Proceedings of the UNESCO - University of Tsukuba International Seminar on Traditional Technology for Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Asian-Pacific Region, held in Tsukuba Science City, Japan, 11-14 December, 1995.
Editors: Kozo Ishizuka, D. Sc. , Shigeru Hisajima, D. Sc. , Darryl R.J. Macer, Ph.D.
When we discuss sustainable development of fishing communities in SEA, we should grasp how subsistence fishing is articulated with commercial fishing (Ghee 1991; Jomo 1991). Discussions have been made of the environmental effects of large-scale commercial fishing, such as trawling and the intensified aquaculture (Cf. Chua and Charles 1984). While I have been conducting fieldwork in small fishing villages of Malaysia and Indonesia, I have noticed that many substantial changes are now emerging even in the domain of so-called traditional fishing,. Some of these changes have good sides, such as the re-evaluation of unused resources and the creation of new exchange networks for the fishermen to obtain profits.
The technologies used in these fishing are mostly simple. However, when these technologies are used intensively for catching a particular species, they might have some kind of effects on the resource system. In the following, I would like to show some examples of intensive fishing of particular species in Malaysian and Indonesian waters.
First is kingcrab fishing in southeastern Johor, near the southern end of Malay Peninsular (Goto in press). The local Malay people rarely eat kingcrabs. When kingcrabs are caught in gill net for prawn fishing, fishermen just extracted crabs from the net and discarded them. About 10 years ago, a middle woman from Thailand came to live in a village and started buying kingcrabs from fishermen. Kingcrab fishing is a secondary business to the most fishermen: when kingcrabs happen to be entangled in gill nets, they are transported to the wholesale structure of that middle woman. Since only female individuals with eggs can be sold, male individuals are often discarded. Approximately 2,000 to 3,000 female crabs are transported to Bangkok every two weeks.
My second example is a fishing of juveniles of milkfish (Chanos chanos ). Now in several parts of Sulawesi and Maluku of Indonesia, fishing juveniles of milkfish becomes popular. The juveniles are sold to Bugis middlemen who transport them to fishponds in Java, and, this new type of fishing may contribute to the development of aquaculture. In Central Sulawesi and Maluku Islands, many people, including sea nomad, Bajau people, now engage with this fishing (Sopher 1965). Since there is no regulation of this fishing, not only fishermen but also urban habitants, such as taxi drivers take part in this job as a secondary business. The net used is easily made by using bamboo poles, mosquito nets and plastic bottles. In this fishing, not only juveniles of milkfish but also those of other species, including prawns were observed to be caught. Those without commercial value tend to be discarded on beach.
The third example is a crawl fishing in Johor River of Malaysia and Riau Islands of Indonesia. Malay fishermen and also sea nomads, Orang Laut were observed to land fish, lobster and prawn to these crawls. In Riau Islands, a Chinese middleman own large crawl for keeping fish alive. Fishermen catch a particular species of grouper (e.g., Cromileptes altivelis ) and wrasse (Choerodon anchorago ) by using traditional technology such as basket traps and fishhooks. Now some fishermen intensively catch only a few benthic species that are sold to Singapore and Hong Kong markets. I observed a mother ship from Hong Kong came only for these fish.
Viewing these examples, I would like to point out that during very short period (e.g., the last 10 years or so), fishing and marketing systems continue to change in a rapid manner. In some cases (e.g., kingcrab and trepang in many parts of SEA and Oceania), resources that have been almost ignored as food suddenly obtain a commodity value. As a result, very intensive fishing on a few resources started. These fishing are possible, employing very simple or traditional technology. Some of these (e.g., fishing of kingcrab and juveniles of milkfish) are "secondary-business." "Secondary-business" does not mean that its effect on the resource system is slight, since the people tend to be careless of the resources for "secondary-business." We then need to assess whether these fishing activities cause some kind of impact on resource system or not.
In addition, these resources with commodity value are transported through networks that consist of a various ethnic groups. There are sea nomad groups such as Orang Laut and Bajau who do not own lands, gardens or permanent residence. These people have been dependent upon the exchange economy for generations (Firth 1966; Muchtar and Fatima n.d.). They have been foraging marine resources for exchange, and their subsistence goes in hand with commercial exchange. There are also groups such as Bugis and Chinese who have been engaged with fish marketing for years and are enthusiastic to explore new possibilities. As a result, in a very short term, exchange networks are created, abandoned and re-created. We have an impression that it is difficult to grasp where such intensive fishing is operating now and where it has come to the end.
In conclusion, I would like to say that when we consider sustainable development of fishery in Asia and Pacific, we should look at not only technology-resource relations, but also socio-economic aspects of fishing and marketing. In particular, our perspective should include a clear picture on the present conditions of networks, and their transformation. One of the most urgent problems is how to formulate common understandings and ethics on the resource use among the people who have different way of life, different infrastructure, and different cultural values. In this context, indigenous resource management system, such as "sasi" in Eastern Indonesia should be re-evaluated (Bailey and Zeuner 1992; Cf. Ruddle and Akimichi 1984).