8.7 Conclusions
Sasi as an institution has no demonstrable impact on the economic status of individual artisanal
fishers as measured in terms of ownership of land, housing, boat and fishing gear. This is
probably because the resources managed under sasi constitute a relatively small proportion
of family income. Most income is derived from the deep-water pelagic fishery and agro-
forestry. Fishers in sasi villages perceive themselves as being relatively poor in terms of their
income. This may be related to the fact that the average age of sasi fishers is higher and age is
negatively correlated with income. There is no evidence from our data that sasi as an institution
has either a significant positive or negative impact on the actual economic well-being of fishing
families or their communities. Religion, however, may be related to prosperity. It is generally
acknowledged that Christians became relatively advantaged during the Dutch rule in Maluku.
Generally, there is better social sustainability in sasi villages (more harmony, communal activity,
discussion of village issues) and lesser trends of deterioration through time. Also, sasi may
be considered to be efficient because of the significantly higher compliance to fisheries rules
in sasi villages. However, sasi is not inherently equitable in the sense of being inclusive or
democratic. Common fishers in sasi villages feel no more involved in decision-making than
fishers in non-sasi villages.
There was no evidence from the performance survey that sasi had any impact on the health of
the fishery in general. This is seen to be in decline all across the study area.
Comparison of Equity, Efficiency and Sustainability in Sasi and Non-Sasi Villages of Central Maluku 87