of gears and economic wealth to be inequitable. These fishers had lower incomes. They also
noted the poor decision-making process and poor control over access to the fishery. In other
words, for them, the current management system is seen to be inequitable and inefficient. In
villages where the village head makes the decisions in isolation or with a few other leaders,
this is accepted only if it is felt that the village head is representing the common good. This is
only where a village head is strong and trustworthy, as in Nolloth.
For a management system to work, it is thus imperative that the decision-making process is
one where people feel involved and which is inclusive. Where this is not the case, for example
in Hulaliu and Tuhaha, fishers score low on their input in fisheries management, as well as
control over the fishery, compliance, and communal decision-making. In these villages, which
are both in the process of revitalizing sasi, the village government lacks full legitimacy and
there is resistance to the idea of using sasi to collect government revenue.
16.8.2 Positive and negative aspects of sasi
Sasi is positively correlated with the number and type of local fisheries-related rules in practice,
and other management-related attributes such as the input of fishers in fisheries management,
control over the fishery, and compliance. The direct participation of fishers in decision-making
is low, but in both sasi villages, the village leaders are legitimately making the decisions. The
process is valued as one that is based on majority agreement, and generally, fishers who feel
that decision-making is based on consensus have more positive scores on all performance
indicators.
Where sasi benefits are generated to the village government without apparent or direct benefits
to the larger community, fishers are made to feel that they have limited access to resources.
As a result, compliance to fisheries regulations suffers.
People who appreciate sasi most are the villagers living in the sasi villages. These fishers also
felt that there was a strong tradition of collective action. In this sense, sasi is important. Several
indicators of social sustainability are highest in Nolloth, the most stable of the sasi villages.
Discussion of village issues is higher in sasi villages, and the sasi villages are relatively
harmonious, even though Haruku is under political stress.
Political instability is linked to a weaker tradition of collective action and less open discussion
of village issues. In both Haruku and Hulaliu, there is a large degree of mistrust between the
villagers and the village government. However, whereas in Hulaliu this leads to neglect of
existing fisheries rules, in Haruku the activities of the kewang temper potential offenders.
A comparison of the sasi institutions of Nolloth and Haruku shows that they are different.
Each, however, offers attributes for local resource management. In Nolloth where formal and
traditional structures collaborate closely, and where leadership is highly legitimate, there is a
stronger support base to enforce rules vigorously. Haruku demonstrates that a strong
enforcement agent can function independently from the government and still play an
important role in resource management. The Haruku sasi system also shows the appreciation
by the people for a system which is redistributive and communal.
16.8.3 Relevance of sasi in non-sasi villages
Seri and Hutumuri-Toisapu are open-access regimes with little local government control over
the fishery, which is dominated by commercial large-scale fishers. Hutumuri is an example of
240 An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia