strengthened to undertake administrative and support requirements:

Strengthening its record of under 5 m vessels;•Licensing buyers, and setting and implementing trading conditions; •Initiating a licensing system in partnership with community organizations;•Providing support to Community management organization/POKMASWAS.•

DKP District is the custodian of < 5 m vessels, but existing records on CPUE and participating boat numbers are often determined through estimates. A critical element for community fishery managers under a system of TURFs is to prevent over exploitation of its fisheries. DKP District should support the process, and provide feed-back to the higher level managers on the level of community participation. DKP needs to also compliment the community management disciplinary system by setting strict licensing conditions on traders, i.e., ensuring that merchants purchase according to agreed standards. Such standards may require that:

Fish must not be captured using explosives or cyanide•

17

Fish must exceed the community identified minimum landing sizes• 12

Fish must not have been caught in no take zones•IUCN vulnerable species• or others deemed to be under threat are not taken• 13 Spawning sites are not targeted •

DKP, as the local government organization, will be expected to provide support to the development of Community fishery management organizations. This may be done in partnership with NGOs.


Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1 year


High and Intermediate:3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities3.2.2 Decision making processes3.2.5 Monitoring management performance

2.2.3 Defining eligible participants / Community groups

The importance of community management linked to the creation of TURFs is not to force the process, but more to create the environment for participatory management to evolve. It is important to evaluate within South Sulawesi, the prospects for community participation. Core DKP/NGO/BRPL/Community group interactions must be mandated to:

Set out a community consultative structure;•Reaffirm the broad goals and strategies;•Determine the TURF area;•Clearly outline the management obligations for supporting TURF systems;•Set up support structures and mentoring roles to facilitate the development of community •organizations;Develop a culturally appropriate processes and create a community support structure to facilitate •implementation of TURFs (a village Fisheries Advisory Council), and define actions to be undertaken by the community (including compliance actions) and support functions required by the higher authority;Set up management plans linked to target stocks and the ecosystem approach to fisheries •management through community groups, facilitated by the mentors;Ensure continuing community commitment to the TURF system - regular contact between communities •and extension staff, exchange of information between communities, a review of fisheries management structures;Identify research action needed to meet conservation and management data requirements;•Ensure participation of other stakeholder – traders, DKP District and environmental groups; •Establish communication linkages with other community groups.•

Working Group SDI, Agency of KKP in province and district, Community, processors and middlemen and NGOs (WWF/TNC).

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-3 years

12 Minimum landing sizes need to be set at levels that ensure that at least 50% of the brood stock have reached maturity. In some countries, e.g. Australia, maximum sizes are also set since these are much larger egg bearers. Minimum size limits would need to be precautionary based on advice received from BPPL, derived from the literature review.13 This would probably have to be determined following advice from by BRPL

18



3. RESEARCH ACTIVITIESConventional stock assessment activities would be extremely expensive to implement across the range of separate reef structures within Indonesia. A practical approach is to undertake Risk Assessments based on the Risk Based Approach defined and applied within the MSC FAM. A long term constraint to this activity is that stock status, as measured by the RBF, would have to be greater than SG 80 for both Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) and Product Susceptibility Analysis (PSA), to avoid subsequent requirement for a full stock assessment 5 years after the implementation of the first MSC Certificate. This rule is particularly difficult within the MSC Certification for small-scale fisheries, and as such, in order to continue the process of certification, more complex stock assessment is required, which would naturally require accumulation of stock assessment data at a fairly early stage.

A Research Plan needs to be prepared which provides a coherent and strategic approach to research and information needs across all three sustainability principles, in a timely and reliable manner. This integrated plan needs to take account of national requirements and obligations, and be backed by secure funding secured from industry, Government and donors.

The plan should include the following components, in all cases backed by an increased commitment to data collection to fill existing gaps in knowledge:

3.1 Strengthening human and institutional capacity for stock assessment in Indonesia

Effective participation in, and contribution to, risk assessment and regional stock assessments will require capacity building at national level, both through formal tertiary level training, including a focus on encouraging young graduate entry, and assistance from similarly orientated research organizations in Australia or USA.

It is unlikely that the Government of Indonesia will dedicate a significant amount of funds for all the required levels of resourcing, and as such this may require higher levels of partnership between BRPL and other research providers (universities), or be funded by the private sector.

Collection of catch and landings data for Indonesia-wide reef fish fisheries is highly limited, and is reliant on catch estimates determined at district level, if at all. There are also significant gaps in knowledge of biological parameters of reef fish stocks such as growth, reproduction, natural mortality, which might be required inputs for stock assessments.

Working Group P4KSI, BRPL and Hasanudin University in Makassar

Priority High

Status Expanding from existing activities

Timeframe 3 years (development) and ongoingMSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.4 Research capacity

3.2. Literature Review

As an immediate measure to justify implementing management measures, a thorough review of the current literature on grouper and snapper fisheries should be undertaken. Particular attention should be applied to studies in tropical waters, e.g. the Caribbean, Hawaii and Australia.

This review should provide knowledge of the reproductive cycle, in particular data on size at maturity (males and females), which would allow an assessment of the appropriate minimum landing sizes to provide adequate protection of the spawning stock biomass (SSB). There are other aspects of the reproductive cycle that have a bearing on the application of suitable management measures to provide protection of the SSB and reduction of the risk of recruitment failure. Consequently the literature review should also address egg dispersion

19

and aggregations, predator prey interactions, and their habitat requirements, seasonal reproductive cycle, fecundity, spawning frequency, juvenile and adult movements, the impact of environmental variables e.g. salinity, temperature and habitat interactions.

Any local fisheries or biological studies should be summarized, even if not published, and incorporated into the literature review.

This literature review should be given a high priority and implemented immediately. It has the potential to provide a justification for the implementation of urgent precautionary management measures, and to provide guidance for the design and execution of any subsequent observer program.

Working Group P4KSI, BRPL and Hasanudin University in Makassar

Priority High


Timeframe 3 years (development) and ongoingMSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.4 Research capacity

3.3 Risk assessment

3.3.1 Training of trainers implemented

Risk assessment and Rapid Rural Appraisal training would need to be implemented for P4KSI /BRPL staff (Training of trainers14). The Risk assessment process would be implemented to cover PI target species, P2.3 ETPs and P2.4 Benthic interactions. This also assumes no bycatch occurring, as per the finding in the pre assessment. Trained trainers would then apply to selected local experts.

Working Group P4KSI/BRPL and Hasanudin University in Makassar

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-2 yearsMSC Performance Indicator(s)

1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status

3.3.2 Rapid Rural Appraisal

Rapid Rural Appraisal and participatory appraisal will be used in selected communities to assess catch and ecosystem interactions. This will cover target species, size (weight, length) including for discarded fish species (if any), interactions with Endangered, Threatened and Protected species (species interactions and status: dead, released alive and in good condition, released alive in a poor condition) and gear loss. The assessment will focus on generating the numbers encountered, the locations, the times and seasons. The work will also use Participatory Rural Appraisal to discuss possible mitigation actions with fishers. Local Universities (e.g., Hasanudin University in Makassar) or NGOs can implement the assessments through a workshop process across the relevant districts. This information will be provided to the integrated fishers and DKP District to assist in the formulation of management plans.

3.3.3 Undertake a bycatch risk assessment (retained, discards and ETPs) and develop mitigation strategies for high risk species

Based on data derived from the RRA and PRA assessments, undertake a risk assessment linked to the species caught. The risk assessment should include a literature review of species interactions. The risk

14 There were reports that some risk assessment training courses had already been delivered. This will need confirmation.

20

assessment should be participatory and may follow the MSC Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) and Productivity Susceptibility analysis. Strategies, which should be linked to the above management measures, are likely to include establishing / extending spatial and seasonal closures, but may also examine the impacts of fishing gears.

Local Universities should coordinate the workshops assisted by the DKP.

Key requirements would be identification of the SICA15 components

The main risk bearing activities, which would in this case be fishing•The spatial scale of the fishery, i.e. the percentage range of the stock that overlaps with the fishing •activityThe Temporal Scale, the time spent on the fishing grounds where the interactions will occur•The level of fishing intensity, identifies the direct impacts as defined as Negligible, Minor, Moderate, •Major, Severe and CatastrophicConsequence of fishing activity on either population size or reproductive capacity•

Key requirements would be identification of PSA components: Average age of maturity•Average size of maturity•Average maximum age•Average maximum size•Fecundity•Trophic level•Reproductive capacity•The overlap of the fishery with the species distribution (Availability)•Species overlap with the type of gear (Encounterability)•Gear Selectivity•Post capture mortality•

Working GroupP4KSI/BRPL and Hasanudin University in Makassar, DKP, Community fishers, processors, middlemen and NGOs (TNC/WWF).

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 1-2 yearsMSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status

3.4 Stock abundance and stock assessment

At the present time there are no data to allow a traditional stock assessment to be undertaken. There is no time series of catch (or landings) and effort data. Data on catch composition appear to be lacking; there is a small amount of landings composition data from one processing facility. The collection of such data will inevitably take time – time that may not be available to provide adequate management of this fishery to reduce the risks of both growth and recruitment overfishing, hence the need for an early risk assessment (Section 3.3). If the anecdotal information is taken at face value, then there is an imperative to implement immediate precautionary management measures without waiting for the collection of fishery data and the provision of standard scientific stock assessment. This does not preclude the requirement to start to build up a time series of data to provide for future assessments of stock status.

A combination of a sampling programme comprising a catch composition recording system to estimate size and species composition of catch, a community logbook record to estimate species caught and spatial distribution of the fishery, an observer scheme to support logbooks, and a literature review to assess size at maturity. A time series of catch, effort, average size and sex ratio, will provide the opportunity to improve and 15 See pages 86-106 of the MSC FAM version 2.

21

enhance future management, and eventually lead to a more rigorous stock assessment.

Stakeholders Responsible P4KSI/BRPL, University in Makassar

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe 3 years (development) and ongoing


1.1.1 Stock Status1.1.2 Reference Points1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding1.2.1 Harvest strategy1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools1.2.3 Information/Monitoring1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status2.5 Ecosystem3.2 Fishery- specific management system

The most fruitful approaches to stock assessment are likely to be using length-based methods to estimate severity of over-fishing. More complex modeling would entail biomass dynamics (surplus production) models, delay-difference models, whereas depletion methods may be appropriate and cost effective ways of assessing stock dynamics. It is doubtful that the more data hungry complex models, such as length cohort analysis, could be applied into this situation.

3.5. Fleet composition

A profile of the number of active vessels taking reef fish, by each gear, should be compiled by DKP District to assist in the compilation of annual catch estimates.

Stakeholders Responsible DKP Provinsi and District

Priority High


Timeframe 1-2 yearsMSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.3 Information/Monitoring

3.6 Stock productivity

Catch per effort data, to provide information on trends in catch rates as indices of stock abundance over time, should be collected through the initial sampling programme and progressive implementation of a community logbook program. This would potentially be a support role played by the haji or punggawa (middleman). It is noteworthy that such support relationships already form a component of KKP’s catch-effort data recording systems.

Working Group P4KSI, BRPL, University in Makassar , SDI, industry (direct from haji and buying companies)

Priority High


Timeframe 3 years (development) and ongoing

22


Stock status1.1.1 Limit Reference Points1.1.2

1.2.3 Information/monitoring 1.2.4 Research and assessment of stock status

3.7 Bycatch data collection

Accurate information on total removals from the fishery, ETP species, and any discards, is not currently available. The species composition of the catch by each fishery, notably the bycatch component, is not known with certainty.

3.7.1 Review of available information

All available information on by-catch, ETP (napoleon wrasse, bumphead parrotfish, cetaceans, turtles, seabirds) and baitfish species needs to be gathered and reviewed, to identify gaps in knowledge that would be required for risk assessment/EAFM and to determine if management strategies need to be implemented for particular fisheries components or species.

3.7.2 Observer programme

Information on ecosystem components other than target species would typically be collected by the proposed observer sampling programme. These should be established to characterize all aspects of the operation and catch details of the handline and bottom longline fisheries, and identify possible interactions with other non-target species. Target coverage levels, reflecting available resources and manpower, would need to be developed but for indicative purposes, might initially be 5% of the fishery.

Coordinated observer training will be required, which will require development of training modules and funding support from industry, NGOs and Government.

Where high ecological risk situations have been identified, observer programmes will need to be ongoing, to support management strategies introduced and ensure compliance. However, it is expected that support for these programmes is unlikely.

Working Group SDI, KKJI, P4KSI, PLN, KAPI, Fishery agency

Priority Intermediate

Status New activity

Timeframe 1 year (development), implement (year 2) ongoing where high risk


2.1.3 Retained species Information2.2.3 Baitfish information2.3.3 ETP species information2.4.3 Habitats information2.5.3 Ecosystem information

3.8 Reefs Ecosystem Assestment Survey

It is important to establish the success or failures of Marine Protected areas, and supporting management processing. Underwater mapping should be undertaken to assess the health of the no take zones, the surrounding areas and their ecosystems. It would be anticipated that this work would be funded by the beneficiaries – i.e. processors, supported by the NGOs

Working GroupKKJI, NGO, University, COREMAP, Fishery agency and buyers/processors


23




2.1.3 Retained species Information2.2.3 Baitfish information2.3.3 ETP species information2.4.3 Habitats information2.5.3 Ecosystem information

3.9 Ecosystem modeling

Modeling the impact of fishery removals on the ecosystem needs to be undertaken. Ecosystem modeling represents an alternative to analytical and empirical fishery models. Instead of relying on a hypothesized relationship between total catch and effort (as in surplus production models), an ecosystem model attempts to simulate population dynamics of the interacting trophic groups (including fishers) that make up a reef ecosystem. In this way, cascading effects in the ecosystem, for example due to over-fishing, become visible, and the researcher can study the effects of changes in fishing effort on the catch of each species group. More elaborate models also allow the researcher to study effects of one fishery on the other: For example, one could simulate a reduction in fishing effort on piscivorous fish and assess how this would affect bagan fisheries on prey fish. The tools for ecosystem modeling exist (see, for example, the Ecopath suite of programs developed by the University of British Columbia), and there are reef fisheries simulation models for Indonesian reefs (Raja Ampat, West Papua: Ainsworth, C. H.; Varkey, D. A. & Pitcher, T. J. (2008), ‘Ecosystem simulations supporting ecosystem-based fisheries management in the Coral Triangle, Indonesia’, Ecological Modelling 214, 361-374.). Parameterization of simulation models, however, requires a high level of expertise and accurate data on the studied ecosystem, and therefore these models are rarely (if at all) used to inform fisheries management on a routine basis. Nevertheless, if resources are available, a research project could adapt the West Papua model and apply it to South Sulawesi.

This model must not be used in isolation, but it can be used to corroborate findings and management recommendations emanating from aforementioned stock assessments. One application of a single-species population dynamics model (so this is not an ecosystem model) that has been applied in management is the model to estimate quota for Napoleon wrasse in Indonesia under CITES Appendix II Non-Detriment requirements (Sadovy, Y.; Punt, A. E.; Cheung, W.; Vasconcellos, M.; Suharti, S. & Mapstone, B. D. (2007), ‘Stock assessment approach for the Napoleon fish, Cheilinus undulatus, in Indonesia. A tool for quota-setting for data-poor fisheries under CITES Appendix II non-detriment finding requirements.’(1023), Technical report, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.).

Working Group BRPL and Hasanudin University in Makassar

Priority High

Status New



2.4.1 Ecosystem status 2.4.3 Ecosystem information

3.10: Peer review of the effectiveness of the Research Programme.

An external review process of stock assessment processes and bycatch/ecosystem interactions should be undertaken within 5 years of the programme’s commencement. This task shall be initiated through external and internal review. The results of this work, and lessons learned should be publically available.

Working Group External review of management reviewer

Priority High

24

Status New

Timeframe Year 5

MSC Principal Indicator 3.2.5: Peer ReviewMSC Performance Indicator(s) SG < 60 ‘Fail to meet the standard’.

4. COMPLIANCE STRENGTHENINGEnforcement activity is expected to be strengthened through the use of Community based POKMASWAS groups, with additional support provided by DKP District, and to some extent, PKSDKP, conflict resolution, or when faced with overwhelming pressure from larger vessels.

4.1 Defining the role of POKMASWAS and determining actions.

Under the Supervision of DKP District and PSDKP, fishers should agree to a set of standards, and allocate responsibilities to a number of community control officers. A system of circulating day-to-day monitoring responsibilities among fishers could be explored. An alternative system adopted amongst fishers in Thailand and Indonesia is to devise a self funded community compensation to fishers allocated to monitoring rather than fishing duties, but to circulate these activities to all willing participants. Fishers would need to be allocated some basic equipment such as binoculars, life jackets and two way VHF radios to strengthen their ability to support their compliance duties.

Each POKMASWAS would be responsible for implementation of a set of controls which will need to be implemented. These may include:

Monitoring of fishing permit allocations within the membership;•

Use of acceptable fishing gears;•

No take of ETP species (e.g. Napoleon wrasse and Bumphead parrotfish) and other vulnerable •species

Spatial and seasonal closed areas;•

Implementing the above will require linkages between POKMASWAS and formal enforcement agencies (including revision to existing standard operating procedures).

Working Group POKMASWAS, PSDKP, DKP Provinsi and District, SDI

Priority High

Status Expanding on existing opportunity

Timeframe Operating within 12 months but ongoing on a continuous basisMSC Performance Indicator(s) 3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement

4.2 Review legislation and violation sanctions

Based on the management tools identified, it is important to underpin these with District Regulations. Legislation will require updating to list the series of restrictions and penalties including:

Operating without a fishing license (as a mechanism to endorse the capping of new entrants);•

Fishing with gears in excess of the prescribed limits;•

Fishing in closed seasons or closed areas;•

25

The range of potential violations as defined above would need to be accompanied by an informal peer review penalty system (defined and implemented within the community itself) and a formal system and schedule of penalties for repeat offences, which ultimately would result in license removal (for repeat offences). Fishing without a license would have to result in confiscation of boat, gear and heavy penalty in order to act as a suitable deterrent. Penalties should take account of non compliance risks with high risk offences resulting in heavier penalties being imposed.

Working Group DKP Provinsi and District, SDI. POKMASWAS

Priority High (with some lower priorities e.g. ecosystem related issues)

Status Expanding on existing activities

Timeframe 12 months


High Priority:1.2.2. Harvest control rules and tools3.2.1. Fishery-specific objectives3.2.3. Compliance & enforcementIntermediate and Low priority:2.1.2. Retained Sp (Harvest strategy2.2.2. Bycatch Sp (Harvest strategy)2.3.2. ETP Sp: (Harvests)3.1.1. Legal customary framework

4.3 Developing education outreach

Community fishers should be educated in fisheries co-management and control measures. Fishers will have to be made aware of the ramifications of non compliance, most especially the consequences of not having effort control that will lead to a decline in CPUE, targeting juvenile species (through the use of certain gears), the justification for spatial and temporal closed areas and the consequences of ecosystem interactions. This work should include educational outreach undertaken by the Fishery administrations in cooperation with P4KSI, BRPL and WWF, with visible support from the buyers and intermediaries, with supporting innovative publicity materials including posters and additional education outreach in local schools.

The process of educational outreach should be further extended by regular community based meetings which can also be used to obtain feed-back on the success or problems encountered with the management measures.

Working Group DKP District, BRPL, WWF and processors

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe Operating within 12 months but ongoing on a continuous basis


1.1.1. Stock status1.2.2. Harvest control rules and tools3.1.4. Incentives for sustainable fishing3.2.1. Fishery-specific objectives3.2.2. Decision-making process3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement3.1.1. Legal customary framework3.1.2. Consultation, roles & responsibilities3.1.3. Long-term objectives

26

4.4 Establish data collection systems on infringements detected with reporting of incidents to Reef Fish Management Council and its members

Establish a system of reporting on violations and provide to the sub FKPPS and all stakeholders.

Working Group DKP Provinsi and District, SDI

Priority High

Status New

Timeframe Operating within 6 months but ongoing on a continuous basisMSC Performance Indicator(s) 3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement

5. OTHERS

5.1 Subsidies creating incentives that undermine sustainability

There is a large body of evidence16, 17 that suggest that input subsidies such as those for fuel are creating a negative distortion to capacity of the fleet by creating artificial profits and stimulating overfishing. However, the full extent of these distortions and relative impact on intermediate and smaller scale fishermen is unclear. It is important therefore, for BBRSE to identify the impact of fuel subsidies to gauge the extent to which they are consistent with MSC Principles of sustainability and the ecosystem approach to Fisheries Management. Moreover, BBRSE should also work, with KAPI to evaluate savings in costs that could be made (e.g. through identification of carbon emission inefficiencies) as a result of vessel inefficiencies and gear deficiencies.

Working Group BBRSE/KAPI



Timeframe 1 yearMSC Performance Indicator(s)

Intermediate:3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing

16 Dorsey, G., ADB/MMAF (2006), TNC (2008).17 Ghofar, A.; Schorr, D. K. & Halim, A. (2008), ‘Selected Indonesia fishery subsidies: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of policy coherence and effectiveness.’, Technical report, The Nature Conservancy - Coral Triangle Center, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia

27

APP

END

IX 1

: Out

line

of p

ropo

sed

task

s fo

r Ind

ones

ian

Ree

f Fis

h FI

P A

ctio

n Pl

an

1

GO

VERN

ANCE

AN

D DE

FIN

TIO

N O

F N

ATIO

NAL

FIS

HERY

M

ANAG

EMEN

T O

BJEC

TIVE

S

Not

esPe

rfor

man

ce

Indi

cato

rRe

spon

sibi

lity

Ong

oing

NEW

actio

ns20

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

1.1

Refin

e ob

jecti

ves t

o en

sure

that

prio

rity

is gi

ven

to su

stai

nabl

e fis

herie

s and

the

ecos

yste

m a

ppro

ach

to

fishe

ries m

anag

emen

t at

pro

vinc

ial a

nd d

istric

t le

vel

Mec

hani

sm

to

pote

ntial

ly

exte

nd

the

curr

ent

law

to

pr

ioriti

ze fi

sher

ies s

usta

inab

ility

, ag

ains

t pr

oduc

tion

and

grow

th

obje

ctive

s, a

nd a

ccom

mod

ate

PAFM

and

EAF

M p

rinci

ples

3.1.

1, 3

.1.3

SDI,

P4KS

I, Fi

sher

y ag

ency

1.2

Exte

nsio

n o

f the

m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

to

loca

l lev

el

Opti

mize

regu

latio

n ad

apta

tion

and

impl

emen

tatio

n in

nati

onal

, pr

ovin

cial

an

d di

stric

t (lo

cal

regu

latio

n, l

ocal

wisd

om,

etc)

, re

view

fr

om

law

ex

pert

s to

st

udy

the

best

mec

hani

sm f

or

impl

emen

ting

the

regu

latio

n in

pro

vinc

ial/d

istric

t re

late

d to

na

tiona

l law

(Law

31/

2004

and

32

/200

4).

3.1.

1, 3

.1.3

, 3.

2.1,

3.2

.2

SDI,

P4KS

I, Di

nas,

PLN

, KK

JI, P

SDKP

1.3

Deve

lopm

ent o

f fis

herie

s spe

cific

m

anag

emen

t pla

ns

(Ren

cana

Pen

gelo

laan

Pe

rikan

an)

Adop

t an

d in

corp

orat

e su

stai

nabi

lity

para

met

ers

(e.g

. Ri

sk B

ased

ass

essm

ent,

EAFM

, pr

ecau

tiona

ry a

ppro

ach)

in th

e fis

hery

man

agem

ent p

lan

1.2.

1. 1

.2.2

, 3.

1.1

3.1.

2,

SDI,

Fish

ery

agen

cy,

Hasa

nudi

n U

nive

rsity

in

Mak

assa

r

1.4

Deve

lopm

ent o

f Te

rrito

rial U

ser R

ight

s fo

r Fish

erie

s

Wor

ksho

p on

TURF

intr

oduc

tion

as o

ne o

f too

ls ne

eded

in fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t an

d Im

plem

ent

TURF

, st

reng

then

ed

by

lega

l fr

amew

ork

1.2.

1. 1

.2.2

, 3.

1.1

3.1.

2,

SDI,

Fish

ery

agen

cy,

Com

mun

ity

fishe

rs, N

GOs

(TN

C/W

WF)

, Ha

sanu

din

Uni

vers

ity in

M

akas

sar

1.5

Delin

eate

no

take

zone

s

Opti

mizi

ng

the

existi

ng

MPA

m

anag

emen

t bas

ed on

scie

ntific

pr

inci

ples

(in

cl

min

imum

10

-30

% n

o ta

ke z

one

from

tot

al

cora

l ree

f are

a)

1.2.

1. 1

.2.2

, 3.

1.1

3.1.

2,

KKJI,

Fish

ery

agen

cy,

Com

mun

ity

fishe

rs, N

GOs

(WW

F/TN

C)

28

2ST

REN

GTHE

NIN

G

THE

INST

ITU

TIO

NAL

FR

AMEW

ORK

O

ngoi

ngN

EW

actio

ns20

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

2.1

Impr

ove

the

stru

ctur

e of

the

fishe

ry

man

agem

ent s

yste

m

Nati

onal

obj

ectiv

es d

evel

oped

, Su

b FK

PPS

faci

litat

e ad

optio

n of

HC

Rs,

3.1.

2

SDI,

Agen

cy

of K

KP in

pr

ovin

ce a

nd

dist

rict,

NGO

s (W

WF/

TNC)

, st

akeh

olde

rs

as d

escr

ibed

ab

ove.

2.2

Iden

tifica

tion

of

resp

onsib

ility

and

ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

acro

ss th

e ra

nge

of

impl

emen

ting

bodi

es

Dele

gate

d re

spon

sibili

ties

- Fi

sher

y m

anag

er,

DKP

Dist

rict

and

Com

mun

ity

parti

cipa

tory

m

anag

emen

t gro

ups

3.1.

2

SDI,

Agen

cy

of K

KP in

pr

ovin

ce a

nd

dist

rict,

DKP

, co

mm

unity

st

akeh

olde

rs,

NGO

s.

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

3RE

SEAR

CH A

CTIV

ITIE

S

Ong

oing

NEW

actio

ns20

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

3.1

Stre

ngth

enin

g hu

man

an

d in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty fo

r sto

ck

asse

ssm

ent i

n In

done

sia

Deve

lop

part

ners

hip

syst

em

betw

een

indu

stry

, re

sear

ch

insti

tutio

n,

univ

ersit

y, N

GO

and

Fish

ery

Agen

cy t

o co

nduc

t st

ock

asse

ssm

ent

for

Snap

per

and

Grou

per fi

sher

ies

1.2.

4

P4KS

I, BR

PL

and

Hasa

nudi

n U

nive

rsity

in

Mak

assa

r

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

3.2

Lite

ratu

re R

evie

wRe

view

doc

umen

tatio

n on

stoc

k in

dica

tors

1.2.

4P4

KSI,

BRPL

an

d lo

cal

univ

ersiti

es

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

3.3

Risk

ass

essm

ent

cond

uct

TOT

to B

RPL

for

Risk

As

sess

men

t, Ri

sk

Asse

ssm

ent

for

Snap

per

and

Grou

per

stoc

k as

sess

men

t in

volv

ing

fishe

ry

man

ager

s and

rese

arch

ers

1.2.

4

P4KS

I, BR

PL,

DKP,

and

Ha

sanu

din

Uni

vers

ity

in M

akas

sar,

NGO

s,

Com

mun

ity,

mid

dlem

ent,

proc

esso

rs

29

3.4

Stoc

k ab

unda

nce

and

stoc

k as

sess

men

t

Cond

uct s

tudy

on

limit

refe

renc

e po

ints

bas

ed o

n fis

h siz

e, in

volv

e in

dust

ry to

get

the

info

rmati

on

1.1.

1, 1

.1.2

, 1.

2.3,

1.2

.4,

1.2.

5

P4KS

I/BR

PL,

Uni

vers

ity in

M

akas

sar

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

3.5

Flee

t com

positi

on

deve

lop

stra

tegy

/reg

ulati

on to

im

plem

ent t

he re

ducti

on o

n eff

ort

1.2.

3DK

P Pr

ov &

Di

stric

t

3.6

Stoc

k pr

oduc

tivity

1.1.

1, 1

.1.2

, 1.

2.3,

1.2

.4

P4KS

I, BR

PL,

SDI,

Uni

vers

ity,

indu

stry

(d

irect

fr

om h

aji

and

buyi

ng

com

pani

es)

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

3.7

Byca

tch

data

col

lecti

on

Deve

lop

an o

bser

ver p

rogr

am

for n

on ta

rget

(ret

aine

d sp

ecie

s, E

TP, a

nd h

abita

t) o

n bo

ttom

long

line

and

hand

line

2.1.

3, 2

.2.3

, 2.

3.3,

2.4

.3,

2.5.

3

SDI,

KKJI,

P4

KSI,

Uni

vers

ity,

PLN

, KAP

I, Fi

sher

y ag

ency

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

3.8

Reef

s Eco

syst

em

asse

ssm

ent s

urve

y

Habi

tat m

onito

ring

syst

em

is de

velo

ped

and

cond

ucte

d an

nual

ly

2.1.

3, 2

.2.3

, 2.

3.3,

2.4

.3,

2.5.

4

KKJI,

N

GO,

univ

ersi

ties

, Fi

sher

y ag

ency

an

d bu

yers

/pr

oces

sors

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

3.9

Ecos

yste

m m

odel

ing

Stud

y co

mpi

latio

n on

the

effec

t of b

ottom

long

line

and

hand

line

fishe

ries t

o ec

osys

tem

2.4.

1, 2

.4.3

BRPL

, Ha

sanu

din

Uni

vers

ity in

M

akas

sar

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

3.10

Peer

revi

ew o

f the

eff

ectiv

enes

s of t

he

Rese

arch

Pro

gram

me.

3.

2.5

Inde

pend

ent

revi

ewer

4CO

MPL

IAN

CE

STRE

NGT

HEN

ING

O

ngoi

ngN

EW

actio

ns20

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

30

4.1

Defin

ing

the

role

of

POKM

ASW

AS a

nd

dete

rmin

ing

actio

ns

Stre

ngth

enin

g PO

KMAS

WAS

(c

omm

unity

surv

eilla

nce

grou

p)3.

2.3

PSDK

P, A

genc

y of

MM

AF

in p

rovi

nce

and

dist

rict /

PO

KMAS

WAS

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

4.2

Stre

ngth

teni

ng th

e le

gisla

tion

on sa

nctio

ns

Upg

radi

ng e

xisti

ng v

iola

tions

sc

hedu

les t

o ac

coun

t fo

r app

licati

on to

new

m

anag

emen

t mea

sure

s and

ac

ross

the

rang

e of

fish

erie

s (E

EZ, a

rchi

pela

gic

and

coas

tal)

PS

DKP/

MM

AF L

egal

De

part

men

t

4.3

Educ

ation

al o

utre

ach

Exte

nded

to th

e PO

KMAS

ne

twor

k. R

equi

res c

onsid

erab

le

buy

in fr

om m

iddl

emen

and

pr

oces

sors

.

3.2.

3,DK

P Di

stric

t, BR

PL, W

WF

and

proc

esso

rs

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

4.5

Repo

rts p

repa

red

and

publ

icly

ava

ilabl

e id

entif

ying

vio

latio

ns

dete

cted

Repo

rts a

re p

repa

red

and

iden

tifyi

ng th

e re

sult

of

insp

ectio

n ac

tiviti

es, e

spec

ially

in

rela

tion

with

fish

ing

activ

ities

3.2.

3

PSDK

P, A

genc

y of

MAF

in

prov

ince

and

di

stric

t

O

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ngO

ngoi

ng

5O

THER

ISSU

ES

Ong

oing

NEW

actio

ns20

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

5.1

Revi

ew o

f the

impa

ct

on fu

el su

bsid

ies o

n su

stai

nabi

lity

< 5

GT

vess

els.

Cond

uctin

g re

view

on

the

effec

t of s

ubsid

y on

fish

ery

reso

urce

s, to

all

fishe

ry

(env

ironm

enta

lly fr

iend

ly a

nd

non

envi

ronm

enta

lly fr

iend

ly)

and

diffe

rent

GT

varia

tion

3.1.

4PD

N, P

LN,

BBRS

E

action plan indonesian tropical reef fish sector · foreword 7 introduction 8 1. governance and...

Documents