political levels that a problem in fisheries exists. Secondly, policy concerning fisheries
management, where it exists, is not communicated to village level, let alone implemented.
The centralized political and social structure obstructs co-management efforts in the region
and also hinders effective participation of all the stakeholders.
Obviously, co-management efforts should be adapted to the local situation. Instead of trying
to change local structures, we have to find a way to use them, keeping in mind the various
incentives at work in the region. Existing or revitalized institutions, such as sasi and the
Latupati, could be tools to promote exchange of information among the various levels of
management. To combat the lack of awareness of fisheries and management issues requires
extension work and discussions on all levels. Here, NGOs and universities as well as
government departments have important roles to play. Once there is agreement on the need
to manage the resources, it could still be difficult to unite the fishers and other villagers for
collective action and participation in management. There are no village structures that allow
a high level of participation.
One option would be to play it according to current norms and that would mean that the
village head plays a key role. The risk is that with re-elections or political instability, the
quality and consistency of management would be adversely affected. A second approach
would be to base the institution on a more stable authority, such as the church or an adat
institution such as sasi, or some amalgam of the two. In such cases, leadership would remain
stable regardless of election terms of the village government. The management institution
could either be formally nested in the village government, as has already been instituted in
the village of Itawaka, or be more autonomous and strongly adat-based, as in Haruku. If kept
truly at arm’s length from the village government, the institution would require independent
legal standing and authority. Otherwise, turf disputes with the village government and other
enforcement agencies could jeopardize its function.
18.6.2 Legal basis
Legal researchers have pointed out that, under various national laws, the village head has a
responsibility to ensure that local resources are managed to provide an optimal level of income
for his community. Sasi, an institution that combines the authority of the village head with
the legitimacy and ethics of adat, is seen (Lokollo et al. 1996; Brouwer, forthcoming) to be the
logical institution for the management and conservation of inshore coral reefs that lie within
village territories.
Our results show that the villages, and in particular villages with a sasi institution, already
perform many management functions (Table 5.2), including, in some cases, the collection of
resource rents. This key role is, however, not acknowledged through any explicit legal right
of tenure or management. Formal recognition and support of local community rights and
responsibilities would help to ensure a solid base for building more competent local resource
management institutions.
There are various options for providing a legal basis for local management bodies, including
decrees by the Governor, Bupati or Kotamadya and promulgation of a provincial law (Perda).
Another option, previously discussed by Zerner (1992), is through the amendment of the
national Fisheries Act No. 9, 1985 together with an amendment of Law No. 5, 1979 on the
local government.
274 An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia