People from the same village were sometimes very consistent. For instance, comments by
fishers in certain non-sasi villages (Saparua town, Seri, Hutumuri) and in Hulaliu, where sasi
is being revived, suggested that in these villages fishers were never or rarely consulted and
decisions on fisheries issues were made by local leaders. Fishers in Batudua, another non-sasi
village, explained that they were not involved in management and that they did not really
understand what activities management might include. In contrast, comments by fishers
from other sasi and non-sasi villages (Tengah-Tengah, Seith, Porto, Eri, Itawaka, Seilale, and
Siri-Sori) suggested that they had processes in practice to involve fishers in decision-making,
(for the sasi status of villages, see Appendix 2). In Seilale, for example, the influence of the
government IDT program (village development program), under which fishers were organized
into groups, had had a large impact. In other villages as well, involvement in such a group
was noted by fishers as a factor that made them feel involved in management.
By far, the most common factor cited as being influential in the discussion of village issues in
general (102 comments) and fisheries rules in particular (65 comments), was the quality of
village leadership. Other important factors were involvement in fishers’ groups (34 comments),
and awareness and education (55 comments).
Access of fish harvesters to marine resources
Both sasi and non-sasi fishers recorded a decline in access to resources over the past 15 years
(Table 8.1) and they often referred to competition for resources with the commercial sector. In
eight villages, fishers stated that there were arguments and conflicts between artisanal fishers
and the motorized sector. Access to resources was expected to continue to decline, the increase
in the use of modern, large-scale fishing gears being one of the causes. Non-sasi villagers
were significantly more pessimistic about future access (Table 8.2).
Distribution of fishing gears
The distribution of fishing gears was seen by both groups to be getting more equitable over
time (Table 8.1). This trend is expected to continue into the future (Table 8.2). Most harvesters
commented on the changing face of the fishery and, again, the increase of modern gears.
Respondents often expressed their belief that the type of gear owned was simply a function
of a person’s willingness to make an effort and work hard (48 comments) but others spoke
also of government programs (16 comments) and a few mentioned access to credit.
Economic equality among villagers
Present-day economic equality within the village was seen as being on average the same
everywhere. However, in sasi villages, people thought that this indicator had not changed over
time, i.e., the level of equality had always been acceptable. In non-sasi villages, fishers thought
conditions in the past were worse but had on an average improved, approaching conditions in
sasi villages (Table 8.1). Neither group expected change in the future (Table 8.2).
8.3 Efficiency Indicators
Efficiency was measured through the following indicators: 1) communal decision-making, 2)
ease of entry into the fishery, 3) control over access to fishery, and 4) compliance with fishery
rules (for definitions, see Table 2.6).
82 An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia