Information gathering and dissemination are performed by all agencies with the exception of
the police. The planning of fisheries development projects involves BAPPEDA, all levels of
the Fisheries Agency, the Law Bureau, and village government heads. The process is described
below (Section 6.5.1). Depending on the type of project, provincial and district levels of the
Department of Transport and the resource conservation section of the Department of Forestry
may also be involved. What is interesting is that the Environment Bureau has not identified
this as one of its areas of activity. In general, the Environment Bureau is a very weak player,
not least because its area of jurisdiction relative to the environment section of BAPPEDA is
unclear. However, the Environment Bureau does become involved during the implementation
of a project, along with BAPPEDA, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Transport,
the Fisheries Agency, and regional, district, and village government heads. Most agencies
(except for the Environment Bureau and Law Bureau) have responsibility for evaluating the
physical and legal implications of projects, but evaluation and feedback into new project
planning forms an area of extreme weakness in the system.
Enforcement is formally a shared responsibility of the police, navy and Fisheries Agency.
The Department of Transport plays a role in enforcing licensing regulations, whereas various
government offices may facilitate reporting of offenses or, in the case of village chiefs, apply
sanctions available under the local government or adat law.
Funding for fisheries development comes from BAPPEDA, the Fisheries Agency and
Department of Forestry and may also be supported from local government coffers. Routine
management tasks are performed by most agencies, with licensing and collection of fees and
taxes being the special purview of the Fisheries Agency and Department of Transport. Only
the Environment Bureau, Department of Forestry and provincial and district government
offices are not directly involved in day-to-day fisheries management tasks. There is, therefore,
a clear need for communication and coordination among agencies.
The key findings from the interviews of government staff were as follows:
• There is no special institution to manage coastal and fisheries resources. The
management aspects are divided among a range of institutions. This causes difficulties
in coordination.
• Authority seems to be an important factor in the management process. Because of the
“top-down” approach, the determination of limits of authority must precede any
decision and often, nothing will be done without explicit approval from a higher level.
• Limited human resources and poor motivation very much affect all levels of the
management system.
• Staff personnel in every agency and at every level reveal a lack of knowledge of fisheries
law and management principles.
• Limited equipment, facilities and funding hinder management and enforcement functions.
Budgetary problems are most critical at the lower (sub-district) levels, and greatly hinder
both enforcement and the transfer of training and information to the village level.
• Sustainability of resources and habitats is still a low priority compared to the expansion
and development of fisheries.
• Better scientific data and greater cooperation with research institutions and universities
are essential in order to support the management system.
• Technical guidelines from the national level are inadequate. For example, national
instructions to collect taxes on shellfish are not accompanied by instructions on the
implementation of such a tax.
• Since the village may carry out many fisheries resource management functions, it means
that, in theory, the village holds an important role in the management process.
Fisheries Management in Central Maluku 61