18.6.4 Weaknesses of sasi
The drawbacks of flexibility
It must be remembered that, as Zerner (1992) asserts, “Attempts to create or strengthen such
institutions (i.e., sasi) must be based upon a realistic assessment of the motives, ethics, interest,
and cultural conceptions which drive local actors”. On one hand, co-management
arrangements developed in future should, like sasi, be adaptive and flexible so as to increase
resilience. On the other hand, there are increasing demands for income, both by individuals
and governments, and the temptations of emerging international markets. In this context,
the flexibility of sasi can be seen as risky. The resources could end up being efficiently, or even
ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of local or outside elites. For that reason, flexibility must
be counterbalanced by introducing some minimum standards so that all villages enjoy some
reasonable level of resource protection and management.
Lack of financial resources
One problem facing sasi as an institution is lack of funding to support kewang work. Kewang
members are volunteers whose incentives are social standing and a sense of responsibility.
While this is good in terms of sustainability of the institution, the problem arises when the
kewang tries to do its job. Rarely does the group own any enforcement equipment. Members
do receive the proceeds from fines and may be granted occasional sums of money from the
village to facilitate meetings. However, they have no access to support for training and
networking, except when their village is involved in some NGO or government project.
Limited access to new information and alternative technologies
The lack of communication along formal fisheries management channels, weak or non-existent
environmental education, lack of access to new technologies and technical information, and
dearth of valid catch statistics and stock assessment data all inhibit progress toward fisheries
co-management both within and outside of sasi.
Limited scope
Sasi is currently applied only to a few species and positive effects in terms of habitat protection
are often accidental rather than planned. Sasi has also disappeared from many villages. The
question remains whether sasi can be successfully built upon and extended to cover more
species and perhaps even entire fishing grounds, and be workable regardless of the size,
economic condition, heterogeneity or religion of the fishing community.
Management of the pelagic fishery, which is the key fishery for most villages, requires a
management institution that is much broader in scope than sasi currently is. Sasi applies only
to the village territory, or inshore waters. The deep-water fishery involves not only villagers
but also a range of stakeholders that does not have ties to local fishing villages. The village
level institution requires a place in negotiating access and withdrawal rights for artisanal
fishers in offshore waters, but to date, no sasi practitioners have ventured into this area. If/
when they do, they will need to engage or be nested in a larger institution operating on
regional, provincial and higher levels. Presently, there is no identifiable lead agency dedicated
to coastal and fisheries management.
Overall Discussion and Conclusions 277