THE MOU BOX (iNDONESIA -- AUSTRALIA)

THE MOU BOX

Prof. Dr.James J. Fox (Sumber gambar   :Internet).

Beliau ini banyak menulis tentang Pulau Rote dll.

Dan teman dari Kakak kandung saya ( Penulis) Pendeta Drs.Max Jacob MTH,

Saat beliau melakukan penelitian tentang Budaya Pulau Rote-Nusa Tenggara Timur..

A STUDY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL

INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

A Report for Environment Australia

James J. Fox

Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies

The Australian National University

(jjf400@coombs.anu.edu.au)

and

Sevaly Sen

FERM

sevalysen@attglobal.net

October 2002

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

A STUDY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL

INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

A Report for Environment Australia

James J. Fox

Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies

The Australian National University

(jjf400@coombs.anu.edu.au)

and

Sevaly Sen

FERM

sevalysen@attglobal.net

October 2002

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS

WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Given the reported levels of depletion of trochus and trepang in the MOU Box, the protection of the remaining populations at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) and Cartier Marine Reserves is now considered critical. As part of a longer term strategy to manage resources in the MOU Box and develop alternative incomes for Indonesian fishers who fish in the Box, Environment Australia commissioned this study on socio-economic issues facing traditional Indonesian fishers who access the MOU box. The aim of the study is to provide a thorough understanding and awareness of the socio-economic issues facing Indonesian fishers who fish in the MOU Box and a knowledge base from which alternative livelihoods can be explored.

Although the study focus is on Indonesian fishers who are legally allowed to fish in the MOU Box, the information presented in this report also covers Indonesian fishers who fish illegally in the Australian Fishing Zone because, in many cases, they originate from the same fishing communities and often have had past associations with fishing in the MOU Box.

Traditional Fishing in the MOU Box

Traditional fishing in the MOU Box, as it may have existed at the time of the signing of the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding and as defined in the 1989 revision has changed so substantially, that it is an appropriate time for a full consideration of the issues underlying the Memorandum. The main changes that have occurred are:

• Due to overfishing, the reefs in the MOU Box are no longer capable of providing an adequate means of livelihood to those fishers who have previously gathered trepang and trochus. This has led to a switch from sedentary resource collection to shark fishing in both the MOU Box and the AFZ (using the MOU Box as a base and refuge).

• The attractions of shark fishing and the potential profits from this fishing remain high. Fishers are using the MOU Box as a ‘transition area’ to better fishing grounds outside the MOU Box.

• ‘Traditional fishers’ such as the Rotenese, the Bajau Laut, the Madurese and some Butonese, all of whom have historically drawn upon the resources of the MOU Box, now find themselves involved in a complex and highly competitive commercial system. It is therefore an illusion to imagine that either the Australian or the Indonesian government could somehow re-establish a traditional fishery as a solution to present problems.

ALTERNATIVE INCOME STRATEGIES

Assistance, in the form of alternative incomes to fishers, could provide a means of solving some of the problems of overexploitation of resources in the MOU Box. This requires the joint cooperation of both Indonesian and Australian authorities. Any strategy for assistance must differentiate among the various fishers in eastern Indonesia such that strategies of assistance for fishers from Oelaba (Rote/Roti) or Raas/Madura would probably be different those for fishers in Pepela (Rote/Roti Island). Strategies would also have to be long-term and focus on different problems facing these fishers.

3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

There are a number of generic pre-requisites for any successful alternative income strategy for fishers in Indonesia, which should help to identify, and eliminate, potential pilot sites. These are as follows:

• As it is in the financial interest of vessel owners and traders/middlemen to continue their businesses (fishing; trading; credit provision), any perceived threat to their businesses may lead them to misrepresent, frustrate and undermine any attempts at alternative income strategies. The involvement of traders and middlemen is therefore vital to ensure that traders ‘allow’ fishers to leave the fishery and repay their debts in a different way.

• Alternative incomes should have the potential to provide incomes that are equal to, or exceed current incomes from fishing.

• Alternative supplies/substitutes of trochus and/or other income earning opportunities would need to be developed for those engaged in the handicraft industry using trochus shells.

• Markets and marketing channels should be identified prior to the initiation of alternative income programmes.

• There needs to be effective extension services/support already in place.

• Any Australian assistance has to be closely coordinated with both local and national programs.

In addition to these generic factors, The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in Indonesia, through the Economic Empowerment of Coastal Community Development Programme, have also identified 5 critical factors, which have contributed to the success of the programme. These are relevant in the context of developing alternative income programmes:

(1) Local people should objectively identify the target group and beneficiaries.

(2) Agents of change should be recruited from local youth and work as mediators, catalysts and extension agents.

(3) Local management consultants should be hired by the project to help people during the project and prepare them to run their businesses after the project ends.

(4) An advisory group at village level should be established which consists of formal and informal leaders that work voluntarily to help people during and after the project.

(5) Micro-financial institutions should be established at village, sub-district, or district level. The structure of the institution should be flexible enough to account for different requirements in different places but needs to be totally owned by the project beneficiaries.

4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Alternative Income Strategies: Pepela Network and Oelaba Network, Rote

An estimated 3000 household heads would be the main target group, as they are currently affected by the current arrangements. Under these conditions, it is problematic to offer alternative livelihood possibilities and expect them to be immediately successful especially as such possibilities are likely to be misrepresented, frustrated and undermined by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the present system involves a diverse group of fishers. Pepela is a controlling node that draws on a wider network that extends to different coastal settlements on Rote, on other islands in Nusa Tenggara Timur and further onward to South and Southwestern Sulawesi. Were alternative livelihoods to be found for all local fishers on Rote, it is conceivable that the present group of owners, or some future group, could call upon other poor fishers in its extended network to continue legal or illegal shark fishing in Australian waters.

Taking these specific considerations into account, the following is recommended:

• Targeted Educational Assistance: The best long-term solution for fishers on Rote (and elsewhere) is improvement in their levels of education. Specially targeted educational assistance to fisher communities on Rote – enabling young boys in particular to stay in elementary school and perhaps even continue on to secondary school – would draw younger members of the labour force away from sailing and could open new vistas for the next generation in these communities.

• Provision of Adequate Local Credit: Access to adequate and reliable credit could contribute to reducing the present indebtedness of local fishers; it could assist them (or more significantly, their wives) to adopt alternative livelihood strategies; and it could also assist those fishers (particularly in the Oelaba network) to increase their capacity to carry on trade rather than struggle to maintain their fishing activities.

• Marine Based Alternative Income Opportunities: Along the coast of Rote, the fastest growing marine-based activity is seaweed growing. Seaweed from Rote is now sold through Kupang and there is a seaweed processing plant recently established in Kupang. Skills and experience gained in these activities could then be extended to other marine based aquaculture technologies, such as sponge cultivation.

• Tourism: Pepela Bay is beautiful bay and could have considerable potential for marine-based eco-tourism. Nembrala, at the far western tip of Rote, has become a surfing site of some importance in Indonesia.

5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Alternative Income Strategies: Raas/Madura

The number of migratory fishers from Raas who fish in the MOU Box has been estimated to be just under 140 persons. In addition there are a further 130 migratory fishers who currently do not fish in the MOU Box but are fishers who could potentially fish in the Box if their current fishing grounds become depleted. Assuming approximately two fishers come from one household, this represents between 70 – 135 potential households in the target group.

There appear to be limited land based alternative income opportunities for fishers from Raas such that any alternative income strategies would have to focus on marine based opportunities. These include:

• Fishing: As there appears to be a clearly identifiable and limited number of Raas fishers who have historically fished in the MOU Box, it may be possible to allow continued and limited access to the MOU Box for this group of fishers. However, some system of regulation of fishing vessels involving Indonesian authorities would be necessary.

• Aquaculture: Marine aquaculture for high value finfish or seaweed may therefore be another possible alternative income opportunity. Seaweed farming and pearl farming (with support from a Japanese company) is currently being carried out close to Raas. The keeping of live (caught) groupers in cages may also be another alternative as it develops fish husbandry skills and can lead on to aquaculture enterprises. Whether aquaculture is an activity that can be pursued by fishers used to carrying out migratory fishing would need further investigation as it requires a considerable change of lifestyle which may not be acceptable to some.

• Tourism: The potential to develop tourism in Raas sub-district would require further investigation, especially given the poor transport infrastructure to the islands.

Alternative Income Strategies: the Bajau Laut

The Bajau Laut are in a special category and require special consideration. Assistance to fishers on Rote and Raas is unlikely to benefit the Bajau, even in Pepela-Rote, East Nusa Tenggra. Their presence in Pepela is regarded as transient. Their links are to other Bajau communities, especially to settlements in the Tukang Besi Islands. What may be needed is a strategy that would assist these scattered communities throughout eastern Indonesia. Development of such a strategy is beyond the scope of this report, as it would require detailed needs assessment of these communities.

Possible Project Sites

As the majority of fishers come from Rote, this would be the most obvious place to initiate an assistance programme, but such an assistance program would need to focus on several sites on the island. On the other hand, for a pilot programme, success may be greater where there are a smaller number of fishers and less complex socio-economic conditions such as Raas.

6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

OTHER ISSUES

Data collection and monitoring

The current data collection system at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) has provided a great deal of valuable information. However, data input and analysis has been hampered by a lack of resources and some valuable information has been lost/not used as a result. Two persistent problems are the lack of consistency in the identification of places and persons within and between databases and insufficient information on catches. An assessment of the fishing situation in the MOU Box based on both data sources should be made each year to monitor developments and orient policies.

Data collected by EA at Ashmore Reef  (Pulau Pasir) and by AFMA should be standardised and each database designed to enable merging and direct comparison with the other database enabling both agencies to track vessel movements and providence of crew and vessels.

Currently, all data is collected by Australian authorities. The possibility of ongoing data collection in collaboration with Indonesian authorities should be explored.

Australian Fisheries Enforcement Policy

One clear effect of the Australian fisheries enforcement policy of destroying vessels has been to put pressure on individual and small-scale perahu owners who are unable to recover from the loss of their vessel and gear and are either forced into debt or out of fishing altogether. Conversely the larger owner/traders have effectively flourished under this policy as they are easily able to find second-hand vessels to replace destroyed vessels and they pass on the entire risk of destroyed fishing gear to their captains and crews. Their control of fishing and the indebtedness of fishers has increased.

In addition, captains and crews involved in shark fishing are financially responsible for any loss of fishing gear, usually owned by the fish trader/vessel outfitter. This gear is expensive (approximately AU$3,000) such that confiscation by Australian authorities contributes to the indebtedness of fishers, without having much impact on boatowners and traders.

7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

1. Introduction

1.1. The Legal Framework Governing the Australian Fishing Zone1

Australia shares a maritime border with Indonesia that extends for some 2000 kilometres. Australia and Indonesia, as maritime nations with extensive coastal areas and enormous marine resources, were both vigorous supporters of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In the early 1970s, Australia and Indonesia were able to negotiate mutually recognized seabed boundaries with the exception of

1) the so-called `Timor Gap' which runs parallel to former Portuguese Timor,

2) the southwest extension of the Ashmore (Pulau Pasir)  and Cartier Islands, and

3) the area between Christmas Island and Java. In addition, a water column boundary in the Timor and Arafura Seas has yet to be agreed upon.

On 1 November 1979, Australia established a 200 nautical mile Australian Fishing Zone; shortly thereafter, on 21 March 1980, Indonesia proclaimed a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, thus creating overlapping claims between the two countries in regard to fisheries. As a consequence, following discussion in November 1980 and in October 1981, the two countries negotiated a provisional fisheries surveillance and enforcement line that came into effect on 1 February 1982. A key provision of this `Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement' was the stipulation that it did not affect traditional fishing by Indonesian fishermen in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding of 7 November 1974.

Although under no international obligation to do so, Australia has consistently endeavoured to recognize some form of traditional Indonesian fishing within its waters. Numerous problems have arisen as a result of this seemingly well-intentioned endeavour. One problem has been to define what `traditional’ fishing means. Another problem has been to regulate `access' to the area permitted for traditional fishing. Underlying both of these problems is the more complex and less well recognized issue of defining who among Indonesia's traditional fishing populations has the best claim `by tradition' (i.e., some historical basis) to be given access to the area permitted for such fishing.

1.2. The Establishment of the MOU Box: 1974 Memorandum of Understanding

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding identifies five small points on the northwest Australian continental shelf to which traditional Indonesian fishermen are given access. These areas are

1) Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef),

2) Cartier Islet,

3) Scott Reef,

4) Seringapatam Reef and

5) Browse Islet (see Map 1).

Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) is the largest and most important of the five tiny areas designated in the Memorandum. It is a raised platform reef near the edge of the Sahul Shelf approximately 120 kilometres directly south of the island of Rote.

The Memorandum allowed fishing around these areas to include the taking of trochus, trepang (bêche-de-mer or sea cucumber), abalone, green snail, sponges and all molluscs on the seabed adjacent to these areas, but not turtles of any species. It permitted landings to obtain fresh

1 The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has assembled an excellent compendium of documents relating to the issue of Indonesian fishermen under the title, The Control of Indonesian Traditional Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone off Northwest Australia (Canberra, 1988). This report has relied on this compendium as a major documentary source for several sections of this paper.

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

water at two points on  Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and allowed boats to shelter within the group without landing except at Ashmore (Pulau Pasir) . This Memorandum, which is a simple document of three pages plus a map, provides the basis for traditional Indonesian fishing in Australian waters. It came into effect on 1 February 1975.

Map 1 The MOU Box

1.3. Modifications to and Interpretations of the 1974 Memorandum

Since the Memorandum of 1974, there have been several critical modifications to its conditions, the most important of which was the declaration on 28 July 1983 of the Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir) as a National Nature Reserve. This declaration prohibited the removal of both fauna and flora on these reefs and in their surrounding waters to a depth of 50m. It was prompted by increasing concern about the impact of Indonesian fishermen on the rich and diverse marine life of these reefs. An effect of prohibition was to shift fishing effort from Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir) toward Cartier Island, Browse Islet, Scott and Seringapatam Reefs.

In 1983, a study made of the wells on Middle and East Island, two of the three sections that make up Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), indicated that they were either severely contaminated or that they had

9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

dried up. In 1985, a camp was established for caretakers and in 1986, a chartered vessel was stationed at Ashmore (Pulau Pasir)  to oversee the Reserve. The Australian Parks and Wildlife Service pressed for restrictions on Indonesian fishermen especially when reported violations of the Memorandum of Understanding continued to increase.

Following Australian proposals to re-negotiate the Memorandum of Understanding in 1986, the Embassy in Jakarta issued an Advisory Note of changes that had occurred since the signing of the original Memorandum. This Advisory Note, dated 28 February 1988, attempted to define more clearly what the Australian government intended to be meant by "traditional fishermen" indicating that, in its interpretation, any vessels powered by motors or engines fell outside the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding. It also confirmed that although Australia had subsequently extended its fishing zone to 200 nautical miles, the Memorandum allowed Indonesian fishermen access only to the 12 nautical miles specified in the Memorandum. It noted the requirements for the protection of wildlife that had come in force as a result of Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir) becoming a Nature Reserve and it directed the Indonesian government to inform fishermen that henceforth, because of the conditions of wells, landings to obtain water could only be made at West Island. Unauthorized fishing was liable to the penalties under the 1952 Fisheries Act and subsequent Fisheries Acts.

In 1989, a further important understanding was reached between Australia and Indonesia. This understanding, which revised and updated the 1974 Memorandum, was set forth in Agreed Minutes dated 29 April 1989. These minutes took into account all of the relevant developments that had occurred since 1974:

1) the two countries’ extension in 1979 and 1980 of their jurisdiction over fisheries from 12 to 200 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines,

2) the agreement on a provisional fishing line in 1981 and

3) the fact that both countries had become parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Australian officials noted the depletion of fishery stocks around Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), the contamination of wells on Middle and East Islets where traditional fishermen had been permitted to take fresh water and Australia’s international obligation to protect the wildlife on Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) and Cartier Islands. Indonesia indicated its willingness to prevent breaches of the MOU and both sides agreed to cooperate in developing alternative income projects in eastern Indonesia for traditional fishermen engaged in fishing under the MOU.

The Agreed Minutes of 1989 also included “practical guidelines for implementing the 1974 MOU”. Under these guidelines, which form the basis for present arrangements in the MOU Box, access to the MOU area continues to be limited to “Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time”. This definitional statement gives sense to the notion of ‘tradition’ specifying not just methods and vessels but also the historical continuity of such fishing activities. Such traditional fishermen were allowed to conduct their activities in the area of the Australian Fishing Zone and the continent shelf adjacent to Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir), Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet but in addition they were given access to an expanded area set forth in an Annex to the Agreed Minutes. However, in order to cope with the depletion of certain stocks of fish and sedentary species, all fishing activities in the Ashmore Reef Natural Nature Reserve were prohibited. The Indonesian government agreed to discourage fishermen from landing on Middle and East Islets because of the lack of fresh water in wells there. Instead fishermen were permitted to land on West Islet to obtain water. Both Indonesia and Australia agreed that any taking of turtles, dugongs and clams would continue to be prohibited in the MOU Box in

10 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

accordance with CITES. In the Agreed Minutes, the development of further management plans relating to the area was also foreshadowed. These management plans covering both Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve have now been issued (see (1) Natural Heritage Trust/Environment Australia, 2002 and (2) Commonwealth of Australia:

http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/mpa/cartier/plan/index.html).

1.4. Defining A Traditional Fisher and Who has Access Rights

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding implicitly recognises some form of (residual) right of access to specific reefs between Indonesia and Australia. In the Memorandum, Australia has defined -- and has since clarified -- just what `access' is to consist of in terms of such matters as landings, the gathering of fresh water, and the definition of permitted and prohibited marine resources.

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding is less evidently successful in defining who has such rights of access and the 1986 attempt to clarify this issue seems to have had the opposite, unintended effect of increasing possible access to these reefs.

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding is explicit:

By "traditional fishermen" are meant the fishermen who have traditionally taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters by methods that have been the tradition over decades.

This definition has two effective clauses that are intended to be interpreted as cumulative. Both clauses define `traditional fishermen' by repeating the word `tradition'.

In the attempt to clarify this definition, the 1986 Advisory Note focuses on the second of these clauses which has to do with the methods of fishing:

The Australian Government understands that "the methods which have been the tradition over decades of time" referred to in paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding do not include fishing from vessels powered by motors or engines, or any form of fishing utilising motors or engines. Such fishing will be regarded as falling outside the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding.

The practical effect of this clarification is to shift the emphasis on determining `access' to the area to what kind of boat is used to gain access. The issue, in effect, ceases to be a question of who may have traditional rights and, instead, becomes one of who has a traditional perahu. Those who patrol and monitor the area are only called up to make judgements on perahu type: whether a perahu is motorised or not.

Beginning in the 1970s, the local owners of Indonesian perahu, including the ubiquitous small perahu in eastern Indonesia, began a process of rapid motorization, adding auxiliary engines to their vessels to transform them into what are generally referred to as perahu layar motor (`motorised sailing perahu')2. Those who drafted the 1986 Advisory Note must have recognised that these changes were having a major effect on the perahu sector and that excluding motorised sailing perahu would reduce significantly the total number of perahu that might otherwise sail to Ashmore and other reefs.

2 see Dick 1987:43,119

11 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

It is evident that this qualification of the Advisory Note had its intended effect in limiting perahu of a certain kind. But the Note also had the possible effect of leaving access open to a different class of perahu: perahu owned by those who could not afford to upgrade their vessels -- a flotilla of poormen's perahu that are generally small and not always the most sea-worthy of vessels.

Since, however, such perahu can still be found in large numbers throughout eastern Indonesia, access remained open to a potentially large number of so-called `traditional fishermen'.

By inadvertently confining access to a type of vessel found widely in eastern Indonesia, some of those fishermen who had historically sailed to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) on a regular basis were in effect disadvantaged, thus distorting the original intention of the Memorandum of Understanding.

Thus, by shifting emphasis to a criterion of boat type, the first (and, by implication, the primary) of the two clauses of the Memorandum intended to define traditional fishermen, that is, fishermen who had "traditionally [i.e., historically] taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters", was, to some extent, undermined.

To understand what this implies from an Indonesian perspective, it is necessary to briefly describe the history of Indonesian fishing in what is now the MOU Box, identify the main fishing and sailing populations of eastern Indonesia and to try to chart the main changes that have occurred among these populations since voyaging to Ashmore began. Although it is impossible to consider the complexity of these changes, it should be sufficient to sketch their outlines.

2. Indonesian Fishing in the MOU Box

2.1. Brief history

Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) has its own recognised Indonesian name, Pulau Pasir, `Sand Island'. It is also referred to in the language of the island of Rote by the name “Nusa Solokaek, which also means `Sand Island'.

The traditional method used by Rotenese perahu in navigating to the reef is to sail due south in initial alignment by sight with the most prominent hillpoint on the south coast of Rote. If a perahu fails to reach Sand Island (Pulau Pasir)  after leaving sight of Rote for a full day, it would return north, realign itself and sail south again.

The fact that Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) is so near to Indonesia's southernmost island and that Ashmore Reef offers the prospect of fresh water has made it an area of special significance in Indonesian voyages south from the Timor area. Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) has served and continues to serve as staging point for voyaging to other reefs in the vicinity and to points further south. The historical evidence points to the regular use of  Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef)  by Indonesian fishermen beginning sometime between 1725 and 1750.

Most of the southern voyaging of Indonesian perahu during this period had clear objectives. These voyages were connected with the search for new sources of trepang to supply a large Chinese market. Trepang, an edible holothurian that has the appearance of a fleshy cucumber had long been regarded among the Chinese as a kind of `sea ginseng'. As sources of this potent

12 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

delicacy became depleted along the south China coast, the search for new sources shifted to what the Chinese called Nan-hai, the `Southern Seas'. In the late seventeenth century, the fishing and sailing populations of Sulawesi became actively involved in trepang gathering and this prompted the search for high quality trepang throughout eastern Indonesia and beyond3.

Involved in this search for new sources of trepang were populations of migratory sea peoples known as Bajau or Bajau Laut. These populations, originally located in the islands of the southern Philippines migrated first to Borneo and Sulawesi and then onward to the islands south of Sulawesi. Dutch records from the early eighteenth century document the initial movement of the Bajau into the islands of the Lesser Sundas. They also record the Bajau sailing in fleets in search of trepang. By 1728, they had reached the island of Rote and were exploring its southern coastline.

Reference to Bajau trepang expeditions from this time can be found in a letter written by the Dutch East India Company's officer in Kupang to the Governor General in Batavia, dated the 14th of May 1728. He reports that no foreign ships or boats visited Kupang since his last letter except for “40 small Bajau Laut boats which appeared here mostly in the domain of Thie [on the southwestern coast of Rote] some of whose people came ashore under the pretext that they had come to look for trepang; since the Rotenese rulers did not, however, trust the people, they refused them their shores and made them depart from there, whereupon the boats also appeared on the 8th of March in the open sea outside of this fortress, a fact that we could not let pass without respectively informing you4."

According to a local Rotenese narrative, it was during this time that the Rotenese accidentally discovered Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir). Led by Foe Mpura, a figure identifiable in Dutch archival records, who became the Ruler of Thie in 17295, a group of rulers from Rote set sail in an outrigger perahu from the south coast of Rote. Attempting to sail to Batavia, they were first carried southward to what they called ‘Sand Island’. A short excerpt from this narrative of the `discovery' is as follows:

“The Lords …climbed on board and headed the perahu westward to sail round the ‘tail’ of Rote so that they might point the perahu north. But the current took them to the south, no one knows how many days, and they reached Pulau Pasir (Sand Island) and their perahu became stuck there. The crew of the perahu disembarked and they wandered the length and breadth of the island but they saw nothing. It is said that Foe Mpura took a stick and carved his name on it and then erected it in the middle of Sand Island.

After many days, when the tide rose higher, the perahu came afloat and they boarded again and departed.”6

3 Most of the trade in trepang was centred on Macassar in South Sulawesi and, as a result, the trepang industry has been given a `Macassan' label. The fact is, however, that various different Sulawesi populations participated in trepang gathering. Besides the Macassar populations, the most prominent populations involved in trepang gathering were the Bugis and the Bajau. The classic study of this trepang gathering in northern Australia is The Voyage to Marege’: Macassan trepangers in northern Australia by C. C.

Macknight.

4 Timor Boek, K.A. 1992.2: see Fox 1977a: 460

5 see Fox 1977b: 101-112

6 This is a translation from the Rotenese of an oral narrative gathered by the Dutch linguist, J.C.G. Jonker, at the end of the nineteenth century and published (in Rotenese with a Dutch translation) in 1905. Because the narrative mainly concerns the origin of Christianity, Dutch missionaries seized upon this tale and disseminated it through the schools and churches, giving it near canonical status. Virtually every Rotenese has heard this tale in one form or another.

13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Dutch records confirm that Pulau Pasir (Ashmore)  was known to Indonesian fishermen in the first half of the eighteenth century. MacKnight in his study of trepang gathering in northern Australia notes the existence of another letter from the Company Officer in Kupang to the Governor General in Batavia written in 1751 which gives a report on a Chinese trader who had set out to reach "the large sandplate beyond Rote, to search for turtle-horn"7.

By the late 1750s, the gathering of trepang had become regularized. `Macassarese' vessels began to arrive in the Timor area with formal letters of permission from the Dutch East India Company allowing them to gather trepang without hindrance8.

Writing of his experiences in northern Australia at the beginning of the nineteenth century between 1801 and 1803, Flinders points to the link between the gathering of trepang on the Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and the discovery of much larger resources of trepang on the Australian coast.

“The natives of Macassar have been long accustomed to fish for trepang...upon a dry shoal lying to the south of Rottee; but about twenty years ago, one of their prows was driven by the northwest monsoon to the coast of New Holland, and finding the trepang to be abundant, they afterwards returned; and have continued to fish there since that time" 9.

The Bajau who pioneered the search for trepang on Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) and eventually found their way to the mainland of Australia also played an important role in the `Macassan' trepang industry in northern Australia during the nineteenth century. Earl noted the presence of Bajau at Port Essington in 1840 describing them as "that singular people the Badju, a tribe without fixed home, living constantly on board their prahus, numbers of which congregate among the small islands near the southern coast of Celebes"10.

Traditions of the island of Rote, including local navigation techniques, together with the evidence from European records indicate not just the discovery of Ashmore (Pulau Pasir) by eastern Indonesian fishermen in the eighteenth century but the use of this Reef and its resources on a regular basis. Although all voyaging ceased during the Japanese occupation, regular Indonesian fishing resumed after World War II. A CSIRO fisheries survey carried out by the FRV Warren reported twenty-three perahu at anchor at Ashmore in 1949 as well as clear signs on the island of regular visits, including drying racks for fish and clams.

2.2. Eastern Indonesian Fishing and Sailing Populations

There are at least five distinct fishing and sailing populations in eastern Indonesia, each of which can be distinguished by the language(s) they speak, the kind of boats they sail, and by other specific cultural differences and former local political allegiances. The main populations are:

1) the Madurese;

2) the Makassarese;

3) the Bugis (or Buginese);

4) the Bajau Laut or Sama-Bajau (who are sometimes referred to as "sea gypsies") and

5) the Butonese.

2.2.1. The Madurese

The Madurese originally come from the island of Madura off the north coast of East Java but are now to be found settled in east Java as well as on various small islands in the Java Sea, such as Bawean, Raas or Kangean. Madurese sailors were important in the history of eastern

7 Macknight 1976:95

8 Timor Boek for 1759, K.A. 2857; see Fox 1977a: 461

9 Flinders 1814,II:257

10 Earl 1846:65

14 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Indonesia. Rotenese traditions, for example, recount that Madurese taught them many of their sailing techniques. In eastern Indonesia today, however, one rarely encounters large numbers of Madurese.

2.2.2. The Makassarese

The Makassarese are predominantly located on the western coast of the South Sulawesi peninsula. The site of the original Makassarese kingdom was the port town of Makassar which was an independent trading centre until the Dutch East India Company conquered the town and deposed its Sultan in 1667. The Dutch utilized the port's strategic location as a rich and diverse trading entrepot. Today Makassar is known as Ujung Pandang, the city that continues to be a major maritime centre. Ujung Pandang is the hub in a complex network of trade in maritime products. Most of what is gathered, especially trochus, trepang, and shark fin, by eastern Indonesia fishermen is eventually marketed through Ujung Pandang. Few, if any, Makassarese are currently involved in sailing to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef).

2.2.3. The Bugis (or Ugi)

The Bugis whose original kingdoms were located along the eastern arm of the South Sulawesi peninsula are the most widely dispersed of eastern Indonesian populations. Not only have they settled widely in Sulawesi, they have also migrated extensively throughout Indonesia and also Malaysia. Bugis can be found, particularly as traders, from Sumatra to Irian Jaya or East Timor. Large numbers of Bugis are settled on the east coast of Kalimantan and a great deal of perahu trade is now carried between the Bugis of Sulawesi and East Kalimantan. Fleets of Bugis perahu, particularly from the Sinjae area, have on occasion sailed into Australian waters. A number of them were apprehended in 1995 using diving equipment to gather trochus. Relatively few Bugis perahu, however, have sailed on a regular and continuing basis to Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir).

2.2.4. The Bajau or Bajo

The Bajau form a large linguistically closely related group that originated from the southern Philippines and are now settled in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Comparative linguistic evidence indicates that sometime in the eleventh century, a sea-oriented group of Samal-speakers began to migrate from the Sulu Archipelago.The population that became the Indonesian Bajau probably reached Sulawesi, possibly by way of the east coast of Kalimantan, by the fifteenth century (Pallensen 1985: 121). By the eighteenth century, the continuing migration of Bajau reached the islands of the Timor area and began settlements there. There are no reliable estimates of the number of Bajau in eastern Indonesia since such estimates would be difficult to arrive at given the scattered nature of Bajau settlements and the continual movement of Bajau from one settlement to another.

The Bajau are now to be found along the coastlines of both South and Southeast Sulawesi, on Flores and on Timor as well as on many of the small islands in the sea between Sulawesi and Flores. They are also found throughout the Moluccan islands. The history of the Bajau in eastern Indonesia is closely associated with trepang gathering11. Despite the wide dispersal of their settlements, the Bajau in Indonesia are linguistically relatively homogeneous and, by a process of frequent movement of individuals among settlements, there exists good social communication among the Bajau. The Bajau are one ethnic group who can be historically identified as fishers who have continually and regularly sailed to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and surrounding waters.

11 see Fox 1977a: 461- 463 for a long list of citations of Bajau trepang activities in the nineteenth and early twentieth century

15 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Stacey has provided substantial documentation of Bajau involvement with Australian fishermen based in Kupang from the end of the nineteenth century. Henry Hilliard and his son, Robin, who often used the island of Rote as a staging area for their activities, were particularly prominent in these fishing enterprises and in supplying locals from Kupang for the northwest pearling industry. Bajau voyaging in northern Australian waters continued through the 1930s, was interrupted by the Japanese occupation but resumed in the 1950s.12

2.2.5. The ‘Butonese’

Of the various maritime populations in eastern Indonesia the `Butonese' are the most difficult group to define. They do not form a single linguistic group nor are they confined simply to one island. The populations who consider themselves Butonese speak at least fourteen different languages and occupy some dozen islands in the immediate vicinity of the island of Buton. It is only in historical terms that it is possible to understand just who the `Butonese' are.

As recounted in their own traditions, the Butonese are the peoples of the islands that once constituted the realm of the Sultan of Buton13. Originally, the sovereignty of the Sultan of Buton embraced the island of Buton, with the neighbouring islands, both large and small, including the Tukang Besi chain of islands. Migrants from these islands and their descendants, who are now settled more widely in eastern Indonesia, still claim an identity based on this historical allegiance.

Often Butonese settlements retain the name of the area or island from which they originated. There is considerable rivalry between local Butonese settlements. Among the Butonese there are numerous differences but when it is matter of distinguishing themselves from the Bugis or Bajau, a definite Butonese identity is invariably asserted. Compared to the Bajau as well as the Bugis who, although more widely dispersed, are linguistically more homogeneous than the Butonese, the Butonese represent a diverse medley of peoples. Some Butonese, particularly those from the Tukang Besi Islands, have regularly sailed to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore). The Butonese are the main fishers who sail from Dobo and neighbouring ports in the Arafura Sea to carry out illegal fishing in Australian waters.14

There are also smaller fishing and sailing populations, such as the Mandarese of South Sulawesi and the Savunese, the Endenese of Flores and Lamaholot-speaking groups on Solor and Lembata, but most of these populations confine their fishing and sailing endeavours within relatively limited contexts. None of these populations are known to voyage into Australian waters.

12 StaceyN.E.T, 1999, Boats to Burn pp.106-145.

13 For a brief historical sketch of the early background to the Sultanate of Buton, see Foreword (Fox 1995) to The Navel of the Perahu: Meaning and Values in the Maritime Trading Economy of a Butonese Village by Michael Southon. This study of the trading economy of a Butonese village is the best study of a Butonese community. Of particular interest is Southon's Chapter 2, which presents a detailed examination of the perahu economy of the village.

14 For a discussion of this group of fishermen and their ports of origin, see Fox (1992), ‘Report on Eastern Indonesian Fishermen in Darwin’ in Illegal Entry, pp.13-24. Occasional Paper Series No.1. Darwin: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University.

16 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

2.3. Eastern Indonesia as a ‘Melting Pot’ of Muslim Fishers

Over centuries, the larger sailing populations have spread throughout eastern Indonesia. They are no longer confined to their home islands. Although they communicate with one another, sometimes sail together and even intermarry, each of these groups maintains its differences. These populations have worked out a traditional "division of labour" in eastern Indonesia that generally keeps them from encroaching on the others' territory. Understanding this existing situation -- the "who's who" among the fishing populations of eastern Indonesia -- offers a first step toward dealing with the problems Australia faces in dealing with incursions by these fishermen.

When one considers the evidence of the past ten years, it is apparent that the fishermen who are involved in both legal and illegal sailing voyages into Australian waters are predominantly from two groups: Bajau and Butonese. A majority of these fishers have sailed from Rote where they have settled, and in the case of the Butonese, have intermarried with local women. A relatively small number of Rotenese, some of whom have converted to Islam, are also involved in these sailing voyages. A small number of Madurese have also definitely been involved.

Bugis have also frequented Australian waters. These Bugis have come from Ujung Pandang, Selayar and Sinjae in small fleets, as indeed did many Bajau sailing from Maginti. The most recent of these ‘expeditions’ was in 1995, when a fleet of Bugis perahu were apprehended with equipment to dive for trepang in the Australian Fishing Zone. Since 1995, Bugis involvement in this fishery has tended to decline. Thus, taking into account this intermittent Bugis involvement, the prime actors remain Bajau, Butonese, Rotenese and some Madurese.

3. Recent Trends in Indonesian Fishing in the MOU Box

3.1. Sources of Data

There are two main sources of data on the Indonesian fishing in the MOU Box: the Australian “Ashmore Database” is a database comprising 1678 records with information on Indonesian vessels visiting Pulau Pasir (Ashmore reef) over the period 1986 to the end of 1999. Data was collected by National Parks officers stationed on a chartered vessel at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) during the fishing season (March - December). Coverage was about 75% of the vessels fishing in the MOU Box. Full coverage was not possible, as some vessels did not stop off at Ashmore if they were fishing in other areas of the Box, like Browse Island. Each vessel recorded in the database is identified by name, date, and type of vessel, owner, captain and homeport. Information is also included on the number (and sometimes name) of the vessel’s crew, catch, gear and other equipment.

This database is an invaluable source of information on voyages in the Australian waters defined by the MOU.

The other main source of data is the AFMA Apprehensions database (the “AFMA database’) which records information on all vessels apprehended in the AFZ over the period 1988 – June 2001, including the MOU Box. It contains 899 records and includes similar information to the

17 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) database (name, date, type of vessel, owner, captain, homeport, target species, crew size) as well as location of apprehension and information on the action taken by AFMA15.

3.2. Origin of Fishers

The identification of the homeport of the vessels sailing to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) is the first step in an analysis of 1) who are the “traditional fishermen” and 2) what are their activities.

The Ashmore Database provides the following information on provincial distribution of the homeports of these fishermen:

• 87.5 % of records relate to fishermen from Nusa Tenggara Timor, mainly Rote. This is approximately 80 % of a total of 534 vessels over the period 1988-99.

• 5.6 % of records relate to fishermen from East Java Madura/Raas (including Surabaya). This is 6.7 % of a total of 534 vessels over the period 1988-99.

• 3 % of records relate to fishermen from Sulawesi Tenggara, mainly Wanci and Kaledupa. This is 5 % of a total of 534 vessels over the period 1988-99.

• 0.5 % of records relate to fishermen from South Sulawesi, mainly Bonerate. (0.3 % of vessels)

Approximately 3 % of records fail to list a home port, or list a port that can not be clearly identified, or list a general area. Thus, for example, 7 records list Sulawesi without further specification.

3.2.1. Identification of Home Ports within Nusa Tenggara Timur

Since 87.5 % of all records in the Ashmore Database (1468 records out of 1678) relate to fishermen from the province of Nusa Tenggara Timur, it is important to identify the homeports of this large group of fishermen.

Identification of voyages to Ashmore by island between 1986 and 1999 (records and vessels) is as follows:

Rote	Timor (Kupang)		Flores (Maumere)		Alor/Pantar
Records	1426	27		10	5
Vessels	393	14		9	10

Thus 85 % of all fishermen sailing to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) and 93 % of all vessels come from the island of Rote. Of these fishermen, most come from two ports on the island: Pepela and Oelaba.

15 Environment Australia also holds hard copy data of records of vessels visiting Ashmore from May 2000 to the present, as collected by the Australian Customs Service. This data has not been compiled into a database, and the completeness of this data is uncertain at this stage.

18 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Identification of home ports on the island of Rote is as follows:

• Pepela: 1112 66 % of all voyages to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) (or 69% of vessels)

• Oelaba 265 16 % of all voyages to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) (19% of vessels)

Other small harbours on Rote account for 36 voyages, approximately 2 % of total voyages16. These other small ports are :

1) Ma’e (10),

2) So’ao (9),

3) Ba’a (7),

4) Hundi Huk

 5) Dae Dulu (2),

6) Pantai Baru (1), and

7) Netena’en (1).

3.3. Catches

Catches on board were recorded in the Ashmore database – this included vessels on their way to and from fishing grounds so sometimes catches may not reflect the total catch of the vessel before their return to Indonesia. Nevertheless they provide the only time series data on catches in the MOU Box.

Coverage is best for sedentary species (trochus and trepang). Vessels specifically targeting shark fin catches may be underrepresented as many vessels sailed past Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) without stopping, usually on their way to or from Scott Reef (Steve Tasker, pers comm). In addition, the data is most reliable pre 1990 and from 1995 onwards as there were data irregularities over the period 1990-1995.

Figures 1 – 3 provide estimated total monthly catches recorded on vessels visiting (Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) over the period 1995-1999.

02004006008001000120014001600A-95M-95J-95J-95A-95S-95O-95N-95D-95J-96F-96M-96A-96M-96J-96J-96A-96S-96O-96N-96D-96J-97F-97M-97A-97M-97J-97J-97A-97S-97O-97N-97D-97J-98F-98M-98A-98M-98J-98J-98A-98S-98O-98N-98D-98J-99F-99M-99A-99M-99J-99J-99A-99S-99O-99kilos

Figure 1 catches of trepang 1995-1999 as recorded from the Ashmore Database (n=48)

Up until 1997, the peak months for catches for trepang are October to December. Fishing season is dictated not by resource availability or market conditions but by the prevailing winds. As the data shows, most trips occur over the period March-June and Sept –December each year. However, from 1998 onwards the pattern changes, with peak catches in May/June 1998 and then very low subsequent catches even during traditional peak period. This is most likely a reflection of declining catches of high value species which were initially replaced with low value species and consequently low densities (and therefore catches) of all species confirmed by a 1999 CSIRO reeftop survey which noted that high value trepang stocks were over exploited in the MOU Box except on Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) (although there was also some evidence of depletion on Ashmore). Maximum recorded catches were 1000 kg dried wt/vessel with median catches around 100 kilos dried wt/vessel. Median weights by year are likely not to be very representative given the small number of records in certain years. Probably a better

16 11 records in the database list Roti as ‘home port’ without specifying from which port on Roti the vessel sailed.

19 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

indicator of availability of catch is the number of records in each year although this also has difficulties and should be interpreted with caution. For trepang, peak years in terms of number of records were 1995 (16 records) and 1998 (17 records) compared to 2 records in 1999, 9 in 1997 and 4 in 1996.

050010001500200025003000A-95M-95J-95J-95A-95S-95O-95N-95D-95J-96F-96M-96A-96M-96J-96J-96A-96S-96O-96N-96D-96J-97F-97M-97A-97M-97J-97J-97A-97S-97O-97N-97D-97J-98F-98M-98A-98M-98J-98J-98A-98S-98O-98N-98D-98J-99F-99M-99A-99M-99J-99J-99A-99S-99O-99kilos

Figure 2 catches of trochus 1995-1999 as recorded from the Ashmore Database (n=85)

For trochus, there is a less clear pattern of catches over the period 1995 -1999. September – November is clearly the peak fishing months, although small amounts are recorded in May/June of each year with the exception of March 1999 where catches are high. 1995 was a big year, with some very high catches recorded for the months of September and October and then catches tail off from 1995. Maximum catch was 1000 kg/vessel with median catches of 14 kg/vessel). 1995 and 1996 had the highest number of records (22 and 50 respectively) perhaps indicating that after this time, fewer and fewer fishing trips were made to collect trochus. There were only 3 records in 1999 and 1998 and 7 records in 1997.

010203040506070A-95M-95J-95J-95A-95S-95O-95N-95D-95J-96F-96M-96A-96M-96J-96J-96A-96S-96O-96N-96D-96J-97F-97M-97A-97M-97J-97J-97A-97S-97O-97N-97D-97J-98F-98M-98A-98M-98J-98J-98A-98S-98O-98N-98D-98J-99F-99M-99A-99M-99J-99J-99A-99S-99O-99kilos

Figure 3 Catches of sharkfin 1995-1999 as recorded from the Ashmore Database (n=79)

Shark fishing shows a different pattern and, as mentioned previously, may not be a very good reflection of accurate catches as a significant proportion of vessels specifically targeting shark fin may not have been included in the survey. Maximum catch was 16 kg of dried shark fin/vessel and median catches were around 6 kg of dried shark fin/vessel. Median catches/vessel have reasonably steady over the period 1997-1999 ranging between 5 and 6 kg/vessel. As better shark fishing grounds are found outside the MOU Box (for example in the Sahul and Holuthuria Banks) the catches from the Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) database are probably not an accurate reflection of actual catches in the AFZ but may be a reasonable indication of catches taken in the MOU Box

Main gear for shark fishing are long lines from 400m to 1200m with an average length of around 500-700 metres and the number of hooks about 30 to 40. No vessels had gill nets on board.

20 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

The database also records catches of reef fish, but as this is not broken down by species and was not a target species, the data has not been analysed.

3.4. Comparison of EA Boardings Data with AFMA Apprehensions Data

Of about 540 vessels visiting Ashmore over the period 1988-1999 and assuming that the boardings data represented 75% of the vessels visiting the MOU Box (Steve Tasker, pers comm.) only 48, or 9% were apprehended by AFMA for fishing illegally outside the MOU Box. Fourteen of these vessels were apprehended more than once. Apprehended vessels ranged from being only a few nautical miles from the MOU Box to being apprehended at Rowley Shoals or near King Sound. Fisheries WA noted that those vessels that were apprehended very close to the MOU Box were only apprehended if there was considerable evidence to suggest that the vessels was fishing illegally rather than being accidentally outside the Box due to adverse weather conditions or navigation difficulties. Fifty per cent of apprehended vessels were targeting shark, and 23% were targeting trochus with the remainder trepang and reef fish.

Table 1 shows apprehensions in the MOU Box over the period 1988 – 2001 for vessels where there was information available as to their location of apprehension. There have been a total of 107 apprehensions in the MOU Box. The overwhelming proportion were targeting trepang (77 %), followed by trochus (7.5 %), shark (6.5 %), reef fish (5 %) and the remainder a combination of reef fish/shark or shark/trepang.

Table 1 Apprehension of Vessels Fishing Illegally in the MOU Box

Year	Number of vessels
1988	1
1989	2
1990	2
1993	2
1994	63
1995	21
1996	6
1997	1
1998	7
1999	2

With the exception of two Type 2 vessels (both apprehended for fishing illegally at Ashmore Reef) all vessels were Type 3 vessels. The number of apprehensions has decreased markedly but it is not clear whether this has been predominantly due to less effort or a better understanding of the MOU Box. The majority of vessels (56 %) apprehended were fleets of Type III vessels from South Sulawesi (56 %) apprehended were fleets of Type III vessels from South Sulawesi targeting trepang in the mid-1990s. For example, in one week in September 1994, 24 trepang vessels were apprehended and destroyed and during three weeks in November 1994, 35 Type 3 vessels from South Sulawesi were apprehended and destroyed). Only 16% of vessels came from Nusa Tenggara Timor. There were 18% of vessels with no homeport stated. Since 1995, apprehensions have decreased dramatically – perhaps a combination of overexploited resources, less enforcement effort in the MOU Box or the cessation of trips from South Sulawesi fishers perhaps to a combination of factors including the

21 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

destruction of a large number of their vessels, changes in the market for trepang and reduced resource availability of high value species in the MOU Box.

4. Main Fishing Settlements on the Island of Rote17

Since the 1950s the island of Rote (including the island of Ndao) has been included within the larger administrative unit of Kupang. For more than two decades, however, Rote-Ndao has been accorded distinct administrative status within Kabupaten Kupang. In 2002, this status has been formally acknowledged and Rote-Ndao has been recognized as autonomous Kabupaten. Under Indonesia’s new autonomy laws, this new status gives Rote-Ndao considerably greater capacity to determine its own affairs and manage its local resources. Any future proposals for development or regulation of fisheries must now involve the local Kabupaten officials.

4.1. The Settlement of Pepela18

Pepela is located at the south eastern ‘neck’ of the island of Rote on a wide, protected bay that opens to the Timor Sea (see Map 2). The setting is beautiful but the settlement itself, built on limestone and coral sediment, is crowded, somewhat squalid and lacks a good source of water, particularly in the dry season.

Map 2 The Island of Rote

17 This section was written with the assistance of G. Tom Therik,Universitas Artha Wacana, Kupang.

18 Pepela is the Rotinese name of this settlement. This name is often ‘Indonesianized’ and written as Papela. Both spellings are now equally common. In 1996 and again in 1998, Pepela was the subject of a number of studies undertaken by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI: Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia) in cooperation with the Population Study Centre of the University of Nusa Cendana and the Regional Research Centre of the Artha Wacana Christian University in Kupang. These local research reports provided by Dr Tom Therik who supervised the investigation on behalf of Artha Wacana provide the baseline data for this section. This section also relies on the unpublished PhD thesis by Natasha Stacey, Boats to Burn: Bajo Fishing Activity in the Australian Fishing Zone (1999).

22 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Pepela forms a sub-village (dusun) within the larger village complex (desa) of Londalusi. Londalusi is comprised of five such sub-villages: 1) Papela, 2) Eahun, 3) I’iyah, 4) Oebolo Lain, and 5) Daehuti. The subvillage of Eahun serves as the capital of the district of East Rote (Kecamatan Rote Timur). Pepela is thus only 2 kilometres from the administrative seat of government in East Rote. Eahun was previously the capital of the historical domain of Oepao, first recognized by the treaty with the Dutch East India Company in 1690. Another dusun, I’iyah, in the village of Londalusi is closely linked to Pepela, whereas the two other ‘outer’ dusun, Oebalo Lain and Daehuti, are distinguished from the rest. Most of the inhabitants of these dusun are made up of local farmers rather than fishers.

The neighbouring coastal village of Seru Beba, in the domain of Ringgou, has four sub-villages: 1) Hailean, 2)Lo’okoen, 3) Noli and 4) Rarano. The four sub-villages that make up this village have approximately 260 households. Between 20-30% of the men from Seru Beba work, at least part-time, as crew members on perahu that sail from Pepela.

Another coastal village, Fai Fua at the far eastern end of the domain of Oepao, consists of four sub-villages: 1) Batuida, 2) Manuoen, 3) Nusak Lain and 4) Oek Sosolok. The village as a whole has about 240 households. In Nusak Lain and Oek Sosolok, as many as 70% of the population is dependent on fishing and other marine activities. Fishers from this village work as crew members on Pepela perahu. Increasingly, however, in this village, fishers are able to earn a better income from local seaweed cultivation and many have therefore ceased to sail from Pepela.

4.1.1. Population

The current population of Pepela is over 135019. 82% of household heads identify their occupation as full-time fishing. As such, Pepela is the largest fishing village on the island of Rote and possibly the largest exclusive fishing village in the Timor area. It is the organisation centre for crew recruitment for voyages into Australian waters; it is also the initial marketing centre for the marine products obtained on these voyages. In addition to drawing on its own local manpower, Pepela is linked to other fishing villages on Rote, Flores, Alor and Timor from which both captains and crew are recruited. Pepela is also the site of a settlement of Bajau Laut who regularly sail into Australian waters. Most of these Bajau Laut have come from the Tukang Besi Islands of Southeastern Sulawesi and continue to maintain close contacts with the home villages.

The initial founding of Pepela is by no means clear. Local traditions recount the arrival and settlement of Muslim immigrants at the beginning of the 20th century. These initial settlers are said to have come from Southeast Sulawesi, particularly Binongko in the Tukang Besi Islands. These early settlers included a mix of Butonese and Bajau but also Madurese and a number of families of Arab origin. Many settlers came by progressive migration via other predominantly Butonese and Bajo settlements on the islands of Alor, Pantar and Flores.

Whereas Rote has an overwhelmingly Christian population, whose rulers converted to Christianity in the early 18th century, Pepela has always been predominantly Muslim. Rotenese from the near neighbouring settlements often join Pepela sailors on their voyages.

19 This is an estimate based on census figures for 2000. According to local figures, in 1996, Pepela had a population of 1,185: 362 adult men; 336 adult women; 202 boys and 285 girls. Whereas there were proportionally more girls than boys, there were 8% more adult men than adult women. Extrapolating from Londalusi’s total population of 2968 in 1994 to its reported population of 3398 in 2000 shows an increase of just over 14%. A minimal 14% increase in Pepela’s population would put it at 1355 inhabitants.

23 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Some of these Rotenese have converted to Islam; others, however, have remained Christian. Although these local Rotenese – possibly up to 20% of the population – provide social links to the rest of the island’s population, Pepela’s inhabitants form an almost exclusive enclave. Indonesian, rather than Rotenese, is the principal language of Pepela.

While keeping itself distinct from most of the local Rotenese population, Pepela is at the centre of a nexus of connections to other Muslim fishing communities in the region: 1) Oelaba on the northcoast of west Rote, 2) Sulamu at the western end of the Bay of Kupang, 3) Binongko village (named after the island of origin) and other settlements on the Bay of Alor, and 4) Wuring on the northcoast of central Flores. Linkages also extend to the Tukang Besi Islands, particularly to the original island of Binongko, as well as Kaledupa and Wanci. Pepela also draws crew members for its perahu from a number of neighbouring coastal settlements such as Haelean and Rarano in the village of Serubeba, Ringgou.

The original settlement of Pepela was built near the sea and is still marked today by an old mosque near the harbour. The main concentration of houses is now in a “New Settlement” (Kampung Baru) built up from the sea.

In the late 1980s there was an influx of Bajau immigrants from the island of Wanci in the Tukang Besi Islands. Initially these Bajau came as temporary migrants and would often return to their villages on Wanci at the end of a season’s fishing. Their arrival led to a major change in Pepela from the gathering of marine products such as trochus and trepang to intensive shark fishing. (See below)

Over a period of years, many Bajau built houses and took up more permanent residence in an area of Pepela near the beach. Eventually, this area of Pepela, known as Tanjung Pasir, was officially designated as a separate internal division of the settlement. In September 1994, the anthropologist, Natasha Stacey, conducted a survey of Bajau living in Pepela. At that time, there were 43 Bajau houses in Tanjung Pasir. Altogether there were “50 Bajo houses in Pepela, with a total of 292 people living in these houses, 134 adults and 158 children”. A majority of these Bajau had come “from Mola Selatan (28 households), with lesser numbers originating from Mola Utara (8 households), Mantigola (10 households) and La Manggau (2 houses).”20

Tanjung Pasir is clearly distinguished by the fact its houses are all raised on poles and are constructed of woven palm leaf on simple wooden scaffolding; whereas most other dwellings in Pepela were at ground level and built of more durable materials. A lack of water is particularly acute in Tanjung Pasir.

Despite the historical diversity of the settlement and the fluidity of its population, a survey by local researchers found that 95% of Pepela’s present inhabitants had lived there for five years or more. Although their origins were various, a core of Pepela’s population had lived in the village for three generations and regarded it as their only permanent home.

20 Stacy, Boats to Burn, pp 66-67.

24 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

4.1.2. Education and Employment21

Education levels in Pepela are much lower than in the rest of the island of Rote22. This is the case despite the existence of a local elementary school (SD Negeri) with eight full-time teachers. Based on a local research survey, only about 52% of the population had completed elementary school. (None of the Bajau in Tanjung Pasir had, however, completed elementary school and most were reported to be illiterate.) An additional 27% had completed junior high school and a further 16% had completed senior high school. No one was reported to have had any education beyond high school. Children as young as 12 are taken on fishing voyages to learn the ways of the sea.

Local statistics confirm this pattern. Londalusi, of which Pepela forms a significant part, has the lowest school attendance in East Rote. Only 82% of school age children (7-12) attend elementary school compared to rates of over 90 to 100% for other districts. Although there is a junior high school within 15 minutes walking distance of Pepela, only 62% of children aged 13-16 attend this school23.

97% of those surveyed were involved in fishing, either full-time or part-time. Of these, 60% were employed full-time, either by local perahu owners or by local traders; 30% were employed part-time by an owner or trader but also did other work for themselves. Only about 10% of respondents identified themselves as independently employed in fishing. (Many Bajau would be included in this category.)

Seasonal factors affect employment patterns. During the west monsoon from January to April, winds and waves limit fishing. Only the Bajau are reported to fish regularly during this season. 93% of the population, however, is involved in fishing during the east monsoon from May to June and again from September to December. July and August are a time of strong winds and most fishermen curtail fishing during this period.

Interruptions to fishing force most families in Pepela to seek other sources of income. Occupations that contribute additional income vary but include local trading, particularly of dried fish, and local construction, boat building and repair. No one in Pepela is reported to own agricultural land nor is anyone involved in farming or gardening. (Thus rice and other basic food stuffs must be purchased locally or obtained by trading fish.) When in need, most families borrow from wealthy local perahu owners (for whom they work and to whom they may well be related) or from traders. Most Pepela families are bound by bonds of dependence based on kinship and debt.

The differences in wealth among families are evident in the settlement. As a whole, Pepela is by no means a poor village. Pepela has electricity and 92% of the population relies on it for household lighting. Local researchers noted that there were more electric goods in Pepela than in the town of Ba’a, the island’s administrative centre. 52% of families own a radio and 37% own a television set. In 1996, there were already 43 parabola antenna in Pepela.

21 This subsection is based on a local research survey of 75 respondents from Pepela: Data Buku Dasar 1996.

22 Rote is noted for its high education levels. In the early 18th century, the local rulers of the island with assistance from the Dutch East India Company, began their own Malay schooling system. This tradition has persisted to this day.

23 Rote Timor Dalam Angka 2000: Table IV.1.5. BPS, Kupang.

25 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

4.1.3. Perahu Ownership

Perahu ownership is probably the most difficult subject on which to obtain complete and reliable information. Figures for the number of perahu vary based on different ways of classifying sailing vessels. Official government statistics for 2000 list 300 “jukung” (canoes), and 133 “perahu” for Pepela plus 15 other motorized vessels24. In 1996, local researchers estimated that there were more than 150 “perahu” in Pepela.

Local researchers have identified five principal perahu owners. These perahu owners are also the principal outfitters for perahu voyages and the main local traders who purchase the marine products obtained from these voyages. Some of these owner/outfitter/traders work in close cooperation with other marine produce traders located on Rote or in Kupang. In some cases, these owners are ‘heads’ of families who generally cooperate as a single unit. Locally these five are sometimes referred to, in Pepela, as the five “conglomerates” who control all fishing that goes on in Pepela.

For the purposes of this report, these five owners will be identified simply as 1) Haji A, 2) Haji B, 3) Haji C, 4) Haji D and 5) Si E.

This reported configuration of ownership is independently confirmed in an analysis of the Ashmore database of vessels recorded as arriving at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) from 1986-1999. This database provides records on 1112 vessels from Pepela. For only 19 of these vessels is the owner’s name omitted (but the owners of most of these named vessels can be reasonably identified by reference to other records in the dataset). Many vessels are recorded more than once and this provides a means of checking the consistency of the information on owners. It is also possible in several instances to identify the transfer of a vessel to a new owner, possibly by purchase or by inheritance. (The major difficulty in analysing ownership is in interpreting the great variety of spelling and abbreviation of names of particular owners.)

Pepela, as homeport, accounts for 66% of all vessels recorded as arriving at Ashmore over the thirteen years covered by the database. Consequently ownership data from Pepela would appear to provide critical relevant information on a majority of the vessels sailing to Ashmore.

In analysing this data to obtain a broad understanding of ownership, it is useful to identify prominent families as well as particular individuals. Vessels may be transferred among family members or ownership may be shared among related individuals. (Hence ownership may appear under one family member’s name and a few years later under another.)

Perahu Owners in Pepela

1) Haji A’s Family

From the database, Haji A’s family appears to be the most prominent perahu owner family in Pepela. This family includes four family members. The Ashmore database lists perahu owned by all four of these family members.

24 Rote Timur Dalam Angka 2000: Table V. 5.3. BPS, Kupang. The problem with local statistics is that they use different categories for identifying boats. Official figures (for Londalusi) are as follows: jukung (canoe): 300; perahu kecil (small perahu): 35; perahu besar: (large perahu): 98; motor (motorized perahu?): 2; kapal motor (fully motorized boat ?): 13.

26 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

According to the database, Haji A owned 34 perahu, five of which he disposed of, transferring/selling them to others in Pepela. One perahu he passed on to or shared with another member of his family. Another member of the family had 14 perahu, at least four of which were transferred to yet another member of the family. In addition to these four perahu, this particular member of the family is recorded as having another five perahu. One more member of the family is recorded as having two perahu, including the one obtained from Haji A himself. In total, Haji A’s family is recorded as having a total of 54 perahu.

Recent research confirms this number. As of 2002, Haji A is said to own fifty perahu. It was also said locally that as soon as he hears that one of his perahu has been apprehended by Australian officials, he is able to order another perahu from Sulawesi to maintain his fleet. The fact is, however, that he is also able to obtain perahu from those local perahu owners who are deeply indebted to him.

2) Haji B’s Family

Another prominent perahu owning family is Haji B’s family. The names of seven family members of Haji B’s family appear on the database. Haji B’s grandfather was a trader based in Binongko who regularly visited Pepela. His father moved to Pepela, married a local Rotenese woman and concentrated his attention on perahu fishing25. At this time, all fishing in Pepela was directed entirely to gathering trepang, trochus, clam and turtle shells.

Although Haji B’s father is mentioned in the 1996 Indonesian research report as one of the principal perahu owners in Pepela, only 3 perahu are listed under his name in the Ashmore Database. (One of these perahu, he seems to have transferred to a Bajau fisherman for several years before reacquiring it.) Perahu under his name sailed to Ashmore from 1987 to 1997.

The majority of perahu in the database are listed under the names of other members of this family. According to the database, Haji B is credited with eleven perahu, which have sailed each year to Ashmore from 1987 to 1999. He is now regarded as the head of the family. In the database, the seven members of Haji B’s family are cited as owning a total of 23 perahu.

3) Haji C

In 1996, Haji C was reported to be largest perahu owner in Pepela according to an Indonesian research report. Like others who own a fleet of perahu, he is also a large trader, outfitter and moneylender. In the Ashmore Database, he is listed as the owner of 25 perahu, three of which he transferred or sold to others in Pepela in 1995. The database indicates that his fleet of perahu sailed to Ashmore regularly from 1993 through 1998.

Haji C does not appear to have the support of a large family and thus in competition with Haji A and B, his fortunes over the past several years seem to have declined. Locally he is no longer seen to be as wealthy as Haji A.

4) Haji D

25 See Stacey, Boats to Burn, p.65.

27 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

The full extent of Haji D’s perahu ownership is difficult to determine. Although Haji D has fewer perahu than Hajis A, B, and C, nevertheless he is a significant owner and a major trader and moneylender. He has other enterprises besides those associated with voyaging. Several perahu are listed under his name in the Ashmore Database but he is said to have “distributed” most of his perahu among his various relatives. Haji D works closely with the main Chinese merchant who deals with marine products based in the town of Ba’a on Rote. Through this merchant, Haji D is also involved in purchasing marine products in Ba’a and in Oelaba.

5) Si E

Like Haji D, Si E is not credited with owning a large number of perahu. He is, however, regarded as one of the five controlling traders and outfitters of perahu in Pepela. The Ashmore Database lists only 4 perahu under his name, one of which has, on occasion, operated from the settlement of Oelaba.

Other Pepela Perahu Owners

6) Si F

Another large perahu owner, according to the database, is Si F. Si F was the first Bajau to settle in Pepela in the early 1990s. He originally came from Mola Selatan on Wanci but moved to Tomea on Kaledupa before settling in Pepela. He is the largest Bajau perahu owner. He is not, as yet, reported to be a trader, outfitter or moneylender. Nevertheless he provides an important link to the Bajau community in Pepela. Si F is listed as having 10 different perahu according to the Ashmore Database.

7) Si G

Si G is another Bajau who has been notably successful since settling in Pepela. Si G, originally from the village of Mola Selatan on Wanci island, is the second largest of the Bajau perahu owners. He is listed as the owner of five perahu on the Ashmore Database.

8) Perahu Owners with One or Two Perahu

One prominent perahu owner of Arab descent – once the rival of Haji A – died around 1996 and no perahu have been listed under his name since then. His remaining perahu were undoubtedly sold after his death and possibly renamed. A number of other individuals or families can be identified in the Ashmore Database who have, over a period of years, owned three or four perahu. Since 1997/98, only one or two perahu have been listed for each of these individuals or families, suggesting that their ‘fortunes’ as relatively small operators has waned and the fortunes of the major traders have increased.

Taken together, this group of owners with a couple of perahu each forms a significant block but their total ownership is less than that of Haji A and his family. Of the 300 specifically named perahu in the database, one third are owned by the families of Haji A, B and C.

In addition, there are also single perahu owners listed on the database. It is important, however, to distinguish between those perahu that were mainly involved in trepang and trochus fishing and those that adopted new methods for shark fishing. (See Discussion Below: 4.1.12). The transition occurred during the 1990s. It is useful therefore to distinguish between the perahu that sailed before 1996 and those that continued to sail thereafter.

28 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

A large number of single perahu owners – some 80 on the database – ceased to sail after 1996. Many of these owner/operators may simply have ‘retired’ from fishing rather than adopting new methods. A significant number of individually owned perahu may have been apprehended; many, however, were sold or transferred to larger perahu owners in payment of debts. (When a perahu has retained its name, it is possible, using the database, to trace its transfer to one of the larger owners.)

Approximately 50 ‘individually-owned’ perahu are listed in the database as continuing to sail after 1996. However, several of these supposed owners are listed as owning perahu that – on other voyages – are attributed to one or another of the large owners. One can only conclude from this and other evidence that the large owners are involved in various kinds of transfer (or ‘lending’) arrangements of their perahu to individuals in Pepela. These arrangements also ‘transfer’ the risks associated with possible apprehension. Attributing ownership to others may also be a way of avoiding local levies.

Among the category of individual owners, the largest identifiable group is that of the Bajau Laut who have settled in Pepela. Increasingly they have been forced into greater dependence on the larger owner/traders of Pepela. For the Bajau, this is a matter of survival. In the words of the Bajau themselves: “A dry paddle is a dry cooking pot” (Tohu busei, tohu perio’ – Kering dayung, kering periuk.)

9) Bajau Perahu Owners

Natasha Stacey provides a detailed analysis of the sailing patterns of Bajau from Pepela from August to December 199426. These voyages involved (1) perahu owned by Mola Bajau living in Pepela but also perahu that operated out of Pepela but had originally departed either from (2) Mola on Wanci island or (3) Mantigola on Kaledupa island in the Tukang Besi group. Also included is information on (4) Pepela-owned perahu ‘borrowed’ by Bajau from Mola or Mantigola.

Many but not all of the 22 named perahu owned by Bajau living in Pepela can be identified on the database. (Three of these perahu were apprehended in late November or early December during the 1994 fishing season.) There are only a few Bajau who own more than one perahu. Many Bajau own their own perahu and either they, or a son or a close relative, will sail that perahu.

Eight out of 13 Pepela perahu ‘borrowed’ by Bajau are recorded in the database. They all belong to large perahu owners: members of Haji A’s family or Si F. It appears that the large perahu owners in Pepela advantage themselves by calling upon dependable Bajau captains and crew to sail a portion of their perahu.

Three of the 9 Mantigola vessels that operated out of Pepela in 1994 appear on the database, at a later date, under Pepela ownership. In two cases, these perahu were sold to a large Pepela perahu owner to pay debts; in one case, the owner may have decided to settle in Pepela. Similarly, 6 of the 26 Mola vessels that operated out of Pepela in 1994 ended up in Pepela, most sold to large perahu owners. Thus the continuing use of Pepela as a strategic port for sailing south into Australian waters provides a steady stream of new boats to replenish the stock of existing vessels in the settlement.

26 Boats to Burn, Appendix 6, p.332ff

29 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Since the time of Stacey’s research in 1994, the dependence and indebtedness of the Bajau to one or another of their main trader/owners has increased considerably. Several Bajau captains are now so far in debt, they must simply do as they are told. In the words of one Bajau captain: “Now I only wait for my boss: when he orders me to depart, I must depart because I have to pay back my debt.” (Sekarang ini saya hanya menunggu bos saja; kapan ia suruh saya berangkat, saya mesti berangkat karena saya harus melunasi hutang.) This means that the Bajau must undertake more voyages, including voyages during the most risky time of the year. And as a consequence, the Bajau have suffered the loss of many of their perahu and crews.

4.1.4. The Network of Owners Centred on Pepela

Pepela is the hub of a network linking other fishing settlements in the local region. This creates a complex web of ownership and local port identification. Thus, on the Ashmore Database, a number of perahu are listed as sailing from Pepela in some years and from Oelaba in other years. Some owners located in Pepela keep some of their own perahu in other ports. Transfers of perahu occur between ports. Where an owner has a perahu in more than one port, it is essential to take account of total ownership in determining that owner’s overall standing in the local fishing network.

The Apprehensions Database

The Apprehensions Database is a rich source of information on 1) ports of origin, 2) owners, 3) captains and 4) vessels apprehended in Australian waters. These data have various potential uses but require local knowledge of eastern Indonesia to be of particular benefit. Multiple spellings, different designations for the same port of origin and gaps in many records present specific problems. On the other hand, with knowledge of a particular area, it is possible to overcome many of these problems. It is also possible to cross-check information on vessels and owners in the Apprehensions Database against information in the Ashmore Database.

It is essential to recognize that, in the Apprehensions Database, there are a large number of apprehensions of perahu from Dobo, Saumlaki, Merauke, Tepa and various other locations in the Arafura Sea. This is a separate group of mainly shark fishers and dealing effectively with this group of fishers would appear to represent a problem as large, if not larger, than that of the fishers in the Timor Sea.

Perahu from Pepela in the Apprehensions Database

In the case of Pepela, the Database is of considerable use. Perahu from Pepela are identifiable under various spellings of ‘Pepela’ (Papela, Papella, Papela Roti). They are also listed under ‘Londa Lusi’, the village of which Pepela forms a part. Some are simply listed under the general label, ‘Roti’. (Not all perahu, however, listed under ‘Roti’ are from Pepela.) With local knowledge of Pepela owners and their perahu, it is also possible to identify perahu from Pepela, where the record gives no port of origin.

With care and caution, it seems possible to identify most of the perahu from Pepela that were apprehended for illegal fishing in Australian waters.

There are 990 records in the Apprehensions Database. Of these records, 150 apprehensions have been of perahu from Rote and it would seem that at least 137 of these perahu come from Pepela. This represents 14% to 15% of all apprehensions. (Were one to exclude the large number of apprehensions from Dobo and other ports in the Arafura Sea, this percentage would appear significantly larger.) With only three exceptions, all apprehensions were for shark

30 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

fishing. The largest number of apprehensions occurred from the end of May to the beginning of November 1996. During this time, 46 perahu were apprehended.

By cross-checking ownership records in the Ashmore Database against ownership records in the Apprehensions Database, it is possible to identify owners who have suffered substantial losses due to apprehensions over the period from 1988 to 2002. Not surprisingly the large perahu owners of Pepela suffered the greatest losses. By their very numbers, perahu within their fleets most frequently violated the rules on fishing outside the boundaries defined by the MOU. Some indications of these losses are as follows:

4.1.5. Haji A’s Family

Chief among those whose perahu were apprehended is Haji A. He has had 18 – possibly 19 – perahu apprehended between 1994 and 2002. Only the first of these apprehensions, in 1994, was for illegal trepang fishing; in 1996, another perahu was apprehended for illegal trochus fishing. All of the rest of the offences were for illegal shark fishing. In addition, three other members of his family have had four different perahu apprehended. This makes a total of 22 or more perahu from Haji A’s family that have been apprehended for illegal fishing in Australian waters.

4.1.6. Haji B’s Family

The Haji B’s Family has also had several perahu apprehended. Apprehensions have affected most members of the family. The family has had 5, possibly 6, perahu apprehended for illegal fishing.

4.1.7. Haji C

Haji C’s name appears under a great variety of spellings. Deciphering these spellings indicates that Haji C has certainly had 8 and possibly 9 perahu apprehended – all for illegal shark fishing.

4.1.8. Si F

Si F has had 2, possibly 3 perahu apprehended.

4.1.9. Si E

Si E has had 2 perahu apprehended.

4.1.10. Other Perahu Owners and the Consequences of the Apprehension Policy

Various small-scale perahu owners have had perahu apprehended and in many cases, this seems to have led to their ‘retirement’ from fishing.

One clear effect of the Australian apprehension policy has been to put pressure on individual and small-scale perahu owners whose capital is limited. Without sufficient capital to recover from the loss of their vessel, these individuals and families have been forced into debt or out of fishing altogether. Although they have suffered losses, the larger owner/traders have effectively flourished under this policy. Their control of fishing has increased.

These large owner/traders persist in voyaging into Australian waters and continue to be involved in illegal shark fishing. These owners have to be recognized as the key stakeholders in all fishing operations.

31 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

4.1.11. Large Owners as Key Stakeholders

The large perahu owners in Pepela are the most important initial ‘purchasers’ in a chain of trade that extends from Rote to Kupang and then on to Makassar or Surabaya and beyond. Thus they play a key role in negotiating the prices of marine products with intermediate traders or the so-called “bos” (from the English word, “boss”). In some cases, they function as inter-island traders.

These large owners are also the principal outfitters of perahu, both for their own fleets and for individual perahu, owned by others in the community. In addition and most significantly large perahu owners also take responsibility for the members of the crews who regularly sail on their perahu as well as the families of these crew members. These owners are the main (and almost the only) source of credit that maintains the families of crew members while they are on voyages or when a family crisis occurs. For a good proportion of these fishers, the larger owners also provide employment during the season when the winds and sea curtail sailing activities. As such they are central figures in a network of debt and obligation that binds the community. In addition most perahu owners have earned enough to be able to afford the pilgrimage to Mecca. With the status of haji, they are accorded respect within the Muslim community. As a consequence, these owners are the most influential stakeholders in the community. They are the chief patrons in the community.

Stacey described the trading situation in Pepela in 1994. The main trader or bos was the largest perahu owner in Pepela. He operated with capital from a Hong Kong couple whom he supplied and he worked in conjunction with his uncle, who was regarded as another bos. Together they controlled about 40-50% of trade. A third intermediate trader or bos was of Chinese origin and lived in the town of Ba’a. He was married to the daughter of the previous Chinese merchant, who was the main trader in marine products on the island from the 1930s. He worked with another larger perahu owner who was also regarded as a bos. He and his brother in Aru supplied their marine products to an older brother in Ujung Pandang. Another Kupang-based trader had begun operations in Pepela just two years before. He was financed by a trader from Surabaya and operated from Kupang through collectors based in Pepela. He relied on another large perahu owner who was his chief supplier. At least one other Kupang trader purchased marine products, particularly from Bajau in Pepela27.

In 1992, a cooperative, KUD “Mina Sepakat”, was established in Pepela to provide for the needs of fishermen and their families. Although some 121 fishermen became members of the Cooperative, it was unable to function successfully because its management board consisted of various large perahu owners who were intent on continuing to supply the needs of the fishermen for goods and credit. As the Head of the Cooperative explained to local researchers, the fishermen were too obligated to their patrons to be able to utilise the Cooperative. On the other hand, Pepela does have its own pawn shop which was established in 1995 and is reported to be used particularly during the non-sailing season and during the fasting time leading to the main ceremonial period of the year.

Since 1994, there has been a further consolidation of control of trading in the hands of the five “bosses” or “conglomerates” as they are referred to locally. Haji A, in particular, has consolidated his control over an even larger share of the market. He is now the dominant figure both in trade and perahu ownership. (As a result, the market share for Haji B and Haji C may

27 This paragraph is based on information in Stacey, Boats to Burn, pp 249-251 and on personal fieldwork in Ba’a and Pepela.

32 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

have in fact declined over the past decade.) Haji D continues to work with his Chinese partner based in Ba’a and has expanded by shifting some of his efforts to trade in Oelaba. There may now be fewer Kupang-based traders who deal with Pepela, especially now that Haji A has moved to Kupang. From there he may well be expanding his operations into the Kupang market.

4.1.12. The Transformation of Fishing in Pepela

The fishermen of Pepela distinguish between two kinds of fishers: shark fishers (nelayan hiu) and reef fishers (nelayan karang). Until the early 1990s, Pepela fishermen were predominately, if not exclusively, reef fishers. As reef fishers, they were mainly concerned to gather trepang, trochus and, where possible, turtle shells. They would also do some fishing but would dry the fish, including shark, for later sale. All of this changed in the 1990s.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the local price of shark fin increased from Rp 25,000 per kg to Rp 150,000 per kg for quality cuts largely because of strong demand from Hong Kong28. This market price gave advantage to the Bajau in particular who had specialised in shark fishing. Many of these Bajau from the Tukang Besi Islands began shifting to Pepela where they were better positioned to sail into Australian waters. The initial shift of the Bajau fishermen was seasonal, which meant that they would return to Wanci or Kaledupa for a period and then regroup in Pepela. Eventually, however, this strategic positioning led to more permanent settlement in the Tanjung Pasir area of Pepela. Recognizing the changing market and perhaps experiencing a decline in resources of trepang and trochus, Pepela fishers began learning shark fishing techniques from the Bajau. They did this initially by assigning young men from Pepela to perahu with Bajau captains and crew. The change-over in techniques occurred over a period of several years. By 1996-97, the target of virtually all perahu sailing from Pepela was shark fin. Local Pepela fishermen, who had learned their shark fishing from the Bajau fishermen, quickly – and somewhat contemptuously – discarded various traditional Bajau methods and accompanying taboos and adopted more effective longline technology. Within five years, these fishermen saw themselves as better shark fishers than their teachers.

The shift to shark fin fishing also brought about a change in voyaging times. Previous voyages into Australian waters for trepang and trochus would last for one to two months. Shark fishing voyages, however, would normally be for at most two weeks to a month. With a quicker turn around time, the number of voyages increased.

4.1.13. Current Prices (2002) in Pepela for Shark Fin

Prices for shark fin have held up remarkably well and have probably increased, particularly for first class shark fin. Shark fin is sold, not simply by weight, but by size of fin, which is the prime indicator of quality. (Because it is not sold by weight alone, the report of the weight of shark fin on perahu that are apprehended proves little indication of the value of the catch.) Even a relatively small amount of fin can have high value.

2002 prices for shark fin in Pepela are as follows. Calculated at Rp 4800/4850 = $A 1.00, present prices give a good idea of the potential profits that are to be gained.

28 Various rupiah prices – both historical (ie, mid-1990s) and current – are quoted in this and other sections of the report. A rate of Rp 1,600 = $A 1.00 is an approximate conversion for the mid-1990s. After 1997, there was a substantial devaluation of the rupiah and fluctuation in the currency after 1997. The conversion rate used for current rupiah prices has been calculated at Rp 4800/4850 = $ 1.00. This is appropriate to provide an idea of equivalence between the Australian and Indonesian currency. It is not necessarily a precise figure.

33 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

1st Class Fin (>40 cm) per kg: Rp. 400,000 to 600,000 ($A 82.00 - $ 125.00)

2nd Class Fin (30-40 cm) per kg: Rp. 150,000 to 200,000 ($A 31.25 - $ 41.50)

3rd Class Fin (<30 cm) per kg: Rp. 40,000 to 75,000 ($A 8.33 - $15.50)

Several factors are critical to understanding the present situation. The Arafura sea – the primary fishing ground of eastern Indonesian fishers – has now been heavily overfished. Shark have been heavily targeted. As a result, they are becoming harder to catch and the size of the shark that are now caught has diminished. Among local fishers, it is now said that the Indonesian shark catch currently yields only 3rd Class Fin while the Australian catch regularly provides 1st Class Fin. The profit differential between shark fishing in Australian waters can be 10 times that of local shark fishing!

The profit differential is even greater for Pepela traders29. These Pepela prices are ‘tied’ prices because most fishers are obliged to sell their catch to specific bosses to whom they are bound by debt. Elsewhere on Rote, the price for 1st Class Fin can be as high as Rp 800,000 per kg = $A 166.00 per kg.

If one were to use the information on shark fin catches of perahu apprehended in Australian waters – maximum catch 16 kg; median catch 6 kg (See Section 3.3) – and for present purposes, if one were to assume that this dried fin were all of 1st Class quality, the value of the largest catch could have been between Rp 9,600,000 and Rp 12,800,00 ($A 2000 and $A 2666.). The value of the median catch could have been between Rp 3,600,000 and Rp 4,800,000 ($A 750. and $A 1000).

At present, older second-hand perahu can been obtained for no more than Rp 7,500,000 (less than $A 1500.00); or for even less, if the owner is forced to sell because of a debt. By contrast, a new perahu can sell for Rp 14,500,000 – more than double the price of an older vessel. Hence because of the risk of apprehension, the strategy of large owners has tended to concentrate on the use of older and cheaper vessels. This diminishes the risk of substantial financial loss for owners but puts crews at greater risk because of the quality of the perahu they now sail. In the present market, it is possible to cover the cost of a lost perahu on the basis of one, or at most two, successful voyages.

These hypothetical calculations allow one to evaluate statements (in interviews in 2002) by local Bajau Laut about their efforts. The highest income they claimed to have obtained from one voyage was Rp 11 million. A voyage that returns a profit of only Rp 2.5 million is barely considered a success; while a voyage that only returns Rp 1 million is a loss-making effort that puts them further into debt.

Because of their debt obligations, the Bajau report that they increased the number of their voyages, sailing even in the most hazardous seasons and have reduced their turn-around time so that for most voyages, they are at sea for no more than 15 days.

4.1.14. Fishermen’s Income and the Financing of Voyages

Fishermen’s income (as distinct from that of owners of perahu) is dependent on the financing arrangements for voyages. In eastern Indonesia, there is no one system for voyage financing,

29 In the 1996 Indonesian report on Pepela, local researchers estimated that there was a 16% to 23% mark up on Pepela prices in the Kupang market and a further 16% mark-up when shark fin was sold in Makassar or Surabaya.

34 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

but instead a variety of local systems. The Bajau in the Tukang Besi Islands have a different system from that of Pepela and one of the attractions of Pepela is its advantageous financing arrangements for voyages.

In Pepela, credit is offered by a small number of bosses who are also the main perahu owners and outfitters. In financing a voyage, the first component is provision for crews and their families during the voyage. Approximately 50 kg of rice and Rp 150,000 are supplied for the family of each crew member per month. This provision creates an individual debt separate from the expense of the general provisions for crew itself.

The local expression used in Pepela for this component is ransum (from the Indonesian –originally Dutch – word, rangsum, meaning ‘ration’). This can be a variable amount. It can be as high as Rp 1 million per crew member.

The perahu owner puts his vessel at risk. Unless it is a family perahu, owned by more than one member of a family, the crew do not have to make up the cost of a lost vessel. Some perahu owners provide the captain with a bonus of 10 to 20% of their share for the safe return of a perahu.

Table 2 provides an idea of the general costs of a perahu and the equipment needed for shark fishing (as of 1996).

Table 2 Estimated Costs of Outfitting a Perahu in Pepela

(1996 Prices in Rp; $A = Rp 1600)30

a. Perahu (5 ton)/unit b.Nylon Line 150 Kg @ Rp. 8.000 c. Fish Hooks 200 Hooks @ Rp.4.500 d.Cord Line 5 Kg @ Rp. 37.000 e. Anchor Line 200 meter @ Rp. 7.500 f. Lead 20 Kg @ Rp. 2.500 g.Floats 18 items @ Rp.10.000 h.Weights 150 items @ Rp. 3.500 i. Spears 6 items @ Rp.6.000 j. Machetes 3 items @ Rp.5.000 k.Petromax Lamps 2 items @ Rp.75.000 Cooking Equipment Canoe Rental: 2 boats @ Rp 25,000

8,000,000 1,200,000 900,000 185,000 1,500,000 50,000 180,000 525,000 36,000 15,000 150,000 10,000 50,000

Much of this equipment can be used on repeated voyages and forms part of the standard equipment of a particular perahu. The most important equipment is the vessel’s set of long lines with their hooks. An owner of such lines (generally trader/outfitters) may supply these lines in return for a share of the voyage’s profits.

30 This information is taken from Table 4.7, Buku I, Data Dasar p 163: Laporan Penelitian, Program Rehabilitasi dan Pengelolaan Terumbu Karang (Coremap), Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) & Pusat Studi Pendudukan, Universitas Nusa Cendana, Kupang 1996.

35 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Interestingly, these lines earn a share of the profits from a voyage but do not share in the risk of the voyage. The price for a set of these lines is set (current price: Rp 5,000,000) and each member of the crew including the captain purchases an equal share. If any equipment is lost or damaged, such costs are deducted from profits before shares are allocated.

In Pepela, the local expression for the component consisting of hooks and lines is simply tal” or tali plastik. It is the cost of this tali component that has contributed most to the current fishers’ indebtedness. Whereas the owner of the perahu must suffer the loss of any perahu that is apprehended, the “cost” of the “tali” is divided equally among the captain and his crew, so that if a perahu is apprehended and its equipment seized, this loss creates a debt that must be repaid.

If a voyage is unsuccessful (for example, if a perahu returns with only a little shark fin), the captain and crew must repay the cost of the ransum borrowed for the voyage. If hooks and lines are lost or seized, their replacement cost must also be repaid.

Calculations are based on the total value of the sale of all shark fin31. Stacey reports one such division. The owner takes the first third of these profits and deducts from the remaining profit the cost of all provisioning and such things as canoe ‘rental’ costs. The remainder is then divided into equal shares among all crew members (or among crew members with a separate full share to the owner of the long lines).

The Bajau, whose perahu come from the Tukang Besi Islands, have a different system of raising capital and dividing shares. Each crew member contributes 1 share (in 1996 = Rp 300,000) and the owner of the perahu 3 shares. This capital is used to purchase equipment and cover the cost of supplies for the voyage with Rp 150,000 allocated to the family of each crew member. When profits are divided, these shares are repaid first; then the remaining profits are allocated as follows: 3 shares to the perahu owner; 1 share to each member of the crew; 1 share for the long lines; and a ¼ of a share for each canoe.

Increasingly large owners have been able to set other rules for the division of profits from shark fin fishing.

4.1.15. Captains and Crew: Some Illustrative Cases

The following are a few illustrative cases of particular individuals and their relations as captain or crew of perahu sailing in Australian waters.

Si J

Si J is 28 years old and comes from a hamlet near Pepela. He works as the captain (juragan) on a perahu owned by Haji A. The perahu is an old design sope and has a crew (ABK: anak buah kapal) of six young men in addition to its juragan. Si J and his crew, who regularly sail together, are Rp 6 million in debt to Haji A for previous tali and ransum loans. Si J has been apprehended twice by Australian patrols. The first time he was sentenced to 4 months in Broome; the second time, his sentence was for 18 months, but was reduced to 12 months. Despite having been apprehended, Haji A continues to employ Si J and his crew who remain bound to him because of their debts. Haji A is their continuing patron.

31 See Stacey, Boats to Burn, pp. 259-263.

36 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Si J’s most recent voyage was a short one (21 April to 8 May 2002) but it was very successful. He returned to Pepela with 10 kg of dried shark fin. The entire catch was sold to Haji A who set the price for the catch. Income was divided in the following way:

1. One portion for the perahu: Haji A

2. One portion for the tali: Haji A

3. One portion for the captain: Si J

4. Two portions for the six crew members (minus their ransum) divided equally.

In addition because the shark fin from the voyage sold for more that 5 million, Si J as captain was given a ‘premium’ by Haji A of Rp 250,000.

Si K

Si K who is 23 years old lives in the same hamlet as Si J but he is an ordinary crew member and has sailed for various bosses in Pepela. On his most recent trip (April 2002), he was a crew member on a perahu whose captain (juragan) came from the tiny island of Barnusa, near Alor. The perahu was a 7 ton vessel with a crew of 4 men plus the captain. The perahu did not call in at Ashmore but sailed directly to an area for shark fishing.

The voyage was reasonably successful. They sold all their shark fin to Haji A. They also brought back a small amount of dried shark meat which they sold separately at Rp 1,500 per kg. Most of the shark which they caught were simply thrown back into the sea after the fins had been removed. For his voyage, Si K earned Rp 600,000 ($A125.).

Si L

Like Si K and Si J, Si L who is 41 years old comes from the same hamlet. Almost a third of all men from this hamlet are drawn as crew members for perahu from Pepela. In April 2002, Si L took part in a shark fishing voyage as one of the six crew on a Pepela-owned perahu with a captain who came from Solor. They had been in Australian waters for 16 days and had already caught 20 shark when their vessel was apprehended by an Australian patrol boat. Their perahu was destroyed and they were detained in Darwin for 9 day before being sent home. On their return to Pepela, the crew and captain – seven men in all – were held responsible for a debt to the perahu owner of Rp 5 million. This means that all of them are bound to this boss for the next voyage he designates.

These three simple cases illustrate various critical aspects of the local situation in Pepela: 1) the way in which Pepela draws on a network of fishers: captains from different ports in the region and crew from nearby coastal settlements; 2) the dependence of local fishers on a small group of owner/traders; and, 3) the potential profits and losses from shark fishing.

4.1.16. The Vicissitudes of Shark Fishing: Unpredictable Profits and Losses

Stacey recorded the earnings of eleven Bajau shark fishing perahu that sailed from Pepela between August to December 1994. The range of these earnings was significant. One perahu earned just over Rp 3,000,000 ($A 1875.00) on its first voyage and then a startling Rp 15,500,000 ($A 9687.50) on its second. Another perahu earned Rp 1,500,000 ($A 937.50) on its first voyage and just Rp 520,000 ($A 325) on its second; it was therefore forced to make yet another voyage but succeeded only in obtaining shark fin worth Rp 900,000 ($A 562.50). These earnings did not cover costs; and as a result, the owner, captain and each crew member was left with a personal debt of Rp 70,000 ($ 43.75) by the end of the season. During this same season, other Bajau perahu were apprehended and their boats, equipment and catch were

37 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

forfeited. When the crews of these perahu returned to Pepela, they all had substantial outfitting and provisioning debts owing to Pepela bosses, which they were under obligation to repay32. Elsewhere Stacey has recorded any number of cases where Bajau perahu owners were forced to sell their perahu in Pepela or in the Tukang Besi Islands to repay accumulated debts33. On the other hand, some Bajau who were successful over several seasons of shark fishing managed to save enough to be able to purchase their own perahu. Overall, Stacey has estimated that most crew members managed to earn between Rp 100,000 ($A 62.50) and Rp 500,000 ($A 312.50) for four to five months fishing34.

In 1996, in interviews with local researchers, fishermen in Pepela estimated their income from shark fishing at about Rp 400,000. 37% of these fishermen indicated that they frequently experienced shortages; another 55% admitted to occasional shortages; and only about 8% were never short of money. To be able to survive, 73% of fishermen said that they saved when they were able to, while 27% complained that they were never able to save. 84% stated that when they were in difficulties, they turned to the owner of their perahu or its captain for assistance.

4.1.17. Development Projects in Pepela

Various development projects have been proposed and some have been trialed in Pepela but none has yet proven successful. Most proposed projects have sought to utilize the relatively pristine waters of the Pepela Bay. It is considered to be ideal for seaweed farming, pearl farming and also for raising milk fish (nener). Were fishermen to do more local fishing, their wives would have the time for drying and marketing fish. More marketing of dried fish was done in the past than is done now. Previously fishermen would dry fish, including shark during their voyages. At present, all parts of the shark are disposed of except the fin and very little other fishing is done during a voyage.

4.2. The Settlement of Oelaba35

Oelaba is located on the north coast of western Rote (see Map 2). The settlement is built on the tidal mud flats formed at the mouth of the Mbisa River. Oelaba’s ‘harbour’ is protected by a dense cluster of mangroves and is subjected to strong tidal fluctuations. Passages through the mangroves allow access to the sea. Whenever the tide goes out, perahu that are ‘harboured’ near the shore become beached on the mud flats; only when the tide comes in, do these perahu refloat and are able to make their way to the open sea.

Oelaba is one of five sub-villages (dusun) that make up the village (desa) of Oelua. The village of Oelaba consists of 5 hamlets with the following number of households (HH: Household Heads):

1. Dusun Oelaba 178 HH

2. Dusun Oelua 116 HH

3. Dusun Oedai 111 HH

4. Dusun Lasi Lai 121 HH

5. Dusun Helotula 126 HH

32 See Stacey, Boats to Burn, pp. 263-269.

33 See Stacy, Boats to Burn, Appendix 6, pp 332ff.

34 See Stacy, Boats to Burn, p. 264.

35 This section was written with the assistance of G. Tom Therik,Universitas Artha Wacana, Kupang.

38 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

To the east of the village of Oelua is the village of Netenaen. This village consists of 4 hamlets with the following households:

1.Dusun Netenaen 50 HH

2.Dusun Hundihuk 200 HH

3.Dusun Oetele 70 HH

4.Dusun Fulamon 40 HH

In addition to Oelaba, both Netenaen and Hundihuk appear in the Ashmore Database as minor ports on Rote from which fishermen sail into Australian waters. Netenaen and Hundihuk are coastal villages and can be considered as forming part of a single network of fishers. Oelaba is the centre of this network and a number of perahu in Hundihuk are owned by residents in Oelaba.

The village of Oelua belongs to the District of Rote Barat Laut and was until 1962 the capital of the traditional domain of Dengka and the official residence of the rulers of this domain. The administrative centre for the District has now shifted to Busalangga, which is about 13 km from Oelaba.

4.2.1. Population

In 1997, the population of Oelua came to 2,389. This population consisted of 545 households: 1287 males and 1102 females. Official population figures for 2000 show a decline in Oelua’s population to 2,102: 1081 males and 1021 females. If these figures are correct, they indicate a substantial exodus of men from the village.36

In 1997, the sub-village of Oelaba had a population of only 685. There were 143 households with 352 males and 333 females. Virtually all households (138 out of 143) identified their occupation as a combination of fishing and trading.

Whereas Oelua is a predominantly Christian village, Oelaba is predominantly but not exclusively Muslim. In 2000, Oelua was reported to have 1512 Protestants, 14 Catholics and 576 Muslims.

According to local history, the founding of Oelaba was closely associated with the ruler of the domain of Dengka, Ch. A. Tungga, who is reported to have granted Butonese traders the right to settle in his village in 1927. Since that time, they have intermarried with the local Rotenese population.

The first Butonese perahu owner is said to have been Haji Mui; his perahu was named Bunga Karang. Another Butonese by the name of Mudimin built the first perahu for the Raja Tungga and gave it the name Bismilla. Initially the Butonese in Oelaba engaged in trade, selling Rotenese lontar syrup to Alor and the Tukang Besi Islands. They also engaged in local fishing.

Although the first settlers in Oelaba were Butonese, Oelaba has developed a population with diverse backgrounds through continuing migration and intermarriage. The settlement includes

36 There is sufficient discrepancy in population figures for Oelua in different sources to remain skeptical about the accuracy of local census-taking. In all sources, it is clear, however, that Oelaba is a far smaller settlement than Pepela – indeed Oelaba has less than half the population of Pepela.

39 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

households of Bugis and Bajo origin as well as Butonese from settlements on Flores and Alor. Some Savunese have also settled in Oelaba and many settlers have married with Rotinese.

According to local accounts, it was only in the 1970s that fishers from Oelaba began sailing to Ashmore Reef to gather trepang and trochus. Prior to this time, only a small number of Rotenese would regularly voyage to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) for these products. These Butonese fisher-traders of Oelaba fitted trepang and trochus into their existing trading patterns. They would sail to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) in August, but instead of returning directly to Rote would sail elsewhere (Kupang, Alor or Southeastern Sulawesi) where they would sell their catch, buy other goods for sale on Rote and, if possible, make a second voyage to Pulau Pasit (Ashmore).

Another occupation reported for these fishers was the making of lime from particular species of living coral. When the supply of this coral was exhausted along the coast of Rote, fishers from Oelaba would gather coral from the reefs in Australian waters and bring it back to Rote as ballast for the making of lime.

4.2.2. Education and Employment

Most fishers in Oelaba are also traders so that when they are not sailing, they often engage in selling their goods in markets that are held on a rotating basis in different parts of the island. In turn, these traders purchase lontar syrup locally for their inter-island trade. When not involved in sailing or trading, men seek employment as labourers or in other service activities. When their husbands are away, wives also engage in local trade.

Attitudes to education in Oelaba are similar to those in Pepela and quite unlike the general, positive attitudes throughout the rest of Rote. Education is not highly valued. In a research survey carried out in Oelaba, 70% of those surveyed had completed elementary school but almost 10% had not. 13% had finished junior high school and only 7 % had completed senior high school.

This lack of education has little to do with a lack of facilities. There are three elementary schools and one junior high school in the village of Oelua. The senior high school is located in a neighbouring village 6 km from Oelua.

Oelaba’s sailing and trading network extends to ports in several provinces in eastern Indonesia: Kupang and Alor in Nusa Tenggara Timur, Bau Bau in Sulawesi Tenggara, Donggal in Sulawesi Tengah, Ujung Pandang in Sulawesi Selatan and Surabaya in Jawa Timur. One of the main destinations in this network is Bau Bau on Buton, Sulawesi Tenggara.

There is considerable occupational mobility: many, if not most, experienced crew members expect eventually to be able to captain a perahu, and many experienced captains manage to own their own vessels. There is far less of a divide between perahu owners, captains and crew members in Oelaba than in Pepela since most individuals are also involved in trading. Local trading on Rote supplements inter-island trading and in some cases, local trading can earn almost as much as inter-island trading. Differentials in income, however, are still prominent. Based on the research survey conducted in Oelaba, a perahu owner in 1997 who was also engaged in local trade could earn Rp 7,500,000 ($A 4687.50) compared with a crew member of a perahu who might only earn Rp 500,000 ($312.50). The single most prominent source of income for all levels of fishermen was said to derive from voyaging to the Pulau Pasir ( Ashmore) and other reefs in the Australian Fishing Zone.

40 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

When asked to identify their principal source of income for a research survey in 1996, 45% of respondents stated that this was ‘fishing’, 24% said ‘trading’ and another 20% said that it was other ‘service activities’. 64% of respondents said that they had experience with bank saving. As many as 28% of respondents had been involved in credit schemes to increase their working capital.

Since 1996, there has been a greater shift to inter-island trade. Oelaba (Netenaen and Hundihuk) fishers insist they still only fish for trepang and trochus. In other words, if a perahu sails from any of these ports, then it is outfitted for gathering and drying trepang and trochus. However, some perahu from Oelaba have shifted to Pepela where they can be outfitted for shark fishing and indeed engage in shark fishing. This is still said to be a minor activity of the Oelaba, Netenaen and Hindihuk boats.

The fishers themselves readily admit that the stock of trepang and trochus on Australian reefs has declined considerably and thus this component source of their total income has also declined. The pattern of trading and fishing that now occurs is as follows:

The period from April to June is devoted mainly to local inter-island trade, most of it between Rote and Kupang. July is generally windy and these winds can persist into August. During this time, most fisher/traders remain at home. At the end of July or early August, perahu set sail for Australian waters to gather what they can of trepang and trochus. Pepela perahu make only one voyage, which may last for upto two months, and then return to Rote where they purchase large quantities of local lontar syrup and bring this for sale to Kendari, returning in March to resume their local trade between Rote and Kupang.

Hundihuk fishers do less inter-island trading. Many perahu from Hundihuk make two voyages into Australian waters: the first at the beginning of August until mid-October and the second from November to the end of December.

Oelaba does not give the appearance of being a poor settlement.37 Most houses are of permanent or semi-permanent construction. They have electricity as well as a WC, a proper washing area (kamar mandi) and a good array of household furnishings. These furnishings include such items as parabola antennae, televisions, radios, tape recorders and even VCD players. In 1997, there were 6 parabola antennae, 24 television sets and 34 radios in Oelaba. Electricity was available every night from 6 pm. There were some 24 small kiosks selling goods in the settlement.

4.2.3. Perahu Ownership

In Oelaba, there appear to be no individuals or families that own a large number of perahu. Most perahu owners own just one perahu; there are only a few cases of individuals who own more than one perahu. A significant number of these owners have Rotenese names rather than Butonese, Bajo or other distinguishable names. This reflects the interrelation and intermarriage among the population of Oelaba.

The Ashmore Database lists records on 265 perahu that have visited Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) from 1988 to 1999. Many of these records concern perahu that have made multiple visits to the reef. Thus,

37 It should be noted, however, that Oelua was designated by local authorities as a recipient of additional development funding under the Indonesian government’s ‘Marginal Village Development Scheme’ (IDT = Instruksi Desa Tertinggal).

41 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

for example, one perahu made 10 voyages between 1988 and 1992; another made 8 voyages between 1987 and 1990; a third perahu made 7 voyages between 1991 and 1998 and a fourth 7 voyages between 1991 and 1998. The pattern of voyaging shows interruptions to regular annual trips to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore), which may well reflect the use of particular perahu for alternative trading voyages in some years. Some perahu are listed as sailing from Oelaba in some years and from Pepela in others. The Database also indicates some ‘borrowing’ or ‘transfer’ of perahu between owners, possibly along family lines.

Whereas the list of owners on the Ashmore Database for Pepela is dominated by the names of individuals who orginated from other islands, the Database for Oelaba includes a significant number of prominent Rotinese family or clan names. Several family members may in fact own one perahu among themselves or together with members of other families.

In Oelaba, as in Pepela, perahu owners in general and the wealthier of these owners in particular are involved in the trade in marine products, but their trade is not confined to marine productions. Indeed a greater proportion of their income now comes from inter-island trade in other products, such as lontar syrup. In Oelaba, a small group of owner/traders has not come to prominence and there appears to be far less dependence on dominant patrons than in Pepela. It should be noted, however, that Haji D is increasing his operations in Oelaba with the help of the main Chinese merchant in Ba’a who trades in marine products.

5. Raas, Madura District38

Madura, located east of Java, comprises four districts (see Map 3). From west to east these are: Bangkalan, Sampang, Pamekasan, and Sumenep. The first three districts are on the Madura mainland. Sumenep district, known as the Small Island District, has 76 small islands, 26 of which are inhabited. The District consists of 17 sub-districts, 9 in the mainland and 8 in the small islands. The eight sub-districts in the archipelago part are Giligeting, Talango, Nonggunong, Gayam, Raas, Arjasa, Sapekan, and Masalembo. Fishers from Raas sub-districts fish in Australian waters.

There are seven small islands in the Raas sub-district: Raas, Sarok, Tonduk, Talango, Aeng, Tengah, Guwa-Guwa and Komirian. The biggest island is Raas, whose main town Ketupat is the administrative and commercial centre of the sub-district.

5.1.1. Population

In 2000, the population of Raas sub-district was 33,927 persons, and the number of households was 9,803, giving an average household size of 3.5 persons. Population has remained relatively stable in the area with limited permanent migration into or out of the sub-district for the last 6 years as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Population in Raas sub-district 1996 –2000

Year

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number

33786

33792

33898

33915

33927

38 This section is based on the research undertaken by Dr Victor Nikijulow, Director, Directorate of Capital and Investment Systems , Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia

42 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

5.1.2. Education and employment

Whilst there are 40 elementary schools and one junior high school, the nearest senior high school is in Sumenep, on the main island of Madura. According to interviews carried out, very few students go to senior high school, as having a junior high school certificate is sufficient to work in local government institutions or in business and trade.

Map 3 Map of Madura and Raas

Employment figures for 2000 show that fishing, followed by cultivation of food crops are the main economic activities (see Table 4). Fishing includes all activities related to capture fisheries but not aquaculture, as there are, as yet, no aquaculture activities in the sub-district. As the majority of the land on the island is stony and rocky, cultivation of food crops is limited to narrow lowland areas. The main crops grown are corn, sweet potato, cassava and coconuts. Cows (sold to Surabaya and Sumenep), goats, sheep, chicken and ducks are raised. Many people carry out more than one activity (e.g. food crops and animal husbandry).

43 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Table 4 Employment by Sector in Raas, 2000

Occupation

Number of persons

%

Fisheries

9,857

29%

Food Crops

7,849

23%

Animal husbandry

5,325

16%

Trade

3,497

10%

Industry

2,266

7%

Construction

1,400

4%

Transportation

995

3%

Mining

608

2%

Government officials and army

258

<1%

Plantation Crops

287

<1%

Service

321

<1%

Others

1,522

<5%

Total

34,185

5.1.3. Housing

There are two types of housing in Raas sub-district. The majority of houses are small, simple houses made from palm leaves and bamboo with a crushed coral floor and no water or electricity. Fishers who crew on vessels which fish in the MOU Box live in this type of house. There is also a permanent housing complex comprised of large permanent dwellings with water and electricity. These are mainly owned by fish traders and boat owners as well as government officials whose wives are fish traders.

5.1.4. Fishing activities

Table 5 shows the number of fishers in Raas sub district. In 2000, there were a recorded 2,257 fishers, of which 267 (12%) were migratory or mobile fishers (nelayan andong), of which half live on Brakas and Tonduk. Only nelayan andong from these villages said they fished in Australian waters i.e. 136 people. With a median crew size of 12 (Ashmore database), this would mean approximately 10 vessels fish in Australian waters. This tallies with the data collected in 2001 for Raas which identified 10 vessels fishing in the MOU Box.

Vessels (and the name of their owner) that currently fish in the MOU Box are shown in Table 6. Eight of the 10 boats were from Brakas village, while the other two were from Tonduk. People whom usually have a kinship relationship with the owners skippered the vessels. Crews in one boat tend to come from the same village and may be related. Cross checking this ownership information with the Ashmore and AFMA databases shows that the stated owners are occasionally different to information collected in Raas (see Table 6). However, vessels may have changed hands since the time they were recorded on the database or different names were used. Also, a few vessels have moved homeport from Surabaya to Madura.

44 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Table 5. The Number of Fishers in Raas Sub-district. 2000

Village

Fishers

Frequency of fishing

Total

Owner

Crew

Full

time

Part

time major

Part

time minor

Andong

Ketupat

99

101

126

36

14

24

200

Jungkat

23

22

28

8

4

5

45

Keropoh

106

107

134

38

15

26

213

Karang Nangkah

90

89

113

32

13

21

179

Poteran

52

51

65

18

8

12

103

Alas Malang

37

51

55

16

6

11

88

Brakas

324

360

419

119

67

79

684

Tonduk

239

238

301

85

34

57

477

Guwa-guwa

134

134

169

48

19

32

268

Total

1,104

1,153

1,410

400

161

267

2,257

According to interviews carried out in Raas, most of the boat owners are second and third generation fishers. They started out as crew members and then inherited vessel(s) when they got married.

Table 6. Name of Owners and Boats Entering Australian Waters in 2001

Village

Vessel

Name

Crew Size

Ashmore/AFMA database notes

Brakas

Rukun Desa

12

Recorded in Sept. 1996, 98 and 99. Different owner.

Bunga Indah

13

From Buton in 1986 –maybe sold? Recorded in 9/99 owned by someoneelse. AFMA apprehended type 3 on 12/90 from Kadatua and type 2 in 9/98(origin n/s) and destroyed both.

Nusantara

11

Recorded in 3/97, owned by Pak Muhri.

Irian

13

Possibly Irian Jaya, recorded in 9/98. Owned by different owner.

Bunga Tanjung

13

Recorded in 3/86 and 8/90 and had a different owner Apprehended byAFMA in 6/93 as a Type 3 vessel from Bau Bau with another owner statedVessel was destroyed by AFMA.

Dinar

12

Came in 1996. Same owner. Same owner recorded but from Surabaya in1986.

Karya

10

Possibly Karyu Utama recorded in 9/99.

Indah

10

Possibly the same as Sinar Indah recorded in 3/90 with bad information onowner etc

Tonduk

Sinar

9

No record.

Sumber

11

Possibly Sumber Jaya with a different owner and recorded in 9/97 9/98(twice).

There are an estimated 60 sailing boats in Raas, which include vessels that may have an auxiliary engine (Table 7). The majority of Raas fishers fish in local waters. Fishers that fish offshore use the golekan boat (Type 1) as shown in Figure 4. These are sail and engine powered vessels that travel to the MOU Box to fish for trepang and trochus39.

39 Not all engine-powered boats are golekan vessels.

45 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Table 7 Vessels in Raas by Village

Village

Sail

Engine

Total

Ketupat

5

47

52

Jungkat

1

11

12

Keropoh

6

49

55

Karang Nangka

5

42

47

Alas Malang

3

24

27

Poteran

2

21

23

Brakas

18

154

172

Tonduk

13

111

124

Guwa-guwa

7

63

70

TOTAL

60

522

582

Figure 4 Golekan vessel from Raas

5.1.5. Travel to the MOU Box

Trips to the MOU Box are made twice a year. Frequency depends on weather conditions rather than resource availability and fishing season. The first trip starts in March and ends in June. The second trip begins in August and lasts until November. Fishers leave in a fleet of several boats because they cover long distances and can assist each other if any vessel runs into trouble. The time between the two trips is spent preparing for the next trip, repairing the gear and vessels and fishing in other waters.

The trip from Raas to Rote Island usually takes 20 days, and then it takes a further 6 days to reach the MOU Box. Approximately 60 days are spent in the MOU Box. This means that half the trip is spent getting to and from the MOU Box, and the remainder spent fishing. The travel times of nelayan andong fishers from Madura, including to the MOU Box is shown in Figure 5.

The stopover in Rote is done to provision boats with food and fresh water and sometimes to find possible buyers of their trepang catch. If prices are agreed, these fishers will remain in Rote on their return in order to sell their catch. Usually, trepang is sold in Rote and trochus sold in Raas.

46 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

However, the most important reason for the Rote stopover is to remove the engine from the vessel before sailing to the MOU Box. According to the fishers, this practice was started in 1995 as a strategy to avoid possible detention by the Australian authorities.

RaasMOUBOX(60 days) Rote3 days20 days6 daysSumatra60 daysMollucas30 daysKalimantan60 daysPapua30 daysGoingReturning30 days20 days10 days

Figure 5 Trip times of Madurese andong fishers

All fishers interviewed in Raas for this study said that they knew that the MOU Box was in Australian waters and that they made a conscious decision to fish there, just as their elders and ancestors had done so. They felt they had no alternative but to fish there, as resources in other areas were no longer available. Some fishers also said that if the resources were not utilised by Australians then they thought it was not wrong to fish it. When asked what they would do if access to the Box was closed, they replied that they would look elsewhere in both the short and long term. If trepang or trochus resources were depleted in the Box, they replied that they would catch other species (short term and long term) or stop being fishers (long term).

Fishers call the reefs and the waters around Ashmore as Karang Ashmore. Almost all fishers are able to draw a map of the reefs, and plan exactly how long it will take from Madura to get there/ the MOU Box. The AFMA map informing fishers of the MOU Box and the AFZ is used by fishers to help navigate.

5.1.6. Estimated Income from Fishing in the MOU Box

Income generated from fishing activities in the MOU Box has been estimated in Table 8, based on interviews with fishers in Raas.

According to the share system in Madura, all crew members, boat and engine owners receive the same share. Generally the same person owns the boat and engine. The owner also has the first right to purchase the catch (trochus) at market prices. As mentioned earlier, trepang is usually sold in Rote. Trochus is used by owners to make handicrafts and ornaments or sold to big traders in Surabaya or Sumenep. Securing the supply of trochus is obviously an important element to a vessel owner’s return on his investment.

The current price of a vessel is reported to be about Rp 45,000,000 (= AUD $ 9000). Compared to other types of fishing boats, the cost is quite high as the vessel is made from teak that has to be brought from other areas of Indonesia. A new engine is about the same cost as a

47 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

vessel which explains why the engine owner, receives the same share of the catch as the boat owner.

Operational costs have been estimated to be Rp 25,000,000 (AU$ 5000) for oil, provisions, gear, canoes and other expenditures. Each fishing boat is also usually supplied with about Rp 6,000,000 ($ AU 1200) per trip to finance all other possible expenditures such as monies (legal and illegal) paid to officials met on the journey or during the stopover in Rote. All costs are paid by the vessel owner up front and deducted from revenues before any shares are paid out. If the vessel does not return (sinks, confiscated etc), the owner bears the losses. Based on these estimates, fishers can expect to earn between approximately AU$ $970 – $2080 per trip. Given that GDP per capita has been estimated to be US$ 730 (AU$ 1340) in 2001 (World Bank), these estimates may be rather high.

These estimates have been based on average prices of trochus and trepang currently paid to fishers40. Whilst the average price of trepang is about the same as that of trochus in Raas, trepang prices are slightly higher in Rote because the market is more competitive with a larger number of traders. Thus fishers prefer to sell their catches there. The Jakarta wholesale price of trepang ranges from 100% to 400% more than the price paid to fishers. Jakarta wholesale price of trochus was not available as trochus is a protected species and officially banned.

A comparison of the incomes earned from fishing in the MOU Box compared to incomes earned by fishers who fish near Raas suggests that MOU Box fishers earn between 60% - 240% more per month based on the average earnings of a local fisher of Rp 750,000 (AU$150). If the order of magnitude of these estimates is correct, there is a clear financial incentive for fishers to remain fishing in the MOU Box.

Table 8 Estimated Income/Trip AU$ ($1 = Rp 5000)

Maximum

Minimum

Crew size = 12

Trip length = 4 months

Catch (sea cucumber and trochus) (kg)

1,500

1,000

Average beach price

24

20

Gross revenue

36,000

20,000

Operational Costs

Oil

1,600

1,600

Provisions

1,200

1,200

Other expenditures

1,200

1,200

Total operational costs

5,000

5,000

Total Costs per trip

6,000

6,000

Net Revenue (Profit) ($)/trip

30,000

14,000

Income of boat owner (trip)

2,500

1,167

Income of engine owner (trip)

2,500

1,167

Income of all crew fishers (trip)

25,000

11,667

Income of each fisher (trip)

Monthly income of each fisher

2,083

521

972

243

40 However it is unclear whether these estimates include the much lower value trepang being fished in the MOU Box since the higher value trepang has been overexploited. If not, then incomes may be substantially lower.

48 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

5.1.7. Formal and informal credit

There is no formal bank or other credit provider in Raas. Fishers rely on the provision of informal credit from moneylenders who are usually middlemen or owners of fishing vessels. This creates a relationship of obligation and patronage and secures for the trader, a supply of product, usually at prices lower than market price. Once the relationship is established, it is difficult to break and tends to last forever. For fishers, borrowing money from moneylenders requires no collateral and there is usually no specified repayment schedule – repayments are made whenever fishers are able to do so. If the moneylenders are not middlemen, average interest is 5%/month or 60% per annum. Current bank interest rates are 18% p.a.

5.1.8. Institutional structures

There is a sub-district fisheries office in Raas which is manned by one clerk and an extension agent, who owns 3 fishing boats and one passenger boat which travels from Raas to Sumenep. The clerk reports to the head of the sub-district (camat) whilst the extension agent reports to the Sumenep Fisheries Office. The Economic Empowerment of Coastal Community Development Programme (described in Section 7.1) is managed by the Sumenep District Fisheries Service. An NGO was contracted to work for the EECC but since the project has ended, it is no longer involved. The management of the EECC is currently undertaken by fishers themselves through a micro credit/financial institution known as LEPP-M3.

6. Wakotobi, South east Sulewesi41

The Wakotibi Islands are made up of four main small islands Wangi-Wangi, Keladupa, Tomia and Binongko, with 4 sub-districts named after each of these islands. There are 64 villages. The islands were renowned for their smithing skills, making knives, spears, shovels, and other iron-made household utensils. However this profession is dying due to substitution with manufactured goods.

Historically, the other main economic activity was fishing with fishery products sold in Bau-Bau (the capital Buton District), Kendari (the capital of Southeast Sulawesi Province), Makasar, Ambon, and Surabaya.

Today, the main occupations are fishing, dry land or semi arid agriculture, trading, and cottage industries. However, due to low rainfall, agriculture is very limited to the cultivation of corn and the staple crop, cassava. The harvested area and production of cassava and corn are given in the Table 9.

There are about 565 families running home industries, mostly handicrafts and ornaments made of shells and corals. Most of the home industries are allocated in Binongko, the furthest and southernmost island. An economic survey conducted by the district statistical agency in 2000 indicated that more than 50% of the 21,164 households were under the national poverty threshold. They consisted of 6,102 poor and 5,792 very poor households. These poor households were generally dependent on fishing and farming.

There were more than 3,300 fishers in Wakatobi who were members of about 3,100 fishing households. Mainly traditional fishing is used such as hook and line, troll line, and traps.

41 This section is based on the research undertaken by Dr Victor Nikijulow, Director, Directorate of Capital and Investment Systems, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia

49 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Almost every household has these three fishing gears. Almost 98% of the boats were sail powered. There were only 25 inboard powered and 177 outboard powered-boats. The inboard powered-boats, however, were less than 30 GRT and only used to fish in the inshore waters. There were also about 2,786 dugouts, used for fishing and as a means of family transport.

Table 9 Statistics on Wakatobi Islands, South Sulawesi.

Wangi-Wangi

Kaledupa

Tomia

Binongko

Total

Number of isle

9

24

11

4

48

Inhabitant isle

2

3

3

1

9

Number of village

21

17

16

10

64

Developed village

5

2

3

0

10

Population (2000)

42,879

14,936

16,592

13,546

87,953

Land area (km2)

448

104

115

156

823

Pop. Density

96

144

144

87

Number of household

10,162

3,776

4,279

2,947

21,164

Poor household

3,409

1,180

789

724

6,102

Very poor household

2,526

784

999

1,483

5,792

Corn harvested area (ha)

49

312

527

67

955

Cassava harvested area (ha)

283

380

451

19

1,133

Corn production (ton)

80

506

751

89

1,426

Cassava production (ton)

3,416

4,806

5,807

226

14,255

Home industry

88

84

66

327

565

Fishers who fished in the MOU Box are no longer found in Wakatobi due to the lack of suitable vessels and the fact that there are no traders or middlemen who are ready to buy catches. District fishery officials report that fishers who used to fish in the MOU Box have converted their businesses to trade and transportation due to declining resources and the high risk of being detained by Australian authority.

Given that arable land is scarce, rainfall is limited, communication and transportation are poor, the only viable industries are marine-based, either fishing or tourism. Currently there is a foreign owned dive resort on Kaledupa (the island has an airstrip), which mainly attracts European tourists and can accommodate 22 tourists. This is regarded as a positive development but generates limited employment opportunities in Kaledupa.

7. Indonesian Government Alternative Livelihood Programmes42

7.1. Indonesian Government Economic Empowerment of Coastal Community Programme (EECC)

The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries is currently involved in a countrywide government-financed program known as the Economic Empowerment of Coastal Community Programme (EECC). This commenced in 2000. In that year, the program covered 26 districts

42 This section is based on the research undertaken by Dr Victor Nikijulow, Director, Directorate of Capital and Investment Systems, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia

50 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

in 7 provinces in Indonesia. Based on the evaluation of the 2000 results, it was then expanded to include 125 coastal districts in the whole (30) provinces of Indonesia. The program was widely evaluated by government and non-government institutions, by Jakarta and provincial governments, by the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent by international agencies. According to the Ministry, the results of these evaluations was positive and it was concluded that it had to be maintained and expanded to cover more districts. In 2002, the program is being conducted in 90 districts, with 37 new districts added. In total, this program has reached 153 districts.

The main objective of the EECC program is to improve the welfare of coastal communities through empowerment of human resources and the optimal and sustainable utilization of marine resources. Specifically, the objectives of the program are:

(1) To enhance well-being of the people through development of real economic activities, improving human resources, people participation, capital injection, and local institutional capacity building;

(2) To improve capacity of local people to manage marine resources, and

(3) To foster partnership between local people and large-scale private entrepreneurs.

The target beneficiaries of the program are (1) crew fishers, (2) fishers using non-powered boat, (3) fishers using powered boat with a maximum engine size of 15 hp, (4) small-scale fisher/ farmers, (5) small-scale fish processors, (6) small-scale fish traders, and (6) small-scale businessmen running activities that directly support the fishery business such as engine repairers and ice suppliers. Beneficiaries can develop their businesses by enlarging and up-scaling their existing activities or finding other profitable activities. Due to the overcrowding of fishers in inshore waters, most of the beneficiaries have chosen not to develop fishing activities and have focused on fish processing, marketing, and aquaculture.

However in the eastern areas of Indonesia, the potential for expansion of capture fisheries is considered to still exist by both fishers and government, such that most of the beneficiaries have chosen to increase fishing effort by buying bigger boats or more gear or motorising their existing vessels.

The total number of beneficiaries in the 2001 program was 23,649 families that are bound in 1,808 groups. In 2000, it was 5,842 families in 290 groups. Although this is a small proportion of the overall fishing population of Indonesia, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries consider the program to be a learning process from which other programs using district and provincial budgets can be developed.

7.2. The EECC in Madura/ Raas

As natural resources are limited in Raas, the scope for alternative livelihoods apart from marine-based activities is very limited. Many “non-fishery” activities are dependent on fishing, such as handicrafts and food vending. Therefore the opportunity cost of fishers tends to be very small.

Women are generally involved in handicrafts, small scale fish processing, fish marketing, and food street hawking. Women from households whose husbands fish in the MOU Box do

51 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

supplement incomes from fish processing and marketing but on a very small-scale. For example, wives of fishers can earn around Rp 3,000 (AU$0.60) per day. This is enough to supplement family income whilst her husband is away and if more money is required, it would be borrowed from the boat owner.

The implementation of the EECC program in Madura was undertaken in 2000 and 2001, covering 6 villages and 4 sub-districts (Table 10). The total number beneficiaries were 166 families. Reports by Sumenep Fisheries Service reveal that number of beneficiaries has increased with the establishment of a revolving fund.

The total amount of money allocated to the fund was Rp 767 million (AU $15,340) consisting of Rp 500 million in 2000 and Rp 267 million in 2001. In addition, there was Rp 250 million allocated in 2001 for developing a small processing plant to produce dried anchovies. Project participants supply the raw material to the plant which belongs to the project participant, but is operated and managed by the LEPP-M3. Profits generated by the plant are then used to provide credit to other fishers. The plant has exported dried anchovies three times to Japan by collaborating with an export company in Surabaya.

After the implementation of the EECC program in these 4 sub-districts, an international oil company located in the neighbouring sub-district of Sapekan developed a cold storage facility for the catch for the fishers in the district, especially fish landed by the EECC participants. The organisation and management of the facility is currently under discussion.

Tonduk Village is one of the EECC program sites. Fifty small-scale fishers (not migratory) are involved in the program which was granted Rp 250 million (AuU$5000). Although fish farming and other aquaculture were also considered as the alternatives, fishers eventually choose fishing (particularly of groupers) as their preferred activity. As there were insufficient funds to build new fishing boats, funds were used to motorise fishing vessels, replace and improve fishing gear. This enabled fishers to fish further offshore, in the waters of Sumenep and adjacent waters of Sumba and Lombok. A live fish collection boat owned by traders normally accompanies these vessels.

Table 10 Activities of the EECC Program in Sumenep District, Years 2000 and 2001

Village

Sub

District

Beneficiaries

(Household)

Activities

Fund

Allocated (Rp)

Tonduk

Raas

50

Grouper fishing, collecting, and trading

250 million

Pagerungan

Sapekan

50

Grouper fishing

250 million

Palasa

Tolango

38

Grouper fishing,

Fish farming

73.5 million

Gapurana

Talango

20

Anchovy fishing and

Processing

60 million

Ban Baru

Gili Genting

38

Anchovy fishing and

Processing

73.5 million

Ban Maleng

Gili Genting

20

Anchovy fishing and

Processing

60 million

52 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

7.2.1. Lessons Learned from the EECC in Raas and Buton

From the implementation of the EECC program and experiences in Raas and Buton the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries reports that the following lessons have been learned.

• Fishing still dominates in Raas and Buton. Attempts to provide alternative livelihoods are still limited in scope and scale.

• Attempts have been made to introduce fish farming and aquaculture, but this has been unsuccessful. Temporary holding of live groupers in cages may be a simple way to introduce aquaculture.

• Although fishers can form organizations and work in accordance with organization rules they need external assistance in order to reach a common understanding.

• Fishers are now becoming acquainted with simple bank procedures. This can be used to introduce formal bank procedures to the development of village-based economic activities

• As land-based resources are limited, alternative incomes are likely to be focused on marine resources. Apart from fishing, handicraft and ornament making can be considered as alternative income activities. Women currently involved in these activities are eager to improve their products. However as these handicrafts and ornaments are made of shells and corals, there is a need to find alternative and preferably artificial, substitutes. Although efforts have been initiated, they have not been widely accepted.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1. Changes in the Nature of Fishing in the MOU Box

Traditional fishing in the MOU Box, as it may have existed at the time of the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, has now been transformed. Change has occurred in two main areas: fishing patterns and vessel ownership.

Fishing patterns: Previously, traditional fishing was directed toward the gathering of trepang and trochus shell. Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island were central to these pursuits. Now, only perahu from Oelaba (Rote) and Madura/Raas, continue to sail to the MOU Box to gather trepang and trochus. These vessels constitute about 25 % of the total number of vessels which have visited Ashmore over the period 1986 – 1999.

Most Indonesian vessels visiting the MOU Box come from Papela and fish in the Box and/or use it as a base (and refuge) to access Australian waters where vessels are not allowed to fish. A number of factors –overexploitation of trochus and higher value trepang resources in the MOU Box area, high prices of shark fin since the early 1990s, and the increasing depletion of shark resources in Indonesia – has led to a switch from trochus and trepang gathering to shark fishing since the early 1990s. As better shark resources are

53 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

found just outside the MOU Box, the Box is used as a base (and refuge) to access Australian waters where vessels are not allowed to fish.

A large number of shark fishers are also entering Australian waters from ports such as Dobo, Saumlaki, Merauke, Tepa and various other locations in the Arafura Sea. Since they enter Australian waters from a different direction, they do not use the MOU Box as a base. Nevertheless, they constitute a separate but significant wave of fishers who are responding to the same conditions as those coming from Pepela. (A separate identifying study of this group based on present databases might be appropriate.)

Conditions in eastern Indonesia provide the backdrop to these changing fishing patterns. The exploitation of local marine resources, particularly through overfishing by larger commercial fishing operators, is putting greater pressure on small-scale fishers. Unsustainable pressures on resources and on the fishers who previously relied upon them make Australian waters appear particularly attractive. Despite the risks involved, the returns relative to other possible alternative livelihoods continue to support overall efforts.

Concentration of vessel ownership. Shark fishing requires a higher cost in outfitting vessels as long line gear is almost as expensive as the vessel itself. Also, voyages tend to be of shorter duration but occur more frequently. In addition, the risks of vessel apprehension in the AFZ (but outside the MOU Box) are greatly increased but so are the potential profits, if a voyage proves successful. The potential for higher profits comes with greater risks of apprehension, vessel and gear loss. Thus has led to the present situation in Pepela, where vessel ownership is now concentrated in the hands of a small group of trader/owners to whom a large number of fishers are bound by debt and patronage. These larger trader/owners are able to spread their risks over their entire fleets. As they have increased their fleets, often buying perahu from single owner/operators, they can also call on a larger pool of indebted labour from the crews of the perahu, which they have taken over.

8.2. Australian Fisheries Enforcement Policy

One clear effect of the Australian fisheries enforcement policy of destroying vessels has been to put pressure on individual and small-scale perahu owners whose capital is limited. Without sufficient capital to recover from the loss of their vessel and gear, these individuals and families have been forced into debt or out of fishing altogether. Although they have suffered losses, the larger owner/traders have effectively flourished under this policy and their control of fishing and the indebtedness of fishers has increased. They have been easily able to find second-hand vessels to replace destroyed vessels and pass on the entire risk of destroyed fishing gear, a substantial proportion of fixed costs, to the captains and crews of their vessels. This gear is expensive (approximately AU$3,000) such that confiscation by Australian authorities contributes to the indebtedness of fishers, without having much impact on boatowners and traders.

8.3. Data collection and monitoring

The current data collection system at Ashmore Reef has provided a great deal of valuable information. However, data input and analysis has been hampered by a lack of resources and

54 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

some valuable information has been lost/not used as a result. One persistent problem is the lack of consistency in the identification of places and persons. For personal names, this is not easily overcome but a checklist of likely home ports could be prepared as a guide for use.

Standardising identical data collected by EA at Ashmore Reef and by AFMA would improve baseline information on vessel ownership, home ports, target catches and names and origin of crew members. In addition, the ability to merge databases would enable both agencies to track the movements and providence of crew and vessels (such as vessel destruction by AFMA); information, monitor developments and orient policies.

In addition, there is a recognised need to collect additional information on catches For example, shark fin is not priced simply by weight but by size/quality of fin cut as well as by weight and trepang needs to be identified as to whether it is high or low value.

Finally, as all data is currently collected by Australian authorities, the possibility of ongoing data collection in collaboration with Indonesian authorities should be explored.

8.4. Possible Options for Consideration

Australia could reasonably argue that the nature of fishing has changed so substantially since the Memorandum of Understanding was agreed upon, that now is the appropriate time for full consideration of the issues underlying the Memorandum.

1) A reconsideration of issues would have particular pertinence in light of the recent publication and promulgation of the first management plan for Cartier Island Marine Reserve and the second management plan for Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve (Commonwealth of Australia, 2001).

2) Such reconsideration would also have relevance given the scientific evidence of severe and continuing depletion of marine resources in the MOU Box as reported by CSIRO43 and AIMS 44 and quoted in the EA Management Plans document45:

• Trepang species with high commercial value have been heavily over-exploited, and all species of trepang are found in very low densities, except for Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve where trepang are present but evidence of depletion is clear.

• Trochus stocks have been virtually exhausted on most reefs, except in Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve were trochus are present but evidence of depletion is clear.

• Low abundances and small sizes of sharks on the shallow reef-edges and shoals suggest that current fishing efforts may be seriously depleting the shark population.

43 Skewes et al (2001)

44 Smith et al (2000); Smith et al (2002)

45Commonwealth of Australia (2001) p. 28

55 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

3) Whether or not full reconsideration is given to the issues underlying the Memorandum, recognition should be given to the changes that have occurred since 1974 and 1989. These are:

• The reefs in the MOU Box are no longer capable of providing an adequate means of livelihood to those fishers who have previously gathered trepang and trochus. This has led to a switch from sedentary resource collection to shark fishing in both the MOU Box and the AFZ (using the MOU Box as a base and refuge.

• The attractions of shark fishing and the potential profits from this fishing remain high. Although there is insufficient information on the status of northern Australian shark populations, these populations are still fished less than those in eastern Indonesia. These relativities underlie the present situation. Moreover, the waters defined by the MOU Box are increasingly being used by fishers as a ‘transition area’ to better fishing grounds outside the MOU Box. These waters provide greater fishing opportunities and potentially greater profits.

• ‘Traditional fishers’ such as the Rotenese, the Bajau Laut, the Madurese and some Butonese, all of whom have historically drawn upon the resources of the MOU Box, now find themselves involved in a complex and highly competitive commercial system. It is therefore an illusion to imagine that either the Australian or the Indonesian government could somehow re-establish a traditional fishery as a solution to present problems.

• The plight of many poor fishers is tied up with the present system. Assistance to these fishers could provide a means of solving some of the problems of overexploitation of resources in the MOU Box. This requires the joint cooperation of both Indonesian and Australian authorities. Any such assistance would have to be differentiated, multi-focused and long-term.

8.5. Alternative income strategies

Any strategy for assistance must be multi-focused and must differentiate among the various fishers in eastern Indonesia. It must also be proportioned in relation to the problem itself. Strategies of assistance for fishers from Oelaba or Raas/Madura would need to be different from strategies for fishers in Pepela. Similarly, strategies for development among other coastal settlements within different networks of fishers would probably need to be different as well.

However, there are a number of generic pre-requisites for any successful alternative income strategy for fishers in Indonesia. These are as follows:

• The involvement of vessel owners and traders/middlemen. It is in the financial interest of vessel owners and traders/middlemen to continue their businesses (fishing; trading; credit provision) provided demand for

56 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

resources in the MOU Box or the AFZ remain high.46 This suggests that any perceived threat to their businesses may lead them to misrepresent, frustrate and undermine any attempts at alternative income strategies. Furthermore, as fishers currently fishing in the MOU Box are often in long term debt relationships with these key community members, they will be under considerable pressure to continue fishing for them. The involvement of traders and middlemen is therefore vital to ensure that traders ‘allow’ fishers to leave the fishery and repay their debts in a different way. This may require giving assistance to traders to develop alternative products and/or markets, which provide incomes greater or equal to those currently earned, or to actively engage traders in alternative income activities. The scale of this task particularly in places like Papela where the trading network is well established and far-reaching should not be underestimated.

• Incomes should be equal to, or exceed current incomes. Adoption of alternative incomes by fishers are more likely to be faster if incomes are equal to, or exceed, incomes currently earned from the trepang, trochus or shark fisheries.

• Alternative product/incomes for the handicraft industry should be included. Alternative supplies/substitutes of trochus and/or other income earning opportunities would need to be developed for those engaged in the handicraft industry using trochus shells.

• Markets should be identified. Uptake of alternative income activities is more likely to be quicker and more successful if markets and marketing channels are identified prior to the initiation of alternative income programs.

• Effective extension support. An institutional structure that enables effective support to be given to any alternative income-generating project is critical to more rapid and sustained adoption of an alternative income. For example, if the current fisheries extension officer in Raas is also involved in fishing and trading, he may have a conflict of interest with any alternative income development and extension programs. Alternative extension agents would have to be found.

8.5.1. Critical factors contributing to the success of the EECC.

Based on the experiences of the EECC, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries have identified 5 critical factors have been identified which contribute to the success of the program and are related to the process of introducing alternative income activities:

46 For example, in Raas, when owners/traders were asked what they would do in the short term if they were not allowed to enter the MOU Box or resources in the Box were depleted, they replied that they would do nothing, but in the longer term they would stop giving support to fishers. This implies that unless they consider that a reduction of fishing effort in the MOU Box is to continue in the long term (although more clarification is required as to what is understood by long term), they are unlikely to take any positive action to prevent fishing in the Box.

57 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

(1) Local people should objectively identify the target group and beneficiaries using participatory methods and reliable data and information.

(2) Agents of change should be recruited from local youth and work as mediators, catalysts and extension agents to help people to solve their problems.

(3) Local management consultants should be hired by the project to help people during the project and prepare them to run their businesses after the project ends.

(4) An advisory group at village level should be established which consists of formal and informal leaders that work voluntarily to help people during and after the project.

(5) Micro-financial institutions should be established at village, sub-district, or district level which are able to release project money to the beneficiaries, run a revolving fund, collect repayments, and redistribute the money to new beneficiaries in the same village. The body and structure of the institution should be flexible enough to account for different requirements in different places but needs to be totally owned by the project beneficiaries.

8.5.2. Rote: Pepela Network and Oelaba Network

Specific Considerations

A large number of local fishers with limited incomes and few alternative means of livelihood are caught up in the present system. (It is reasonable to assume these individuals comprise more than 3000 household heads.) They are the victims of current arrangements. Under these conditions, it is problematic to offer alternative livelihood possibilities and expect them to be immediately successful. Such possibilities are likely to be misrepresented, frustrated and undermined by those who have control over local fishers.

To this, it must be added, however, that fishers from Rote – both crew and owners – are aware that they involve themselves in ‘illegal’ activities when they sail beyond the MOU Box. Information on what they may or may not do has been repeatedly given to them and a large number of fishers have been warned and/or apprehended by Australian patrols. These fishers may not agree with the present situation and restrictions. Indeed there is considerable local sentiment that supports the notion that Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) ought to be regarded as an Indonesian territorial possession. Nevertheless, owners and crew are aware of the risks involved in what they are doing.

The fishers who still attempt to gather trepang and trochus are also painfully aware of the diminishing reef resources in the MOU Box. They are in effect the remnant part of a larger group of fishers for whom this awareness has led to the adoption of other pursuits. While a majority of this group has switched to shark fishing, others – particularly those in Oelaba – have switched to inter-island trading or have left fishing entirely.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the present system involves a diverse group of fishers. Pepela is a controlling node that draws on a wider network that extends to different

58 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

coastal settlements on Rote, on other islands in Nusa Tenggara Timur and further onward to South and Southwestern Sulawesi. Were alternative livelihoods to be found for all local fishers on Rote, it is conceivable that the present group of owners, or some future group, could call upon other poor fishers in its extended network to continue shark fishing activities. Bajau who participate in the Pepela network are potentially independent of this network and are not confined to only one or two localities.

Targeted Educational Assistance as an Investment in the Future

The best long-term solution for fishers on Rote (and elsewhere) is improvement in their levels of education. Fishing activities are notorious for drawing young boys away from schooling. As a consequence, the education of the male population of fishers on Rote is far lower than the rest of the local Rotenese population. Girls in these communities, however, often stay in school longer than their male counterparts. Their educational attainment is therefore generally higher.

Specially targeted educational assistance to fisher communities on Rote – enabling young boys in particular to stay in elementary school and perhaps even continue on to secondary school – would draw younger members of the labour force away from sailing and could open new vistas for the next generation in these communities.

Provision of Adequate Local Credit in Fishing Communities

Micro-finance is a key feature in virtually all Indonesian government efforts to alleviate poverty and to provide improved means of livelihood. A well-functioning, independently-operated cooperative or some form of savings and loan (simpan-pinjam) institution is needed to assist fishers in both the Pepela network and in the Oelaba network. The Indonesian Ministry for Marine Affairs and Fisheries’s scheme (described above) offers one possible mechanism. There is also a local NGO known as TLM, which has specialised in providing credit on Rote. A combination of both government and directed NGO-credit provision could be doubly beneficial.

Access to adequate and reliable credit could contribute to reducing the present indebtedness of local fishers; it could assist them (or more significantly, their wives) to adopt alternative livelihood strategies. It could also assist those fishers (particularly in the Oelaba network) to increase their capacity to carry on trade rather than struggle to maintain their fishing activities.

Marine-based Alternative Income Opportunities

Along the coast of Rote, the fastest growing marine-based activity is seaweed growing.47 Nowhere is this activity more prominent than in coastal villages in the vicinity of Pepela. Fishers on the tiny islet of Usu near Pepela, for example, have now withdrawn from participation as crew members on Pepela perahu to concentrate on seaweed growing. Were this marine activity to continue to increase, it would have a similar effect on other fishers in the Pepela network.

Seaweed from Rote is now sold through Kupang. A seaweed processing plant has recently been established in Kupang as part of this nascent industry. Seaweed cultivation could be the focus of Australian assistance. Assisting fishers and their wives with start-up costs to be able to take part in this activity; providing assistance in the transport of seaweed and even possibly

47 Villagers on the island of Savu were the first to take up this activity on a substantial scale but the relative isolation of that island and the costs of transport have now made Savunese villages less competitive than coastal villages closer to Kupang.

59 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

establishing a processing plant for seaweed in East Rote could be potential projects for Australian assistance.

Skills and experience gained in these activities could then be extended to other marine-based aquaculture technologies. The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries is committed to the development of a range of new aquaculture technologies. It would be useful to select a site in Pepela Bay for joint cooperative efforts. Sponge cultivation, for example, can yield a useful marketable product while at the same time can provide potential high value chemical extracts. Pepela Bay could become the locus for a wide-variety of aquaculture technologies.

Tourism

Pepela Bay is beautiful bay and could have considerable potential for marine-based eco-tourism. Nembrala, at the far western tip of Rote, has become a surfing site of some importance in Indonesia. Pepela, which has better transport access to Kupang, represents another site that could possibly be developed for activities such as diving and sailing. Similar sites are now being developed in areas of much poorer access, such as Kaledupa in the Tukang Besi Islands. Pepela could possibly be added to the network of Indonesia’s marine-based tourist attractions.

Potential Sites

To be effective, any Australian assistance should be closely coordinated with both local and national programs. This year Rote has been elevated to the status of an independent Kabupaten. This should facilitate the coordination of island-wide project development. Any such assistance should be targeted and adapted to the different conditions within the Pepela network and in the Oelaba network. Assistance in the provision of credit access may have the greatest and most immediate impact within the Oelaba network whereas a more varied aquaculture-oriented set of projects could, over a period of years, have a considerable effect on the Pepela network.

8.5.3. Raas/Madura

Target group

The number of migratory fishers from Raas who fish in the MOU Box has been estimated to be just under 140 persons (see section 5.1.6). In addition there are a further 130 migratory fishers who currently do not fish in the MOU Box but are fishers who could potentially fish in the Box if their current fishing grounds become depleted. Assuming up to two fishers come from the same household, this represents between 70 and 135 households for whom alternative incomes would have to be found if fishing effort in the MOU Box is to be limited or prohibited. In all probability the number of households might be less, as it is likely that there may be a significant proportion of households with more than two migratory fishers.

Another possible target group could be fishers in the EECC program who have upgraded their vessels. These developments may increase the number of migratory fishers in Raas if local fishing grounds become depleted. However, in the short term, the probability of this occurring is quite low as this would require depletion of all local fishing grounds, as well as a major lifestyle change for fishers and access to greater amounts of working capital to enable longer journeys to be made.

60 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Marine-based Alternative Income Opportunities

As previously mentioned, there appear to be limited land based alternative income opportunities for fishers from Raas. This section briefly explores marine-based alternatives for MOU Box fishers.

Fishing

There are already increases in fishing effort in areas adjacent to Raas through the EECC program (see section 7.2). Eventually, this is likely to create pressure on resources and create a longer term overfishing problem. Encouraging MOU Box fishers to fish waters closer to home is therefore unlikely to be a viable long term option. Equally, “redirecting” fishing effort away from the MOU Box to other fishing grounds fished by migratory fishers will merely transfer fishing effort elsewhere until those resources become overfished.

As there appears to be a clearly identifiable and limited number of Raas fishers who have historically fished in the MOU Box, it may be possible to allow continued and limited access to the MOU Box for this group of fishers.

Aquaculture

When fishers were asked what they would do if resources were depleted in Indonesia, they responded that in both the short and long term they would start working as fish farmers. Marine aquaculture for high value finfish or seaweed may therefore be another possible alternative income opportunity. Seaweed farming and pearl farming (with support from a Japanese company) is currently being carried out in Sapekan sub-district, part of Sumenep District. Sapekan has a comparative advantage over Raas sub-district because it is the business and trading centre for Sumenep district. The keeping of live (caught) groupers in cages may also be another alternative as it develops fish husbandry skills and can lead on to aquaculture enterprises. Whether aquaculture is an activity that can be pursued by fishers used to carrying out migratory fishing would need further investigation as it requires a considerable change of lifestyle which may not be acceptable to some. In addition, some activities may be considered to be “women’s work”, such as seaweed farming, and may not be acceptable. This perception often changes when incomes from the activity exceed those earned from fishing/ or by the men of the household. However, given that fishers involved in the EECC and more generally have already discussed aquaculture, and the fact that there is so little land based options, aquaculture may be the most feasible alternative economic activity.

Tourism

The potential to develop tourism in Raas sub-district would require further investigation, especially given the poor transport infrastructure to the islands. In the short term however, this is unlikely to generate incomes for the estimated number of target households as the experience in Wakatobi has shown.

Possible Sites

Although Rote would be an obvious choice of pilot site as the majority of fishers in the AFZ come from there, Raas offers the opportunity to develop marine aquaculture on a more manageable scale as there are a smaller number of fishers and relatively less complex socio-economic conditions. Furthermore, as Raas fishers target trepang and trochus, rather than shark, a pilot project may have greater impact in reducing effort in the MOU Box on those species.

61 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

8.5.4. Other coastal settlements

The Bajau Laut are in a special category and require special consideration. Assistance to fishers on Rote is unlikely to benefit the Bajau, even in Pepela. Their presence in Pepela is regarded as transient. Their links are to other Bajau communities, the closet and largest of which is Sulamu on the Bay of Kupang. The most important of these links is still to settlements in the Tukang Besi Islands. What may be needed is a strategy that would assist these scattered communities throughout eastern Indonesia. Development of such a strategy is beyond the scope of this report as it would require detailed needs assessment of these scattered communities.

62 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Badan Pusat Statistik, Kupang (2000) Rote Timor Dalam Angka 2000.

Campbell. B.C. and B.V.E. Wilson (1993). The Politics of Exclusion: Indonesian Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone. Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies Mongraph No.5, Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies, Perth, W.A.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve Management Plans. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1988) The Control of Indonesian Traditional Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone off Northwest Australia. Canberra.

Dick, H. W. (1987) The Indonesian Interisland Shipping Industry: An Analysis of Competition and Regulation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Earl, G. W. (1846) Enterprise, Discoveries and Adventures in Australia.London.

Flinders, M. (1814) A Voyage to Terra Australis...in the Years 1801, 1802, and 1803.

London.

Fox, J. J. (1977a) 'Notes on the southern voyages and settlements of the Sama-Bajau' in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 133:459-65.

Fox, J.J. (1977b) Harvest of the Palm: Ecological Change in Eastern Indonesia.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fox, J. J. (1992) 'Report on Eastern Indonesian Fishermen in Darwin' in Illegal Entry, pp.13-24. Occasional Paper Series No.1. Darwin: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University.

Fox, J. J. (1995) ‘Foreword’ to Southon, Michael ‘s The Navel of the Perahu: Meaning and Values in the Maritime Trading Economy of a Butonese Village. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.

Fox, J.J. (1996) 'Fishing Resources and Marine Tenure: The Problems of Eastern Indonesian Fishermen' in Barlow, C. and Hardjono, J. (eds), Indonesia Assessment 1995 Update, pp.163-174. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies & Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Fox, J. J. (1998) 'Shoals and Reefs in Australia-Indonesia Relations: Traditional Indonesian Fishermen' in Milner, A. and Quilty, M. (eds), Australia in Asia: Episodes, pp.111-139. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) & Pusat Studi Pendudukan, Universitas Nusa Cendana, Kupang (1996-1998). Laporan Penelitian, Program Rehabilitasi dan Pengelolaan Terumbu Karang (Coremap), Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Buku Dasar: 2 Vols. Jakarta.

63 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Macknight, C. C. (1976) The Voyage to Marege': Macassan trepangers in northern Australia. Melbourne University Press.

Natural Heritage Trust/Environment Australia (2002) Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve: Management Plans.

Pallensen, A. Kemp (1985) Culture Contact and Language Convergence.Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Russell, Barry C. and Vail, Lyle L. (1988) Report on Traditional Indonesian Fishing Activities at Ashmore Reef Nature Reserve. Darwin: Unpublished Typescript.

Skewes, Tim (2001) Stock Estimates and Stock Status of the Shallow Reef (0-15 M Deep) and Shoal Area (15-50 M Deep) Marine Resources within the MOU74 Box.

Cleveland, Australia: CSIRO Marine Research. [CD-R: Timor MOU74 Box Survey, 1998: Reports, images and summaries.]

Smith, L., M. Rees, A Heyward and J. Cloquhoun (2000), Survey 2000: Beche-de-mer and trochus populations at Ashmore Reef. AIMS. A report to Environment Australia.

Smith, L., M. Rees, A Heyward and J. Cloquhoun (2002), Stocks of trochus and beche-de-mer at Cartier Reef: 2001 Surveys. AIMS. A report to Environment Australia.

Southon, Michael (1995) The Navel of the Perahu: Meaning and Values in the

Maritime Trading Economy of a Butonese Village. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.

Stacey. N.E.T. (1999). Boats to Burn” Bajo Fishing Activity in the Australian Fishing Zone. (unpublished). Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology, Northern Territory University. Internet.

Prof. Dr.James J. Fox (Sumber :Internet).

A STUDY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL

INDONESIAN FISHERS WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

A Report for Environment Australia

James J. Fox

Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies

The Australian National University

(jjf400@coombs.anu.edu.au)

and

Sevaly Sen

FERM

sevalysen@attglobal.net

October 2002

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING TRADITIONAL INDONESIAN FISHERS

WHO ACCESS THE MOU BOX

Appendix C: Agreed Minutes of Meeting Between Officials of

Australia and Indonesia on Fisheries (29 April 1989)

1. In accordance with the agreement reached by Mr. Ali Alatas, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia and Senator Gareth Evans, the Foreign Minister of Australia in Canberra on 2 March, 1989, Officials from Indonesia and Australia met in Jakarta on 28 and 29 April 1989 to discuss activities of Indonesian fishing vessels under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia regarding the operation of Indonesian traditional fishermen in an Area of the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf, concluded in Jakarta on 7 November 1974. They also discussed activities of Indonesian fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone off the coast of North West Australia and in the Arafura Sea, and fishing in the waters between Christmas Island and Java.

Memorandum of Understanding of 1974

2. Officials reviewed the operation of the MOU. Both sides stressed their desire to address the issues in a spirit of cooperation and good neighbourliness. They noted that there had been a number of developments since 1974 which had affected the MOU. In 1974 Australia and Indonesia exercised jurisdiction over fisheries on 12 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines. In 1979 and 1980, Australia and Indonesia respectively extended their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines, and in 1981 a provisional fishing line was agreed. Since the areas referred to in the MOU are south of this line, new arrangements are necessary for the access by Indonesian traditional fishermen to these areas under the MOU.

3. The Australian side informed the Indonesian side that there were also changes in the status of Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islet as a separate territory of the Commonwealth of Australia and the establishment of the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. The Australian side further informed that there had been a considerable increase in the number of Indonesian fishermen visiting the Australian Fishing Zone and a depletion of fishery stocks around the Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), that wells on Middle Islet and East Islet where Indonesian traditional fishermen were permitted under the MOU to land for taking fresh water had been contaminated; that Australia had also incurred international obligations to protect wildlife, including that in the territory of Pulau Pair (Ashmore and Cartier Islands). The Indonesian side took note of this information.

4. Since the conclusion of the MOU, both Indonesia and Australia had become parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

5. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the implications of the developments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. They affirmed the continued operation of the MOU for Indonesian traditional fishermen operating by traditional methods and using traditional fishing vessels. An Australian proposal that Indonesian traditional fishermen could conduct fishing not only in the areas adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet as designated in the MOU, but in a wider ‘box’ area in the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf was welcomed by the Indonesian side. A sketch map and coordinates of this ‘box’ area appears in Annex 1 of this Agreed Minutes.

6. In view of the developments that had occurred since 1974 as highlighted above, Officials considered that to improve the implementation of the MOU, practical guidelines for implementing the MOU as appears in the Annex of these Agreed Minutes were considered necessary.

7. The Indonesian side informed the Australian side on measures that had been and were being taken by the Indonesian authorities to prevent breaches of the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to assist in preventing breaches of the MOU and to take necessary steps to inform Indonesian fishermen of the practical guidelines annexed to this Agreed Minutes.

8. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in developing alternative income projects in Eastern Indonesia for traditional fishermen traditionally engaged in fishing under the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides mutually decided to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

North West Coast of Australia

9. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed matters related to the activities of Indonesian fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone off the coast of North West Australia. They noted that those activities were outside the scope of the MOU and that Australia would take appropriate enforcement action. The Australian side indicated the legal and economic implications of such activities.

10. The Indonesian and Australian Officials felt the need for a long-term solution to the problem. To this end, they agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in projects to provide income alternatives in Eastern Indonesia for Indonesian fishermen engaged in fishing off the coast of North West Australia. The Indonesian side indicated that they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides decided mutually to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

Arafura Sea

11. Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the activities of Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels in the Arafura Sea on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line of 1981. Officials agreed that both Governments should take effective measures, including enforcement measures, to prevent Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels from fishing on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line without the authorisation of the Australian authorities.

12. Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in exchange of information on shared stocks in the Arafura Sea for the purpose of effective management and conservation of the stocks.

Fishing in waters between Christmas Island and Java and other waters

13. The Officials of Indonesia and Australia noted that fisheries delimitation in waters between Christmas Island and Java and in the west of the provisional fishing line remained to be negotiated and agreed. Pending such an agreement, the Officials noted that both Governments would endeavour to avoid incidents in the area of overlapping jurisdictional claims.

Wildlife Cooperation

14. The Indonesian and Australian Officials considered the mutual advantages of the exchange of information on wildlife species populations believed to be common to both countries. It was agreed that each country’s nature conservation authorities would exchange information on such wildlife populations and management programs and cooperation in the management of wildlife protected areas. In the first instance Indonesian authorities would be consulted on the management plan for the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.

Consultations

15. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to hold consultations as and when necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the MOU and agreed minutes.

Annex I: Co-ordinates of MOU Area (‘The Box’)

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/1989-map.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Annex II: Practical Guidelines for Implementing the 1974 MOU

1. Access to the MOU area would continue to be limited to Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines.

2. The Indonesian traditional fishermen would continue to conduct traditional activities under the MOU in the area of the Australian Fishing Zone and the continental shelf adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet. In addition, Indonesian traditional fishermen would be able to conduct traditional fishing activities in an expanded area as described in the sketch map and coordinates attached to Annex 1 of the Agreed Minutes.

3. To cope with the depletion of certain stocks of fish and sedentary species in the Ashmore Reef area, the Australian Government had prohibited all fishing activities in the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, but was expected soon to adopt a management plan for the Reserve which might allow some subsistence fishing by the Indonesian traditional fishermen. The Australian side indicated that Indonesia would be consulted on the draft plan. Because of the low level of stock, the taking of sedentary species particularly Trochus nilotocus in the Reserve would be prohibited at this stage to allow stocks to recover. The possibility of renewed Indonesian traditional fishing of the species would be considered in future reviews of the management plan.

4. As both Australia and Indonesia are parties to CITES, Officials agreed that any taking of protected wildlife including turtles and clams would continue to be prohibited in accordance with CITES.

5. Indonesian traditional fishermen would be permitted to land on West Islet for the purpose of obtaining supplies of fresh water. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to discourage Indonesian traditional fishermen from landings on East and Middle Islets because of the lack of fresh water on the two islets.

Crossing Borders: Implications of the Memorandum of Understanding on Bajo fishing activity in northern Australian waters

N. Stacey

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

Report for Environment Australia, 2001

PDF file

 HYPERLINK "http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/bajo.pdf"

Crossing Borders: Implications of the Memorandum of Understanding on Bajo fishing activity in northern Australian waters (PDF - 148 KB)

About this document

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Australia and Indonesia was a goodwill attempt to recognise the long-standing interests of Indonesian fishermen in the northern Australian region. Bajo originating from the villages of Mola and Mantigola in the Tukang Besi Islands, Southeast Sulawesi, are one group of fishermen who have a historic interest in the region and currently operate in and around the MOU area. This paper examines the effectiveness of the MOU in providing for recognition of indigenous Bajo fishing rights, sustainable marine resource conservation and management, and in curbing illegal Bajo fishing activity in the Australian Fishing Zone. An analysis of the key concept of "traditional" fishing encapsulated in the 1974 MOU shows it to be problematic with direct and far reaching consequences for Bajo fishermen. It is argued that until the problems of the MOU are addressed, by way of new arrangements incorporating a more culturally informed inclusive approach with respect to traditional Indonesian fishermen, other Australian policy responses to address illegal activity and marine resource conservation in the AFZ will be undermined.

Understanding the Cultural, Natural Heritage Values & Management Challenges of the Ashmore Region

Abstracts, 4 - 6 April 2001

Convenor: Dr Barry Russell. Sponsored by Environment Australia, Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and the Australian Marine Sciences Association NT Branch

PDF file

 HYPERLINK "http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/ashmore-abstracts.pdf"

Understanding the Cultural, Natural Heritage Values & Management Challenges of the Ashmore Region (PDF - 506 KB)

About the document

The symposium/workshop gave all interested researchers the vehicle to present information already gathered to date and to gain insights to the directions and efforts of others interested in this dynamic tropical region. Contributions sought aims to review the current state of knowledge of the region, including geology and geomorphology, climate and oceanography, biogeography, marine and terrestrial flora and fauna, prehistory, history and archaeology, traditional fishing, fishery resources, and conservation and management issues. The abstracts are from the workshop.Internet.

New Bilateral Arrangements with Indonesia

Chapter 5. Australian Maritime Expansion

New Bilateral Arrangements with Indonesia

In 1958 and 1960, the First and Second United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I and II) established international standards for the delimitation of national fishing zones and territorial seas. In the following decade many countries unilaterally extended their territorial waters and extended their fishing zones from 3 nm to 12 nm. Indonesia claimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1960 (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 116), and Australia followed suit in 1968.

Although the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) was reserved ‘for the exclusive use of fishermen and vessels licensed under Australian Law’, the Australian government decided that traditional Indonesian fishing practices in waters now claimed by Australia could continue provided that:

The operations were confined to a subsistence level, and the operations were carried out in the Declared Fishing Zone and territorial sea adjacent to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Seringapatam Reef, Scott Reef, Adele Island and Browse Island (DFAT 1988: 1).

This was the ‘first time since the turn of the century that Australian policy had been exclusively directed at Indonesian fishermen’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 116–7). Nothing was said as to how it was to be legally enforced, nor was it made clear how the Indonesian Government and the fishermen themselves were to be informed of the arrangement. The official view that Indonesians engaged in subsistence, rather than artisanal, fishing appears to have influenced this decision, and this view still formed the basis of misguided policy responses towards Indonesian fishing in the following years.

There was no regular air or sea surveillance of the northwest Australian coast before 1974, but in that year the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) began to conduct monthly sea and air patrols. By July 1974 there were reports of large numbers of foreign boats operating off the coast of Western Australia, and as the year wore on, ‘more credible’ reports of Indonesian vessels targeting trochus shell in and around King Sound (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 38–9). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3467" \t "new"

] According to Campbell and Wilson, the Australian Government took this as evidence of ‘a dramatic rise in incursions’, and the ‘myth of emptiness’ was then replaced with what they call the ‘myth of invasion’. This in turn prompted a further increase in sea and air surveillance of the northwest coast. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3478" \t "new"

] After 1973, claims were also made that Indonesian fishermen had now begun to visit the coast of Australia in large numbers with the deliberate intent to engage in commercial fishing instead of just fishing for subsistence (ibid.: 39, 61).

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding

Prime Minister Whitlam met with President Suharto in Jakarta in September 1974, and officials of both governments met in November to ‘discuss the specific concerns of the two Governments about the activities of Indonesian fishermen in Australian waters’ (DFAT 1988: 1). The outcome was the signing, on 7 November 1974, of a ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf’ (see Appendix B). This MOU, which came into force on 28 February 1975, remains the foundation of current fisheries policy in the declared zone off the northwest coast of Australia. It declared that ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen’ would be allowed to collect and fish certain species within a 12 nm radius of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), Cartier Island, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Island (see Map 5-1). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3491" \t "new"

]

Map 5-1: Location of permitted areas of access for Indonesian fishermen in the Australian Fishing Zone under the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/map-5-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Traditional fishermen were defined in the MOU as ‘fishermen who have traditionally taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters by methods which have been the tradition over decades of time’ (author’s emphasis). Under the agreement, fishing was to be confined to offshore reefs and islands. Fishermen would be allowed to take shelter in anchorages at specified islands and reefs, but all landings would be prohibited with the exception of East Islet and Middle Islet at Ashmore Reef, where fishermen would be permitted to land for the purpose of collecting fresh water. The taking of sea turtles was forbidden. Sedentary species that were protected under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, such as trochus, trepang, abalone, green snail, sponges and all molluscs, could be taken only within 12 nm of the specified islands and reefs, and not from any other part of the continental shelf.

In February 1975 the Commonwealth Fisheries Act 1952 was amended to make foreign fishing within the 12 nm fishing zone an offence regardless of the purpose. However, the legislation allowed that, ‘as a gesture of friendship … Australia would refrain from enforcing its fishery laws against Indonesian fishermen who complied with the limitations set out in the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding’ (DFAT 1988: 2). Those who did not comply could be brought before the Australian courts and charged under the new amendments to Sections 13AA and 13AB concerning foreign fishing. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3527" \t "new"

]

Australian Enforcement of the MOU

With legislative powers now in place to deal with Indonesian fishermen operating outside the allowed areas, the Australian Government mounted a massive air and sea surveillance campaign officially named ‘Operation Trochus’. It was undertaken in two consecutive years as Trochus 75 and Trochus 76. From March 1975, the RAN conducted almost continuous sea patrols of the region, and there were fortnightly surveillance flights by RAAF aircraft as well (DFAT 1988: 12). These operations formed the ‘enforcement and education arm’ of the MOU (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 65). Operation Trochus officially ceased in June 1976, partly because some of the surveillance aircraft were destroyed by a fire at their base in Nowra (in New South Wales), and partly because the Darwin-based naval patrol boats were diverted to deal with the arrival of Vietnamese refugees after the fall of Saigon. However, because of ongoing infringements by Indonesian vessels collecting trochus within 12 nm of the Australian mainland, regular air and sea patrols continued after that date (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 68).

Indonesian fishermen found operating along the Kimberley coast were informed of the provisions of the MOU and were forced into the permitted areas to the north (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 65). Navy patrols encountering Indonesian perahu handed out leaflets and employed Indonesian interpreters to assist with the dissemination of information about the MOU. Indonesian officials, particularly the Governor of the Province of East Nusa Tenggara and the officers of the Provincial Fisheries Department (Dinas Perikanan), were also involved in this exercise. A sign was constructed on West Island, part of Ashmore Reef, with a map and text in Bahasa Indonesia outlining the MOU regulations (DFAT 1988: 2). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3547" \t "new"

]

Once the Fisheries Act had been amended, an inter-departmental committee planned to authorise the apprehension of some perahu to run a test case in the Australian courts. It was hoped that ‘the courts would order forfeiture of vessels owned by Indonesians offending against our Fisheries Laws’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 67). On 13 March 1975 three perahu were detained near Troughton Island about 16 km north of Cape Bougainville and inside the 12 nm limit. While under tow to Wyndham one perahu sank and so the skipper did not face charges (The Kalgoorlie Miner, 17 and 20 March 1975).

13 March 1975: HMAS ASSAIL encountered the perahu ‘KENAGAN LAMA’, Capt Mahmoud Malang denied fishing and said his boat had been damaged in a storm and was leaking badly. The ‘Assail’ took the vessel under tow seemingly against the advice of Mahmoud, and headed for Wyndham. During the tow the perahu took water and was cast off after a couple of days. It sank moments later (Bottrill 1993: 54). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3580" \t "new"

]

The other two skippers were charged under Section 13AA of the Fisheries Act which states that:

A person shall not, in the Australian fishing zone

(a) use a foreign boat for taking, catching or capturing fish for private purposes; or

(b) use a foreign boat for processing or carrying fish that have been taken, caught or captured for private purposes with the use of that boat or another boat.

Penalty: $5000.

Under this section of the Act, a captain can be charged even if the fish on board the vessel were caught outside the AFZ and the vessel is in transit through the AFZ or forced into the zone by adverse weather (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 66). In this case the captains claimed that ‘they had been travelling for more than a month in their tiny boats and had not intended to enter Australian waters but had been blown off course by westerly winds’ (The Kalgoorlie Miner, 20 March 1975). The captains were found guilty but Magistrate Ian Martin refused to order any punishment as he considered they had no option to argue their defence under the law. In his words:

the men were unlucky to have been blown off course, unlucky that they had no clear indication that they were in Australian waters and unlucky to be charged under a law worded as it was (ibid.).

In a statement written in March 1976, contained in an Australian Fishing Zone file held at the WA Fisheries Department, the failure of the cases is explained as follows:

Simply the problem is this then. Fisheries legislation can be effectively applied to keep and remove Indonesian fishermen from the Australian mainland areas, but if the same legislation is used in an attempt to persuade the courts that the fisheries offences are of such seriousness as to require forfeiture of the vessels involved, such a course may not be successful (quoted in Campbell and Wilson 1993: 67).

Officials from the WA Fisheries Department thought that the perahu were from Roti and were targeting trochus shell (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 174), but the magistrate observed that they had shark fin on board, and The Kalgoorlie Miner (17 and 20 March 1975) reported that they were from Kaledupa Island in the Tukang Besi Islands. Campbell and Wilson (1993: 68) agreed that these were ‘traditional shark fishermen’ from the Tukang Besi Islands. My own inquiries indicate that they were Bajo boats from Mantigola village on Kaledupa Island, and would have sailed to Pepela on their way to Ashmore Reef. Whether they were trochus or shark boats is debatable, and the fishermen may have been targeting both species. They certainly appear to be the first Bajo boats whose crews were brought before the Australian courts.

With the release of the two perahu, WA fisheries officers began to implement a policy of ‘local justice’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 68). Under the WA Fisheries Act they could legally board perahu operating outside the permitted areas — particularly those operating along the Kimberley coast and collecting trochus in the King Sound region — and confiscate fishing gear and catch. In some cases, gear and catch were thrown overboard. Crews were left with supplies, given warnings, and told to return to the permitted areas to the north. This program was cost effective and relatively successful, with the loss of equipment and catch providing sufficient punishment for the fishermen. But one of the outcomes of increased contact between Australian officials and diverse groups of Indonesian fishermen was a more ‘realistic assessment’ of the fishermen’s commercial motives, and this in turn was used to legitimate the policy of ‘local justice’ (ibid.: 70–1).

Nevertheless, in 1980 it was decided — on recommendations by fisheries and navy officers — that stronger policy and tougher penalties should be introduced to combat repeated illegal fishing activity along the northwest coast, and so the ‘local justice’ approach ceased. The first of the new measures was taken in July 1980 when two perahu were apprehended. The Sama Biasa was detained off Gregory Island and the Jangan Tanya Lagi was apprehended off Bedford Island in the Bucaneer Archipelago near King Sound. The crews had been collecting trochus shell and had attempted to hide from authorities in the mangroves along the Kimberley coast. The captains were charged and found guilty under Section 29A(2)(b) of the WA Fisheries Act. The boats and all equipment were forfeited and the captains and 31 crew members repatriated to Indonesia. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3645" \t "new"

] Both boats were owned by Pepelans and the crew had planned to sell their catch to a trader. The loss of the perahu and equipment, and the economic hardships suffered by the crew and their families, had ‘an immediate and lasting effect’ on the fishing patterns of the Pepela fleet that was now forced to concentrate its fishing effort in the areas set out in the MOU (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 72–3). It was to be another eight years before perahu from Pepela were again apprehended and confiscated.

Extension of the Australian Fishing Zone

In November 1979, along with many other countries, Australia unilaterally extended the limits of the AFZ from 12 nm to 200 nm from the coastline, and Indonesia followed suit in March 1980 by proclaiming an Exclusive Economic Zone with the same limits. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3667" \t "new"

] To deal with overlapping jurisdictions in the Timor Sea, the two governments signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding on a Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement’ on 29 October 1981, which came into effect on 1 February 1982. Under this arrangement, each country would refrain from surveillance and enforcement action against fishing boats licensed by the other state beyond a Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Line. It was also agreed that the arrangement would have no effect on the position of Indonesian traditional fishermen operating in accordance with the 1974 MOU. The provisional line would apply only to pelagic fisheries and jurisdiction over sedentary species in the region would be based primarily on the seabed boundary lines previously agreed in 1971 and 1972 (DFAT 1988: 20–25). The Australian Fisheries Service (AFS) would be responsible for enforcing the arrangement in the AFZ. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3675" \t "new"

]

The areas now placed off limits to Indonesian fishermen included Bajo shark fishing grounds that stretched along the Sahul Shelf in a line north of Broome across to the Arafura Sea. Moreover, the new arrangements meant that they could no longer legally fish while in transit between areas permitted under the 1974 MOU (Campbell 1991: 116). But their fishing activities continued despite regular surveillance patrols, and perahu were routinely boarded in both the permitted areas and in other parts of the AFZ. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3687" \t "new"

] In practice, Australian authorities tolerated Indonesian shark fishing activities within the areas newly added to the AFZ throughout the 1980s, and the confiscation of boats apprehended for illegal activities did not begin until 1990.

Pulau Pasir (The Ashmore Reef)  National Nature Reserve

Before 1978 the laws of the Northern Territory applied to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and the Cartier Islands. The Ashmore and Cartier Island Acceptance Amendment Act 1978 was passed shortly before the Northern Territory was granted self-government, and had the effect of making the islands a separate commonwealth territory under the control of the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. This was justified by the significance of the islands for Australian maritime jurisdiction (Burmester 1985) and the presence of major hydrocarbon resources in the area (Bergin 1989: 13).

In August 1983 the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve was declared under the Commonwealth’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to be managed by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS). This action was justified by reports that wildlife populations had been severely depleted by Indonesian fishermen acting in contravention of the 1974 MOU (ANPWS 1989: 13). Their activities were also thought to contravene Australia’s international obligations under bilateral agreements with Japan and China on the protection of migratory sea birds [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3708" \t "new"

] and as a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The nature reserve covers an area of 583 km2, encompassing the reef itself and surrounding waters to the 50 m bathometric (see Map 5-2). The reserve is recognised to have high nature conservation significance because of its rich and diverse marine life and a high degree of endemism due to its isolation. It is an important breeding ground for seabirds, a staging point for migratory bird populations, and a breeding and feeding habitat for endangered marine turtles (ANPWS 1989: 3).

Map 5-2: Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/map-5-2.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

With the declaration of the reserve, an increase in random air surveillance was instituted as part of the Civil Coastal Surveillance Program (‘Coastwatch’) operated by the Australian Customs Service, and regular patrols and inspections were undertaken by ANPWS and fisheries officers on navy ships or chartered boats. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3734" \t "new"

] In the ANPWS Annual Reports for the years 1983/84 and 1984/85 concerns were expressed about offences including damage to vegetation, unauthorised landings, the taking of seabirds and eggs, and the capture and killing of turtles (ANPWS 1985a, 1985b). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3742" \t "new"

]

In August 1985 a review of surveillance and law enforcement procedures at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) was undertaken, and the Minister for Territories announced that a significant budget increase would be granted to establish a seasonal surveillance program. In the 1985 pilot program, caretakers were based in a camp on West Island during the latter part of the fishing season with a remit to monitor Indonesian activity, warn fishermen of their responsibilities under the MOU, and prevent infringement of landing rights and the destruction of protected wildlife. For the 1986 fishing season, a chartered vessel was stationed at Ashmore Reef as a base camp for caretaking operations (ANPWS 1986: 23), while ANPWS wardens continued to operate with the assistance of RAN patrol boats, supported by additional aerial surveillance by Coastwatch, RAAF and RAN aircraft. It was at this time that comprehensive quantitative information on Indonesian voyaging and fishing activity around Ashmore Reef and other parts of the AFZ began to be collected.

In 1985/86, 85 violations of the 1974 MOU were reported and wardens searched 63 Indonesian vessels in order to ascertain the level of harvesting of marine products in the reserve. From estimated catches of trochus shell, reef fish, shark, trepang and clam meat, it was reported that although the ‘crews rely on the reserve for subsistence (apart from water and rice)’ the increase in the harvest of trepang recorded during the year ‘may be in response to the re-opening of the markets in China rather than subsistence demand in Indonesia’ (ANPWS 1986: 23–4). This statement is misleading because it implies that there was a local ‘subsistence’ demand for trepang, but is correct in assuming that the international market is driven by the demand for trepang in China. The statement illustrates the confused use of the term ‘subsistence’ and the lack of familiarity with the ‘chain of custody’ for certain marine products in Indonesia.

The ANPWS Annual Report for 1986/87 again reported on violations of the MOU by Indonesian fishermen and expressed concerns over the impact on bird populations. It was also stated, based on information from various patrols and surveillance of the reserve carried out that year, that the size and number of marine sedentary species was declining and that Indonesians were attempting to use ‘hookah’ gear (underwater breathing apparatus) to dive in the deeper waters of the reserve. The Northern Territory Museum was then commissioned to investigate the impact of Indonesian fishing activities on the reserve in order to provide the scientific evidence needed to justify a revision of the MOU (ANPWS 1987: 18).

The research consultancy report includes an analysis of perahu visits for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, the results of interviews with crew of 13 perahu, and population data on the main marine species exploited by Indonesians based on fieldwork undertaken at Ashmore Reef in April and September 1987. The consultants considered two options for management of the marine environment: (1) a complete ban on all fishing activities; and (2) permission for a managed traditional fishery to continue (Russell and Vail 1988: 139–43). Their argument in favour of the second option was that Ashmore Reef had long been a traditional fishing ground for Indonesian fishermen, especially those from the villages of Oelaba and Pepela on Roti. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3763" \t "new"

] They said that a total ban on fishing would not only be difficult and expensive to enforce, but would also create economic hardships for the fishermen and their families. They suggested a set of management practices which would allow a traditional fishery to continue and recommended the conduct of further research.

In 1989, the ANPWS prepared its own Plan of Management for the nature reserve which came into force in December 1990 and had effect for 10 years. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3773" \t "new"

] Despite the recommendations of the consultants, the plan made no mention of allowing a traditional Indonesian fishery to operate.

The prime objective of the Reserve is the protection of marine and terrestrial habitats and wildlife. To achieve this it is necessary to maintain so far as possible natural processes undisturbed by people (ANPWS 1989: 43).

In order to manage and protect the natural values of the reserve, contractors were to be stationed on a vessel moored at Ashmore Reef between March and December each year, and one crew member was to be appointed as a warden under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to enforce the legislation within the reserve and inform fishermen of the regulations. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3789" \t "new"

]

Amendments to the 1974 MOU

The concerns outlined in the previous section led the Australian Government to submit a draft revision of the MOU to the Indonesian Government in August 1986 (ANPWS 1987: 18). The Indonesian Government rejected this draft in November 1987, stating its preference for more effective implementation of the existing MOU. The Indonesian Government was officially notified in February 1988 of the Australian Government’s further intentions in the form of a ‘Third Person Advisory Note’ that outlined the developments since 1974 which made new arrangements necessary (DFAT 1988: 54–65). This included observations about the destruction of local flora and fauna by Indonesian fishermen and their use of ‘non-traditional’ methods of fishing.

The Indonesian Government was also informed that, as of 1 March 1988, the 1974 MOU would be enforced by Australian authorities in accordance with Australian laws, including laws related to conservation, customs and quarantine. For the Australian Government, traditional fishing did not include fishing from motorised vessels or the use of motorised fishing gear. Only fishermen in paddle-powered or wind-powered boats using lines or nets would be permitted in the MOU areas. Landing rights were withdrawn from East and Middle Islets because the wells had either dried up or were contaminated. Fishermen could only land on West Island for the purpose of obtaining water, and would be allowed safe anchorage in the channel leading to it (see Map 5-3). Fishing activity would continue to be limited to a radius of 12 nm around specified islands except at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), where fishing would not be permitted inside the reserve. Any person convicted under the Fisheries Act 1952 for taking fish or sedentary organisms outside the permitted areas could face a maximum fine of A$ 5000 or forfeiture of boat, equipment and contents. Giant clams and turtles protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species could no longer be taken even in the permitted areas (DFAT 1988: 54–65).

Map 5-3: Areas of prohibited access at Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/map-5-3.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

During the period from 27 June to 1 July 1988, the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia visited Sulawesi and East Nusa Tenggara to inform Indonesian officials and fishermen of the new interpretation of the MOU and the ban on all fishing at Ashmore Reef (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 133). In April 1989, officials from Indonesia and Australia met in Jakarta to discuss the activities of Indonesian fishermen and review the operation of the MOU. They also discussed the activities of Indonesian fishing vessels operating in other areas of the AFZ, including ‘non-traditional’ vessels operating along the northwest coast and in the Arafura Sea. Following these discussions, both sides agreed to the requirements previously outlined by Australia in the Third Party Advisory Note of 1988, but allowed that ‘traditional’ Indonesian fishermen would be able to conduct fishing activities in a wider ‘MOU box’ within the AFZ (see Appendix C). Under a set of ‘Practical Guidelines for Implementing the 1974 MOU’, access to the expanded MOU area would continue to be limited to ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines’ (author’s emphasis).Internet.

Apprehension, Detention and Confiscation, 1985–95

Chapter 5. Australian Maritime Expansion

Apprehension, Detention and Confiscation, 1985–95

The Australian Government instituted a new regime to control the activities of Indonesian fishermen in the late 1980s, including specific arrangements to detain and process suspected offenders in Darwin and Broome. The key elements of this regime are still in place today.

The Australian policy response was partly motivated by a sudden increase in illegal fishing in the AFZ by a number of diverse groups of Indonesian fishermen who had not previously operated in the north Australian region. The perceived threat to Australian marine resources resulted in a policy of apprehension, forfeiture and destruction of perahu as a prime solution in the campaign to deter illegal activity. In the past Bajo and Pepela perahu found inside the AFZ had been boarded and warned but not apprehended, but these ‘traditional fishermen’ were now punished in the same fashion as those other fishermen who did not have a long history of fishing in the north Australian region.

The Institutional Regime

The Australian Customs Service has a mandate to provide a civil coastal and offshore surveillance and response service for a number of government agencies in order for them to carry out their portfolio responsibilities. This service is provided by a branch called Coastwatch, whose central headquarters are located in Canberra, using a variety of boats and aircraft contracted from other government agencies and private companies. In the early 1990s, the surveillance and response effort in the AFZ involved 13 privately contracted aircraft flying approximately 12 000 hours per annum, 250 hours of dedicated patrols by RAAF P3C Orion aircraft, and 1800 days of surface surveillance by RAN patrol boats (Naylor 1995: 1–4). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3841" \t "new"

]

When a suspected illegal foreign fishing boat is sighted, a report is sent to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in Canberra and to regional fisheries officers in Darwin or Broome. Perahu found operating in Australian waters are officially classified according to ‘the degree to which Western technology has influenced design’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993:4). There are three main categories: Type 1 perahu are those with a traditional lateen rig such as lete lete sailed by the Madurese; Type 2 perahu are those with a western sailing rig, most commonly lambo; and Type 3 perahu are motorised, either with a sail and auxiliary motor (perahu motor layar), or with a motor only (perahu motor) (see Figure 5-1). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3877" \t "new"

]

Figure 5-1: AFMA Classification of Indonesian perahu types found operating in Australian waters.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/figure-5-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Source: Cowan, Mellon and Anderson 1990: 20.

The information in the sighting report is assessed to determine whether a response action is warranted. If the assessment is positive, a naval patrol boat with a fisheries officer on board is usually directed to the area. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3899" \t "new"

] The captain of the foreign vessel is questioned about his activities, often through the use of Indonesian language cards, and the fisheries officer completes a Fisheries Vessel Reporting System (‘Fishreps’) form and boarding report. This information is wired to Canberra for further assessment by AFMA officers and a decision is made about whether there is sufficient evidence of illegal fishing activity and whether the boat and crew should therefore be apprehended. If apprehension is approved, the captain is informed and the vessel is towed to either Darwin or Broome for further investigation and prosecution.

On arrival in either Broome or Darwin, a number of other Australian government agencies become involved in the detention, prosecution and repatriation of the fishermen. The Commonwealth provides AFMA with funds to meet the costs associated with action arising from apprehension of illegal fishing vessels, including the costs of interviewing offenders, maintaining seized vessels, housing and maintaining the crew, and court proceedings. After arrival, formal processes of immigration, health and quarantine are completed, and custody of the boat is formally transferred to AFMA. In Broome and Darwin, some of AFMA’s functions, including investigations into the alleged offences, are carried out by officers of the NT and WA Fisheries Departments. The captain and crew are then charged by summons and a date is sought for the court hearing.

In Broome, the boats and fishermen are held at Willie Creek, an isolated coastal property 20 km north of the town. Boats are anchored in the bay at the mouth of the creek and fishermen are free to move between their boats and the property. The property is owned and operated by a private contractor responsible for the care and security of the fishermen and their boats. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3917" \t "new"

] At Willie Creek, fishermen are questioned and given telephone access to the Indonesian consulate in Perth. At one stage, the WA Legal Aid Commission provided representation for the captains but did not have the resources to continue this service (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 128). AFMA supplies an interpreter used for questioning and during appearances in the Broome Magistrates Court.

Plate 5-1: The recreation building and accommodation block at Willie Creek.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

In Darwin, fishermen are held on their boats anchored some 300–400 m off Stokes Hill Wharf in Darwin Harbour in a designated quarantine mooring area. Barefoot Marine, a local marine charter company under contract to AFMA, is responsible for maintaining the boats, providing security, enforcing the quarantine zone, supplying food and water to the fishermen, and transporting them to and from the shore to attend meetings, appear in court or receive medical attention if necessary. In Darwin, access to interpreters, legal aid, and support from the local Indonesian Consulate means that conditions are generally better than those available in Broome.

The period of time fishermen are detained in either Darwin or Broome depends on the judicial process. On average, this period extends for around 3–4 weeks, but in some cases fishermen have been held for much longer periods, even up to five months. In cases where fishermen have been given jail terms for repeat offences they have been transferred to the Broome Regional Prison or to Berrimah Prison in Darwin. Fishermen are repatriated by plane, usually to Kupang or Denpasar (Bali), where they are sometimes met by officials from the Indonesian Social Department (Departemen Sosial) who may provide assistance for them to reach their home villages, but this service is erratic. Forfeited boats and equipment are normally burnt, but in some cases they have been sold or auctioned by AFMA.

Apprehensions in Darwin and Broome 1985–93

Although fishing outside the permitted areas in the expanded AFZ became illegal in 1979 it was six years before any vessels were apprehended. The apprehension of the first four perahu resulted from a surveillance program called ‘Operation Roundup’. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3943" \t "new"

] On 27 February 1985, an RAAF Orion aircraft on a surveillance flight sighted 12 Type 2 Indonesian fishing vessels between 30 and 60 miles northwest of Cape Van Diemen off Melville Island in the Northern Territory. On 28 February, the HMAS Ipswich arrived in the area, and two of the boats, the Cari Damai and the Usaha Selamat, were boarded to the north of Melville Island and taken in tow to Darwin. At the time of boarding it was discovered that both vessels, each with a crew of nine, were from Wangi Wangi and had quantities of fresh and dried shark fin on board. The captain of the Usaha Selamat stated that there were up to 20 vessels from Wangi Wangi fishing in the area to the west and north. On 1 March, several Indonesian fishing vessels were spotted from the air northwest of Melville Island, and HMAS Cessnock was directed to the area. On this occasion the AFS in Darwin also chartered the MV Pacific Adventurer to assist in the search. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3951" \t "new"

] The Cessnock made visual contact with seven Indonesian vessels, one of which was boarded, but then left to pursue other vessels further north. On 2 March, the naval officers apprehended two more boats, the Tenaga Atomand the Tunas Muda,and took them in tow to rendezvous with the Pacific Adventurer.

The following is an extract from a record of the interview conducted on 6 March 1985 by a fisheries officer and an interpreter with the captain of the Usaha Selamat, Si Usman Basirang.

Q31. Do you have any knowledge of such a thing called the Australian Fishing Zone?

A31. No I don’t know.

Questioning continued, and he replied:

A39. I’ve been sailing from Masela Island for one night and one day. That we used to sail that length of time will still keep us in Indonesian waters therefore I don’t think I have been in Australian waters.

Q40. At what speed would you think that your ship would do at the time you are talking about?

A40. I don’t know the speed.

Q41. Was there a strong breeze at the time you are talking about?

A41. Yes. That’s why we take some sail down.

Q42. Do you have anything else you wish to say?

A42. Therefore I don’t feel guilty.

Si Usman also stated that he was from Mola and the vessel belonged to his parents. He and his crew had departed Mola on 31 January and had been catching shark over the previous seven days. They were intending to sell most of the catch back in Mola for Rp3 500 a kilogram and would eat the remainder.

The captains of the Usaha Selamat and the Cari Damai were charged with using a fishing boat for taking fish in the AFZ without a licence and appeared in Darwin Magistrates Court on 8 and 11 March 1985. The captains, represented by a solicitor from the NT Legal Aid Commission, pleaded guilty to the charges, despite Si Usman’s earlier protestation of innocence. The defence gave evidence that the vessels were wooden sailing boats, had no charts or navigational gear, and only poor quality compasses. The prosecution sought an order for forfeiture of the catch and fishing gear on board the vessel, but this was opposed by the defence. Magistrate Sally Thomas ordered that the men be convicted but not fined, and since they had no means to pay, she said that she could not order forfeiture of the vessels. Instead she ordered that the fish and equipment be forfeited with the exception that the defendants be allowed to keep their canoes and enough fish and fishing equipment to provide for the sustenance of their crews on the journey back to Indonesia. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e3992" \t "new"

]

The captains of the other two vessels were not charged at all, for reasons given in a telex from Coastwatch to the NT Fisheries Department dated 12 March 1985.

On information provided by Foreign Affairs, it appears that in 1981 an agreement was made with the Indonesian government that none of their boats be apprehended in a ‘hot pursuit’ situation. As a result of this there will be no prosecution of the second two boats Tenaga Atom and Tunas Muda that arrived in Darwin harbour on Sunday 3 March 1985.

On 12 March the Pacific Adventurer towed all four vessels to the outer limit of the AFZ. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4006" \t "new"

]

In the late 1980s several waves of distinctly different groups of Indonesian vessels began operating illegally in the AFZ, leading to a dramatic increase in the number of apprehensions. This was to have a significant effect on the fishing operations of Bajo and other users of Type 2 vessels operating outside the permitted areas. Late 1987 and early 1988 saw the beginning of a wave of illegal activity by Type 3 motorised vessels (perahu layar motor) seeking access to trochus beds in the Kimberley region, especially at King Sound and further south at Rowley Shoals. The majority of the boats originated from islands in Southeast Sulawesi such as Maginti, Masaloka, Kadatua and Buton, with a few from Pepela, and their crews were drawn from Bajo, Butonese and Rotinese ethnic groups. Their activities were partly due to a rise in the price of trochus shell in the late 1980s coupled with the over-exploitation of the resource in Indonesian waters (Reid 1992: 4). With the exception of men from Pepela, the Butonese and Rotinese fishermen do not appear to have a long history of voyaging in the north Australian region, so this could be seen as a ‘separate and discrete form of Indonesian fishing in the AFZ’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 161). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4018" \t "new"

]

Between 1987 and 1990, 67 trochus boats were apprehended in Australian waters and taken to Broome. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4027" \t "new"

] In almost all cases, vessels, catch and equipment were confiscated and destroyed. The new policy of apprehension and forfeiture was adopted as a ‘solution’ to deter further incursions (JSCFADT 1993: 123). In addition, many of the captains and crew who were unable to pay fines after their convictions were jailed in Broome Regional Prison. This was also the time when the policy of burning boats at the detention site was introduced as a further deterrent (Reid 1992: 7; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 136). The sentiment at this time is expressed in a statement by the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Ray, in a parliamentary debate on the cost of the surveillance operation.

The boats themselves are deliberately of a very low quality so that when they are seized they cannot be sold. About the only fate for them is an annual burning and the sending of photos back to Indonesian fishing villages as a warning (Senate Weekly Hansard, 23 May 1990, p. 882).

In 1991 only four trochus boats were apprehended, in 1992 none, and in 1993 another four. State fisheries officers argued that the decline was due to the newly improved surveillance and enforcement measures (JSCFADT 1993: 120), but others have suggested that it may have more to do with the declining price of trochus shell or other socio-economic factors (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 60).

In late 1988 another kind of illegal activity began in the northern Arafura Sea. Between October and November 1988, 25 large-scale, well-equipped, commercial Type 3 boats were apprehended in an area to the south of the Aru Islands. All but one originated from Dobo and all were targeting shark using large gill nets. Some of the captains and crews were wage labourers. In Darwin all captains were charged and found guilty under Sections 13AB(1a) and 13B(5) of the Fisheries Act 1952. Vessels, gear and catch were confiscated, two skippers were fined, and all captains were placed on good behaviour bonds (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 162–3). This group of vessels was the first of several waves of illegal activity by motorised perahu targeting shark fin and reef fish in the Arafura Sea (ibid.: 163).

Twenty of these industrial shark boats were apprehended in 1989 and 11 in 1990. The number fell after June 1990, and only two such boats were apprehended in 1991, but the number rose again to seven in the first half of 1992. All these boats were targeting shark except for one which was specifically targeting tuna (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 163–5). During the second half of 1992, AFMA’s list of apprehensions records nine illegal incursions of ‘ice boats’ with similar technology targeting reef fish in an area known as the Timor Box which straddles the international border.

In November 1990, two motorised Type 3 perahu (perahu motor layar), similar in technology to the trochus boats, were apprehended for shark fishing a few miles inside the AFZ, and another 29 of this type were apprehended in March 1991. All captains were convicted, and their boats, catch and equipment were confiscated. The fishermen were either Butonese or Bajo and had come from a number of settlements and islands in South or Southeast Sulawesi, from East Nusa Tenggara, and from Dobo in the Aru Islands (Fox 1992; Stacey 1992; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 165–74). All had sailed to Dobo and then south into the AFZ where they fished for shark using longline gear. No more of these shark boats were apprehended in 1992. In the short term it appeared that the policy of forfeiture deterred further incursions (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 188), but boats like this were apprehended again in 1993 and subsequent years until 1997.

Around the same time as large numbers of trochus boats were being intercepted on the northwest coast, three Type 2 perahu were apprehended for violating the amended MOU in the permitted areas. On 19 May 1988, an unmotorised perahu lambo, the Karya Sama, with seven crew originating from the village of Suoi, opposite Pepela on Roti, was apprehended at Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. The crew had been killing seabirds and collecting eggs on East Islet, which was now a protected area. In order to deter further infringements, the ANPWS recommended confiscation of the boat rather than confiscation of the catch or jail sentences. The captain and crew were placed on a good behaviour bond of A$ 50 for two years, the crew were repatriated, and the vessel was forfeited and later donated by the ANPWS to the Northern Territory Museum (Stacey 1997). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4075" \t "new"

]

In early July 1988 two perahu, the Cahaya Indah and the Alam Niaga, both from Pepela, were apprehended while fishing for trepang and trochus shell around Scott Reef and were escorted to Broome. Both Type 2 vessels had been equipped with auxiliary engines and therefore failed the new definition of a ‘traditional’ fishing boat. Both captains were convicted and their vessels, catch and equipment were confiscated. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4089" \t "new"

] Since that time, most Pepela and Bajo fishermen have largely complied with the ‘no engine’ rule in the MOU areas.

On 29 March 1990, two more Bajo perahu, the Kenangan Indah and the Rahmat Ilahi 2,were boarded some 20–30 nm north of Maret Island in the Bonaparte Archipelago off the Kimberley coast. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4104" \t "new"

] The local fisheries officer found that the crews had been shark fishing with handlines and shark rattles (goro goro). Both vessels had fresh and dried quantities of shark fin and shark flesh on board, along with reef fish for bait. The captain of the Kenangan Indah, Si Samading, had left Kaledupa with his seven crew members on 15 March, while the captain and owner of Rahmat Ilahi 2, Si La Ibu, had left Wanci with seven crew on 20 February. Both had sailed to Roti before departing to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef). The local official recommended a severe reprimand and warning, but AFS officials in Canberra were adamant that the vessels should be apprehended and transported to Broome. Both captains pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 13AB(1) and 13B(1A) of the Commonwealth Fisheries Act 1952 and were placed on two-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 2000 each. The vessels, catch and equipment were forfeited and the fishermen repatriated to Indonesia. These were the first Bajo vessels to be confiscated for illegal fishing activity in the AFZ even though perahu had been operating outside the permitted areas for years. The forfeiture of the two perahu in 1990 represented a change in the treatment of Type 2 vessels found operating outside the permitted areas. By this time the policy of apprehension and confiscation of illegal motorised fishing boats was well established in both Broome and Darwin. The decision of the court in Broome to confiscate these two unmotorised vessels was influenced by the large number of apprehensions and confiscations of trochus boats and other perahu operating illegally in the AFZ over the previous three years (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 160).

From conversations with WA fisheries officers, Campbell and Wilson (1993: 179) state that perahu which had been engaged in shark fishing for many years in the Timor Sea did ‘not constitute a serious problem’ when Australia increased its AFZ to 200 nm since the vessels remained well out to sea. Fisheries officers generally tolerated shark boats operating between the coast and the MOU areas, and in most cases boats were only warned if found operating too far from the permitted areas. This point is supported by boarding reports which show a pattern of repeated visits by many of the same Bajo perahu, both inside and outside the permitted areas, in successive years between 1979 and 1989. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4135" \t "new"

] Regular contact with Australian authorities generally did not end in apprehension, and even if vessels were apprehended, they were not confiscated. However, this unofficial tolerance ended in 1990 when the AFS took a stricter approach to illegal fishing by Type 2 vessels.

On 5 October 1990 another perahu from Mola, the Wisma Jaya,was located approximately 20 nm northwest of Troughton Island off the Kimberley coast. Once again, at the time of apprehension, the crew were found to be engaged in shark fishing using handlines and shark rattles (see Plate 5-2). The captain, Si Kaboda, pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 13B(5) and 13AB(1A) of the Fisheries Act 1952, was convicted on both counts and placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond of A$ 500. On 13 October, the Usaha Selamat, previously apprehended in 1985, was boarded approximately 15 nm west of Bathurst Island and found to contain 200–300 kilograms of shark fin and shark flesh as well as handlines and shark rattles. The captain, Si Usman Basirang, pleaded guilty, was convicted and placed on a three-year good behaviour bond of A$ 200. In both cases, the vessels, catch and gear were forfeited and the shark fin was sold by public tender. The Wisma Jaya was deemed to be in poor condition, valued at A$ 800, and recommended for destruction, whereas the Usaha Selamat was deemed to be in fair condition, valued at A$ 1200, and recommended for use by the RAN to train naval boarding parties. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4156" \t "new"

]

Plate 5-2: Navy officers inspecting the catch of the Wisma Jaya, 1990.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-2.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Source: Western Australian Fisheries Department.

One year later, in October 1991, five more perahu from Mola — the Sinar Jaya, Kota Alam, Asean, Toyota, and Suka Damai — were apprehended and taken to Darwin. All were targeting shark using handlines and shark rattles in an area north of Joseph Bonaparte Gulf and west of Bathurst Island, from about 38 nm to 97 nm inside the AFZ. This time the captains were each placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond of A$ 200 and all the boats were burnt except for the Toyota, which was sold to a Darwin restaurateur. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4178" \t "new"

]

On 20 March 1992, three more perahu from Mola — the Jaya Harapan, Usaha Baru (Green), and Usaha Baru(Blue) — were located approximately 2 nm inside the AFZ by a RAAF P3 Orion aircraft on a surveillance flight that was part of an Australian military exercise known as ‘Kangaroo 92’. On 23 March, during a surveillance sweep as part of the same exercise, HMAS Cessnock and HMAS Derwent encountered the three boats about 22 nm inside the AFZ with lines set in the water. One perahu was boarded and the crew were warned, whereupon all three recovered their lines, hoisted sail and proceeded north. Later that day, the naval ships were ordered to relocate the vessels and carry out another investigation of the boats with a view to apprehension. The vessels were boarded at a position approximately 15 nm inside the AFZ, north of Bathurst and Melville islands. The Usaha Baru(Green) was found to have 10 kg of dried fish, 10 kg of shark fin and 5 kg of fresh whole shark, as well as a small longline with 37 hooks. The Usaha Baru (Blue) had 25 kg of shark flesh, 15 kg of fresh shark fin and a fresh whole shark, with three lines set. The Jaya Harapan had 2 kg of fresh fish on board and two lines set. The boats were apprehended and towed to Darwin.[

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4195" \t "new"

]

This time the captains were charged under Sections 100(2) and 101(2) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, which had superceded the Fisheries Act 1952. Unlike the previous trials in 1990 and 1991, the fishermen pleaded not guilty to the charges and their case was strongly defended by a Legal Aid lawyer who argued that the boats had been becalmed and carried south into the AFZ by a strong current. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4211" \t "new"

] The longlines extending from the perahu at the time of boarding were said to be drag-anchors intended to stop the boats from drifting further inside the AFZ and the shark were said to have been caught while they were still in Indonesian waters. Based on the precedent from 1985, the defence also argued that the crew were only fishing for food to stay alive, the amount of catch was not significant enough to warrant forfeiture of the vessels, and forfeiture would result in severe economic hardships for the crews and their families. The captains were convicted and placed on two-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 1000 each, but the magistrate agreed that the offences were not serious enough to warrant forfeiture of the vessels. Instead, he ordered forfeiture of the longlines, hooks, floats, shark rattles and one canoe from each perahu, while allowing the fishermen keep their handlines so they could fish for subsistence on the journey back to their village (Fox 1998: 133).

The same consideration was not afforded the crews of nine Type 2 perahu apprehended and taken to Darwin between September and November 1993. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4233" \t "new"

] In September 1993, six perahu from Pepela – Rote Island)  — the Titian Muhibah, Bintang Selamat, Tegal Baru, Usaha Remaja, Sari Idaman I, and Sari Idaman II — were apprehended while fishing for shark fin with longline gear. Most had been warned previously. Five of the cases were heard together, and all five captains pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 100(2) and 101(2) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. During the court hearing the prosecution valued the catch of shark fin in each boat at between US$ 2000 and US$ 4000. This was the first time such a high value had been placed on a shark fin catch and the prosecution did not state how the figure had been calculated. In the case of the Sari Idaman I, whose case was heard later that month, the same prosecutor then stated that shark fin was currently fetching US$ 50/kg dried weight. Since the Tegal Baruhad a forfeited catch of only 19 kg of semi-dried shark fin, the sale price of its catch would have been US$ 950 — significantly less than the US$ 3000 value quoted in the earlier court case. However, the presiding magistrate was moved to observe that Australia had to ‘protect its fishing grounds from foreign exploitation since the fishing industry yields large profits’ and that ‘forfeiture is the only solution … [for] if forfeiture was not imposed, others will follow’. All equipment, catch and vessels were confiscated, four of the captains were placed on five-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 5000; one on a 12-month bond of A$ 2000, and one on a bond of A$ 200. The vessels themselves were assigned values of between zero and A$ 500 and all of them were burnt (see Plates 5-3, 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6).

Three other perahu apprehended shortly afterwards received similar treatment. Two of them — the Kembang Sari and the Dasar Usaha — originated from Lasilimu in south Buton and Ereke in north Buton respectively, and both contained mixed Bajo and Butonese crews. The third one, the Alam Baru, was the first boat from Oelaba on Roti Island to be apprehended in the AFZ. Boats from Oelaba were known to have fished for sedentary species in the past, but some crews had now turned their hand to shark fishing. Mr Hannon, the magistrate presiding over this case, remarked: ‘give them an inch and they take a mile — that’s what they’re doing’.

At no time during the court proceedings against the captains and crew of the Bajo and Pepela perahu was reference made to the fact that some of these fishermen were operating under the terms and conditions of the 1974 MOU and could be considered to be ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen’. Although their vessels had no engines and the shark fin catch was relatively small, they were treated in the same fashion as the crew of a large industrial motorised fishing vessel using sophisticated navigation equipment with an ability to harvest significant catches. In the brief of evidence for the case of the Usaha Selamat in 1990, the only reference made to the MOU was in regard to the position of the perahu at the time of its apprehension. This was also the case with three Bajo perahu that were apprehended and allowed to sail home in 1992.

At no time in the legal proceeding was any attention given to the Bajau as a specific population with the longest historically documented evidence of fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone. Nor were the Bajau distinguished from any other Indonesian fishermen. And even if this were to have been noted, it would have had no bearing on the case in terms of the Fisheries Act. A historical perception of the problem was irrelevant (Fox 1998: 134).

Plate 5-3: Bajo crew confined to their perahu lambo in Darwin Harbour.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-3.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Plate 5-4: Confiscated perahu lambo driven into the embankment in Darwin

Darwin.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-4.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

  

Plate 5-5: Boats dragged out of the water onto the land.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-5.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Plate 5-6: Boats destroyed by burning.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-5-6.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Policy Reviews in the Mid-1990s

In the short term, it appeared that the new policy regime had been effective in deterring further incursions by Type 3 vessels because there was an overall decline in the number of apprehensions by 1993. However, from 1993 onwards there was a steady increase in the number of Type 2 and Type 3 vessels apprehended in the AFZ each year, despite the fact that nearly all apprehensions resulted in the confiscation of vessels, catch and gear.

In 1993 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade published the results of its inquiry into Australia’s bilateral relationship with Indonesia, noting that ‘the inquiry had its origins in concerns about illegal fishing off the north and north west coast of Australia’ (JSCFADT 1993: xxvii). The committee found that illegal Indonesian fishing for shark or trochus in Australian waters was driven by two main factors — the ‘monetary gain from a successful voyage which could amount to two or three months income for poor fishermen’ and the ‘resource depletion in Indonesian waters’ — but it also noted that ‘the general lack of development and a poor range of alternative occupations in Eastern Indonesia’ was a further contributing factor (ibid.: 128). The committee observed that:

illegal fishermen are Indonesian nationals and there are limits to the actions the Australian government can take. It is the Indonesian Government’s responsibility to attempt to prevent nationals from fishing illegally in Australian waters (ibid.: 129).

Nevertheless:

if there are deficiencies in some aspects of Australia’s handling of the problem of illegal fishing they were probably caused in part by a lack of knowledge about complex social and economic situations in eastern Indonesia (ibid.).

In the committee’s view, the 1974 MOU ‘does not adequately deal with all categories of Indonesian fishermen’ and it would be ‘appropriate to reconsider all aspects of illegal fishing with the involvement of Indonesian authorities’ (ibid.: 131). Following a submission by Bruce Campbell and Bu Wilson, the committee recommended a review of the MOU in light of the Torres Strait Treaty (between Australia and Papua New Guinea) which would pay special regard to:

the definition of ‘traditional’ fishermen to provide broader categories which take account of a wider range of nautical, cultural and historical factors … [and an] examination of the feasibility of a re-negotiation of the MOU to ensure the allowed areas coincide as far as practicable with historical fishing patterns (ibid.).

None of the committee’s recommendations have been implemented since its report was published in November 1993. Instead, Australian policy has continued to focus on a high level of marine and air surveillance of the northern AFZ combined with costly apprehension and prosecution procedures.

In November 1994, the Fisheries Resources Branch of the Bureau of Rural Sciences, then part of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy, was commissioned by the department’s Fisheries Policy Branch to undertake a review of Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ. This was done in response to concerns raised by AFMA and the domestic fishing industry in northern Australia over the possibility that Indonesian fishing vessels may account for a substantial proportion of the recommended allowable catch for some target species. The review found that ‘there are different ethnic groups [from Indonesia], fishing in different areas, using a number of methods and a range of technologies’ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 13), and described a number of alternative strategies to deal with traditional Indonesian fishermen operating in the MOU area. Without making reference to any particular group of Indonesian fishermen, the authors concluded that current illegal Indonesian fishing activity has a minor impact on the marine environment and that ‘it would appear surveillance, enforcement and prosecution efforts have been effective in minimising illegal fishing activity’ in the AFZ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 32, 1995b: 121). However, they also suggested that the management of marine resources in the MOU area should be determined by granting ‘priority access rights’ in the form of licences to ‘fishers who can demonstrate an historic interest in these waters’ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 33).

The authors of this report may have overestimated the effectiveness of existing surveillance and prosecution efforts, because the number of illegal intrusions into the AFZ rose again in 1994. This prompted the formation of a joint government delegation to undertake an information and education campaign in a number of eastern Indonesian provinces in January 1995. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4328" \t "new"

] The purpose of this exercise was to explain the conditions under which traditional fishing was permitted in the AFZ and increase awareness of the consequences of illegal fishing (AFMA 1995: 63–4). During the visit several thousand information handouts and maps were distributed showing the maritime jurisdictions in the Timor and Arafura Seas. There were also preliminary discussions about Australian support for small-scale development assistance programs in fishing communities. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4336" \t "new"

]

In 1995, the Commonwealth Government established an inter-departmental committee to investigate the problem of illegal Indonesian fishing in the AFZ and recommend solutions to it. Although this committee received one paper outlining a licensing arrangement for ‘traditional fishermen’ (see Fox 1998), there appears to have been no further consideration of current research by social scientists on issues previously raised by the Joint Standing Committee, despite calls by academics for ethnographic research into the social, economic and cultural organisation of fishing groups operating inside Australian waters (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 191). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4345" \t "new"

] Internet.

Chapter 6. Bajo Responses to Australian Policy

Chapter 6. Bajo Responses to Australian Policy

Table of Contents

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch06.html" \l "d0e4368"

The Growing Focus on Sharks

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch06s02.html"

Bajo Perceptions of Australian Policy

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch06s03.html"

Shark Fins and Longlines

During the period of developments in Australian responses to Indonesian fishing activity during the 1970s and 1980s, Bajo continued to operate both inside and outside the permitted zones. During that time surveillance patrols and repeated boardings of Indonesian perahu by Australian officials had little effect in deterring continued shark fishing operations in the prohibited offshore areas along the continental shelf. While shark was the main product sought after by the majority of Bajo perahu, at certain times they pursued other marine products including reef fish, trochus shell and turtle shell. However, the collection of valuable sedentary products such as trochus and turtle shell ceased with an increase in Australian surveillance and enforcement and eviction of fishermen from the northwest coast in the 1970s.

Bajo and Pepelan perceptions of the reasons for policy developments that resulted in their loss of access to certain fishing grounds during the 1970s show that Indonesian fishermen do not understand sophisticated Western principles concerning the need for border, customs and quarantine regimes, scientific notions of the need for resource management, or developments in international maritime law. The Bajo and other ethnic fisher groups in eastern Indonesia do not have a deliberate disregard for the law but, from their perspective, laws and regulations are meaningless if they restrict access to resources upon which their livelihood depends.

The recollections and personal experiences of men from Mola, Mantigola and Pepela who were part of the Bajo fishing fleets that accessed the Timor and Arafura seas in 1994 provide the evidence to support an argument that the official Australian perspective on the nature and extent of shark fishing is flawed. This group of 31 men, aged between 30 and 60 years, born in either Mantigola or Mola, were perahu owners and/or captains or senior crew members in 1994. The men were interviewed about when they first went sailing to the north Australian region, and particularly of their shark fishing activities during the 1970s. Many had first sailed to the Australian region in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A few of the older men had even sailed to offshore reefs and islands in the Timor Sea to catch reef fish in the 1950s and 1960s. For some of them, Australia has been the main destination for distant shore seasonal voyaging since they were old enough to sail. Bajo narratives also show that some of the Australian Government’s attempts to educate and inform fishermen have been misguided.

The Growing Focus on Sharks

According to the Bajo, shark fin became the main product sought during the late 1960s and early 1970s when market prices in China and Southeast Asia rose in response to growing consumer demand. Twenty-eight men recall undertaking shark fishing voyages in the Timor and Arafura seas between 1969 and 1979, and for some, this was the first time they went sailing to Australia. Two of their accounts indicate the patterns and motivations for shark fishing at the time.

In 1970 we started fishing for shark because there was a price for it in Ujung Pandang. Between 1970 and 1975 we sold the fin to a trader in Ujung Pandang named Johnny Goh who had a shop near the harbour. Then in 1977, the boss started to buy the fin directly from Mola through Haji Djunaedy and some other haji in Mola. In those times we only needed a capital [perongkosan] of Rp 1–200 000 and the interest rate was only 2.5 per cent. In 1975, when the borders were still open, some Pepela people started to fish for shark and joined the Mola men. Before that Pepela people fished for trochus and trepang. We sold the fin in Mola until 1988–89 then we started to sell the fin in Pepela. It is better to sell the fin in Pepela because we can go out more times. If we have to sail to Ujung Pandang we can only go out once a season (Si Kaharra, Mola Selatan).

I first sailed to Australia in 1969. In the early 1970s we sold shark fin to traders in Ujung Pandang. This meant we could only sail once in a season. The price was Rp 1500 per kilogram for potong biasa [crude cut with some meat still attached]. When we arrived in Ujung Pandang, we dropped anchor and the traders would come to our perahu, ask what we had to sell, and give us coffee, sugar, and cigarettes. Later the boss would come out and buy the fin and pay us straight away. We still used shark rattles and handlines then. There were no borders and we caught a lot of shark, sometimes 400–600 kilograms, sometimes as much as 1 tonne. Usually, after selling the fin we obtained Rp 2–3 000 000 to share. The cost of the voyage was not much then, only about Rp 2–300 000 and each crew member only had to put in Rp 25 000 towards the cost of the voyage. In about 1974, Haji Djunaedy started providing the capital to cover the cost of the voyage, so we sold the shark to him in Mola, not in Ujung Pandang any more. This continued until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then we started to sell the shark in Pepela. But during this time, some Bajo still sold the shark in Ujung Pandang or Bau Bau because the price of shark fin was always higher in Ujung Pandang (Si Nasir, Mola Selatan).

During the east monsoon (from April to November) Bajo departed from Mola and Mantigola in their perahu lambo and sailed to Pepela where they would take on extra supplies and wait for suitable wind conditions to sail south to fish around the reefs and islands in the Timor Sea and along the shallow waters of the continental shelf off the northwest coast of the Australian mainland. These shallow waters are known as air putih (white waters) and are considered to be very productive shark fishing grounds. They stretch from northwest of Cape Leveque and around Adele Island across to Holothuria Banks, and to the northeast and east of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) along the Sahul Banks (see Map 6-1). In order to reach fishing grounds along the Kimberley coast, perahu would navigate by means of beacons located on some of the islands in the Timor Sea or on the mainland along the Kimberley coast. At the end of a fishing expedition they sometimes travelled back through Pepela to replenish supplies or exchange dried strips of salted shark meat (balur) for lontar palm sugar (gula air) before sailing to Mola or Mantigola or to other towns or cities in eastern Indonesia to sell the catch.

Map 6-1: Bajo shark fishing grounds.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/map-6-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

During the west monsoon, especially during periods of light wind conditions in February and March, shark fishing expeditions focused on the eastern part of the Timor Sea and western part of the Arafura Sea. Although voyages at this time of year were never as regular or frequent as during the east monsoon, the end of the west monsoon is ideal for fishing. This period of light variable winds and smooth seas, known as the doldrums in English literature, is often interrupted by short intermittent squalls and possible cyclonic activity, and during these periods perahu would make for sheltered islands for protection.

During the west monsoon, vessels departing from Mola first sailed to one of the islands located off the eastern tip of Timor or to Selaru Island in the southern Tanimbar group. From here they would sail south, drifting and fishing along the Sahul Banks and shallow waters of the continental shelf lying to the north of Bathurst Island. Some also went from the Tukang Besi Islands to Dobo in the Aru Islands and from there sailed south to fish the waters north of the Gulf of Carpentaria (see Map 6-1). The boats would then travel back through the Banda Sea with the first of the southeast monsoon winds, usually in April. Bajo perahu apprehended and taken to Darwin in 1985 and 1992 were caught during shark fishing voyages in the Arafura Sea at the end of the west monsoon.

Occasionally some vessels also sailed to Pepela during the west monsoon and from there undertook short voyages, depending on the wind conditions, to fish around the reefs and islands in the Timor Sea. Three Bajo perahu apprehended off the Kimberley coast in 1975 and two apprehended and taken to Broome in March 1990 had followed this pattern. The distance between fishing grounds and trade centres, and the dependence on prevailing wind conditions, meant that until the late 1980s perahu would normally sail and fish just once during the east or west monsoon seasons. The duration of time spent fishing was variable and depended on both supplies and weather conditions. A trip could be between three to eight weeks, with longer periods spent fishing during the calmer months of the east monsoon.

Voyages were financed by complex credit arrangements. Financial capital, including the cost of provisioning vessels with firewood, water, rice and money for the families during the men’s absence, was usually obtained in Mola or Mantigola. The capital came from the fishermen themselves, their extended family, moneylenders or village traders in marine products. The cost of a typical shark fishing expedition was around Rp 1–300 000, depending on the number of crew. Upon return, the shark fin was sold to traders in Mola, Ujung Pandang or Bau Bau, or sometimes to traders in Kupang, Ambon or Dobo, depending on the time of year. The cost of the voyage and provisions was taken out of the money made from the sale of the fin. The remainder was divided between the perahu owner and crew, with the owner of the perahu receiving three shares and each crew member one share.

It is difficult to ascertain specific prices for shark fin since they depended on the quality and type of fin and where it was sold. While Si Nasir stated that the price of shark fin was Rp 1500/kg in Ujung Pandang in the early 1970s, Si Goseng, a Bajo man living permanently in Pepela since the late 1980s, said that he received Rp 600/kg in 1971, but by 1974 the price had risen to Rp 1200/kg, and in 1987 he received Rp 15 000/kg. Si Sabaruddin stated that in 1979 he and his crew received Rp 25 000/kg in Mola. Si Acing, who went shark fishing for the first time in 1970, said that after a shark fishing trip in 1979, where he and his crew caught 400 kg of shark fin, they sold the catch in Ambon at Rp 6500/kg. Usman, the captain of the Usaha Selamat who was apprehended in 1985, stated in the Record of Interview that he expected to receive Rp 3500/kg for shark fin in Mola. These diverse responses, although dependent on a range of variables, indicate a gradual rise in the price of shark fin over time.

Between the 1960s and the 1980s, fishermen from Pepela also fished in the Timor Sea and off the northwest coast, but generally kept to the islands and reefs where they concentrated on collecting sedentary marine products and reef fish. Interaction between Bajo and Pepela fishermen meant that some Pepela fishermen adopted the Bajo shark fishing techniques using handlines and rattles. They also engaged in shark fishing around the reefs and islands in the permitted areas around Ashmore Reef (Russell and Vail 1988).

During the early 1970s, as well as shark fishing, some Bajo from Mola and Mantigola embarked on voyages to the Kimberley region along the northwest coast to harvest trochus shell and turtle shell. In the late 1960s the price of trochus began to rise due to a depletion of stocks in Indonesia and other parts of the world and to growing demand from button and paint manufacturers (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 43). During the years from 1971 to 1975, a number of perahu from Mola embarked on voyages to collect trochus shell at Yampi Sound, King Sound, Adele Island and Cape Leveque. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4455" \t "new"

] Their crews recall encounters with Australian naval patrol ships, having their perahu boarded and searched, being questioned, told to return to Indonesia, and even having their catch of trochus dumped overboard. For the Bajo, this period marked the beginning of increasing contact with Australian authorities.

I met a patrol ship at Yampi, but they did not apprehend us, only ordered us to return home. There, I was looking for trochus. At that time, during the 1970s, there were hundreds of perahu, many of them went too close to the coast. They were spotted by aircraft. In 1975, there were lots of patrol boats. I remember one Bajo being hit on the shoulder by one of the officers (Si Badolla, Mola Selatan).

Si Ntole (from Mola Selatan) and his crew were fishing for shark fin in the Timor Sea in 1974 but during strong winds the unmotorised perahu was blown off course. The boat ended up at a reef further east near the Australian coast and there the crew discovered a large population of hawksbill turtles. Taking the opportunity over a few days, the crew captured a large number of turtles, the shell was sold in Mola, and the crew made a large profit. Word of Si Ntole’s success spread throughout the village. After obtaining directions on the location of the reef from the original crew, a number of boats left Mola in August that year. One was a perahu lambo owned by Si Usman from Mola Utara, and another was a motorised perahu owned by Haji Djunaedy from Mola Selatan. After calling in at Pepela, both perahu encountered strong winds while sailing south. Haji Djunaedy and his crew turned back. Si Usman and his crew, unperturbed by the weather, kept going but ended up at King Sound from where they slowly sailed east before finally locating the reef. Over one week they collected one tonne of turtle shell, then sailed to Ujung Pandang and sold it, making a small fortune. This enabled Si Usman to buy a motorised perahu and a few years later make the haj to Mecca. Haji Djunaedy, after waiting for the wind to die down, set off again from Pepela, located the reef and also collected a substantial amount of turtle shell. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e4498" \t "new"

] The reef in question is Holothuria Reef, now known to the Bajo as Sapa Ntole (Ntole’s Reef).

Another area where turtles were collected was a large reef located in Yampi Sound. According to Si Kariman, the reef was first ‘discovered’ by Si Darisa, from Mola Selatan, who named the reef Karang Bebek (Duck Reef) because the shape resembles that of a duck.

When I visited Karang Bebek in the 1970s we caught a lot of turtle and filled the entire perahu with shell. We also met orang Marege [Aboriginal people] at the reef and we gave them some turtle meat. They were also catching turtles but not using the same method as us (Si Kariman, Mola Selatan).

With the increase in Australian surveillance and enforcement measures from 1974 onwards, including Operation Trochus in 1975 and 1976, trochus and turtle shell harvesting by Bajo along the Kimberley coast appears to have largely ceased. However, this only meant that shark fishing in the permitted areas and along the Sahul Shelf became more important.

Plate 6-1: A Mola Bajo fisherman photographed in August 1974.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-6-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Source: Broome Historical Museum (photograph courtesy of Malcolm Douglas).Internet.

The Bajo Fleet in Pepela

Chapter 7. Sailing, Fishing and Trading in 1994

The Bajo Fleet in Pepela – Rote (Roti)

The majority of perahu from Mola departed for Pepela during the months of July and August. The journey typically takes around one week depending on the wind conditions and number of stops along the way. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5433" \t "new"

] Another phase of preparations takes place in Pepela, which includes restocking the perahu with food, water and cut timber, and maybe obtaining extra supplies or equipment. A sailing clearance also has to be obtained from the local harbour master.

In late August 1994, Pepela (Roti Island) was bustling with activity. The harbour was a picturesque sight rarely seen in any other port in eastern Indonesia, with dozens of brightly painted sailing boats at anchor. All of the Mola perahu and most of the Mantigola perahu had already arrived. Bajo perahu were anchored off Tanjung Pasir and to the east side of the pier while the locally owned perahu were generally anchored to the north and west of the pier. The combined Bajo and Pepelan fleet operating out of Pepela during 1994 numbered around 140–150 perahu.

Pepela’s harbour also acts as a stopping off point and base for perahu from other villages like Oelaba (on Roti), for Madurese perahu lete lete, and for motorised perahu from other parts of eastern Indonesia. In 1994, a number of motor boats from Sinjai in South Sulawesi, with Bugis crews, also used Pepela as a base to process trepang and restock supplies between each fishing trip.

From August to December 1994, records were kept of the activities of all 74 Bajo perahu lambo operating out of Pepela. Table 7-2 shows the distribution of this fleet between six categories of ownership and origin. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5486" \t "new"

] Table 7-3 shows the total number of trips taken by these 74 boats over this period.

Table 7-2: Number of Bajo perahu operating for each category of the Bajo fleet, August to December 1994.

Mola boats based in Mola

Mola boats based in Pepela

Mantigola boats based in Mantigola

Mantigola boats based in Pepela

Pepela boats with Bajo crew

Bajo from other areas

Total

26

22

6

3

13

4

74

Table 7-3: Number of boat trips made by 74 Bajo perahu, August to December 1994.

No. of trips

1

2

3

4

Total

No. of perahu

6*

26

32

10

194

* This number includes three perahu recorded as making the minimum number of one voyage each because it is not known exactly how many voyages each of these perahu made during the season.

The usual duration of voyages is between 20 and 30 days. As the length of a fishing voyage can depend on the prevailing wind conditions and the amount of supplies, this does not equal the number of fishing days. The majority of voyages were undertaken during September, October and November. The majority of perahu departed Pepela for the first fishing trip in the first week of September and returned to Pepela in the first two weeks of October. The majority of Mola perahu departed for their second trip during the third week of October, returning during the second and third week of November. At any one time, the harbour can be full of boats, numbering a 100 or more. In contrast, within a matter of days it can be almost deserted and remain quiet for a few weeks. In early September there were only 20 perahu lambo in the harbour but one month later, in the first week of October, the harbour was bursting with activity after dozens of boats had returned from fishing trips (see Plate 7-4).

A mass exodus of boats within a period of a few days is due to the association of favourable wind conditions with the lunar cycle. According to the Bajo, the end of a lunar cycle when there is no moon (bulan mati) is usually a period of strong winds and not considered a safe time to depart, but the winds die down with the appearance of a new moon. By departing at that time, the crews also have the advantage of fishing during a full moon (see Plate 7-5). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5657" \t "new"

]

Plate 7-4: Bajo perahu lambo anchored off Tanjung Pasir, October 1994.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-4.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Plate 7-5: Setting sail from Pepela.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-5.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

There is no set period for the amount of time a boat remains in Pepela-Roti  in between voyages. Generally, the crew spend one or two weeks there, which is time enough to sell the catch, carry out maintenance, clean the perahu, repair fishing gear, buy more supplies and wait for suitable wind conditions to depart again. After returning from their second trip in 1994, some perahu returned to Mola in late November. For other captains and crews the decision go out to sea again was influenced by factors such as the financial success of the season and their observation of the current weather conditions. Towards the end of the year, prior to the onset of the west monsoon, the weather becomes increasingly unpredictable. Some perahu departed a third time only to return to Pepela later the same day because of strong wind conditions. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5690" \t "new"

]

At the end of the 1994 fishing season, the size of the Bajo fleet had decreased: some had been sold in Pepela, Wanci or Kaledupa, while others had been apprehended for illegal fishing activity in the AFZ (see Table 7-4).

Table 7-4: Number of perahu sold or apprehended, and number remaining at the end of the season, December 1994.

Mola boats based in Mola

Mola boats based in Pepela

Mantigola boats based in Mantigola

Mantigola boats based in Pepela

Pepela boats with Bajo crew

Bajo from other areas

Total

Sold

4

0

2

1

0

0

7

Apprehended

2*

3

0

0

2

0

7

Remaining

21

19

4

2

11

4

61

* The perahu Tunas Baru was apprehended in November 1996, but the crew were able to pay a security bond and return with the boat, so it is not included in the total numbers lost.

At the end of the fishing season approximately two thirds of the Bajo perahu fleet returned to Mola, Mantigola or other villages from which they had originally departed. Most perahu returning to Mola or Mantigola took on extra passengers, including women and children, or crew from boats that had been sold or apprehended (see Plates 7-6 and 7-7). The Sumber Jaya, for example, had a total of 17 people on board for the return journey of seven days duration. As well as the original crew, this included one other female, the sister of the captain; some crew from the Nurjaya that had been apprehended and confiscated in November; and the captain of the Sinar Jaya II who had returned early to Mola in October but then come back to Pepela by motor boat to collect his two sons. Internet.

Plate 7-6: Bajo sailing to Mola in early December 1994.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-6.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

The Fishing Grounds

Chapter 7. Sailing, Fishing and Trading in 1994

The Fishing Grounds

After sailing south from Pepela and into the Timor Sea, the captain decides the destination for fishing. This depends on the prevailing wind conditions. Fishing activity takes place in a number of different areas along the continental shelf both within and outside the MOU box area. The areas fished by the Bajo include the area known as bagian perusahan (oil rig area) to the east of Cartier Island. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5870" \t "new"

] In the MOU box area, fishermen operate in the vicinity of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and Cartier Island, to the east and northeast around Scott Reef, in waters between Cartier Island and Browse Island, and along the edge of the continental shelf around Browse Island (see Map 5-1). Outside the MOU box, fishing is conducted along the Sahul Shelf in waters to the east of the eastern boundary and to the south of the southern boundary of the MOU box. Bajo boats also operate along the area called bagian timu (the eastern region), which refers to the northeastern part of the Timor Sea south of the Tanimbar Islands. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5887" \t "new"

] This is the area between the Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Line (PFSEL) and the deep waters south of Timor. Since the best fishing grounds are located outside of the permitted areas, some fishermen often deliberately access these parts of the AFZ, thereby risking the possibility of apprehension. In other cases, fishermen are not knowingly aware that they are outside the permitted areas. This is particularly the case when they may only be a few nautical miles outside the MOU box or south of the PFSEL.

Navigation Techniques

Bajo navigate by a system of dead reckoning with reference to familiar landmarks, navigation lights, and oil rigs. Sea features such as reefs, shoals and channels, the directions of currents, waves and swells, tide patterns, prevailing wind directions and the stars are all essential directional markers. Wind directions are named after a system of compass directions called mata sangai, the ‘points of origin of the winds’ (Ammarell 1995: 202). An example of a Bajo directional system is shown in Figure 7-1. The naming of wind directions corresponds to the main points on a magnetic compass (pedoman) which is now often used as an additional navigational aid. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5906" \t "new"

]

Figure 7-1: Sixteen-point Bajo wind compass.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/figure-7-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

The Bajo sailors have an extensive knowledge of the navigational techniques required to reach destinations all over eastern Indonesia, as well as specific islands, reefs and fishing grounds in the northern Australian region. Since they are rarely out of sight of an island for more than a few days, positions can be checked by reference to landforms. For example, if fishing along the northern Sahul Shelf, a short sail in a northeasterly direction will bring a boat within sight of specific features along the southern coast of the island of Timor, and a crew member will then climb the mast to gain a better vantage point. The time taken to travel between a set of reference points is counted in days and nights.

As well as dead reckoning, the Bajo employ extensive sounding of the seabed to determine their position in relation to permitted areas and find a depth of water suitable for fishing. Fishermen have an extensive knowledge of the seabed in the MOU box area and the Timor Sea. Depth is regularly monitored with a lead line (nduga) made from a prism-shaped lead weight of 1–2 kg attached to a long length of nylon fishing line. Fishermen can also determine if they are in permitted or forbidden waters by checking the colour of the water. Men frequently said that if they find themselves in ‘white waters’ they know they are outside the permitted areas. However, despite this range of navigational aids and skills a perahu may sometimes get lost (jatuh haluan). Some carry charts or maps on board, but these are almost impossible to use with any reliability without modern navigational instruments. That is why the use of the magnetic compass is becoming more common on frequently sailed routes.

Fishing Methods

Before shark fishing commences the crew must first catch bait (umpang). The most efficient way to do this is to locate a suitable fishing ground (lana/tempat mencari) which is usually a reef. Bait is also caught using troll lines with lures while the perahu is under sail, or from a canoe in the open sea, either under paddle or sail. In this case, canoes are launched from the perahu and the crew may travel a few hundred metres or more away from the perahu trolling for fish. Bait can also be caught using handlines from the deck of the perahu, particularly if it is too rough to sail canoes. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e5958" \t "new"

] The amount of bait required depends on the number of longline hooks to be baited and the size of baitfish caught, but is often around 70–200 fish. Bait can be kept longer by salting it.

Once sufficient fish are caught to bait the hooks the perahu will sail to a suitable place to set the longlines by sounding the sea bottom. All hooks and snoods are lined up along a plank or along the top of a hatch and baited. Usually the lines and snoods with baited hooks are fed out while the perahu is under sail, but if there is no wind the boat has to be rowed. The setting of longlines takes up to an hour and is usually done in the afternoon. The lines are marked by buoys andattached to the perahu while it is anchored overnight. Once the lines are set the evening meal is prepared and the crew entertain themselves, sleep, and take turns on watch.

Just before dawn, the crew begin the arduous process of hauling in the longlines. This can take hours since no mechanical devices are used, and is even more difficult if there are strong winds or adverse currents. If the wind conditions are right a perahu can sail under a half-set jib sail while pulling in the longlines. It is not uncommon to lose a section of the longlines, or occasionally the entire set, during a fishing expedition if they get eaten by the fish. It is often difficult to recover the gear, particularly if it has been damaged some hours before the crew become aware of it, or if there is little or no wind by which to sail after the lines. That is why most perahu carry some extra fishing equipment with them.

Sharks caught using longlines are usually dead by the time the lines are hauled in. They are landed onto the deck of the perahu with the aid of gaffs or harpoons (iddi) and their fins are then cut off. The body is trimmed of excess meat and laid or hung out in the sun to dry. It takes about three days for the fins to dry and longer for the tails. The flesh from the body is either cut up into strips, salted, and hung up to dry, or else the carcass is dumped overboard. The catch may be highly variable: a crew might set longlines on ten occasions in the course of a month at sea but only make a total catch of six or seven sharks.

Many perahu still carry a few handlines and shark rattles. If the crew find themselves in shallow waters at any time during the expedition, or when there is little or no wind, handlines and shark rattles may be deployed for a few hours or a day or two, and sometimes at night. Usually the main sail is hoisted and the perahu drifts slowly when fishing with hand lines or while crew members shake the rattles over the side of the boat. This method of fishing is more dangerous than longlines since the sharks are alive when caught and must either be clubbed to death or killed with harpoons (with detachable iron heads) before the fins are removed.

The established use of longlines as the main gear has resulted in a preference for smaller perahu. Because longlines are anchored to the bottom of the sea with stones, the crew must pull the perahu towards the lines to pull them up. A bigger perahu is heavier and therefore more difficult to pull whereas a smaller perahu is lighter and faster. The use of motorised vessels is also advantageous since it is possible to motor slowly towards the lines while hauling them in. The speed with which longlines can be hauled in is itself an important factor in determining whether a boat is apprehended, because the time taken over this task could be the time between a reported sighting of illegal fishing activity by Coastwatch and the arrival of a patrol vessel to investigate the activity. Some Bajo remarked that the advantage of fishing with handlines while the perahu is slowly under sail is that they can immediately sail away if a surveillance aircraft flies overhead.

Fishing Rituals

Once the Bajo sailors are at sea, they regard sailing and fishing as sacred activities. This is because they have crossed into the domain of their ancestors and their fortunes depend on appropriate behaviour towards these beings. At this cosmological level, Australian ownership of marine resources in the AFZ is not recognised at all. Continued activity in waters now claimed by Australia is partly driven by a belief that the Bajo have a legitimate right to fish in the AFZ in waters controlled by their ancestors.

Shark fishing is complemented by the observance of taboos (pamali) and performance of prayers (usually accompanied by offerings. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e6028" \t "new"

] It is taboo to throw anything such as food or ashes from the fire box directly into the water; the refuse material must be thrown over the deck of the perahu and later washed off with water. The Bajo also prohibit crew and passengers from spitting or cleaning their teeth directly into the sea, from urinating or defecating anywhere from the perahu but via the toilet box, and from combing their hair or using soap to wash the body or clothes while at sea. If these rules are not observed, strong winds or storms may arise. The results can be big waves, strong currents or no wind at all, and people may succumb to sickness or have no fishing success. When a crew member died after he returned from a fishing voyage with a sickness, it was thought he had failed to observe one of these taboos.

Shark fishing is a ‘social interaction’ (Zerner 1994: 27) between people and spirits. The practice of propitiating the spirits prior to fishing activity has persisted through the substitution of longlines for rattles and handlines. Before the crew begin shark fishing operations, the captain or the punggawa recites a prayer and makes a simple offering of betel nut and leaves, lime and tobacco, to the mbo madilao. This only has to be done once during a shark fishing expedition at the first fishing location. The prayer is intended to praise the ancestors and ‘to show respect’ to those who live in the sea. In the words of Si Mudir, it is ‘to ask permission from mbo madilao if we can take fish and to give us good fortune’ and ‘to be kept away from danger, like big waves, or strong wind’.

In the past our ancestors gave offerings to the sea. This is the custom [adat]. We also do this. We still do this now. We lower offerings first and ask the ancestors for this and that, to give us fish and good fortune. Then we can start fishing. We must. Whatever region we go to we have to inform the ancestors because they are not fixed at any one place. Because it is not us who have possession of the sea. It’s the same if we want to ask for water or rice or wood, we have to ask the person who owns it before we can take it. It’s the same with our ancestors that live in the sea (Si Mudir, Mola Selatan).

If we do not ask for permission from the guardians in the sea to take products usually they will hide the sea products, sometimes under a rock, or under the sand, under seaweed or sometimes the sea will become hazy or clouded or strong winds and big waves will come. But if we politely ask the sea guardians, we can have everything and also we will not have difficulties harvesting products from the sea because we have already asked permission (Si Kariman, Mola Selatan).

Additional consequences of failure to seek this form of approval are explained as follows:

If Bajo have an accident at sea or misfortune or sickness [sore stomach or vomiting] they must ask forgiveness from the people who live in the sea who have taboo. If you want to ask for forgiveness we must say ‘we ask for forgiveness because we already took your riches [marine products] and especially because we did not have permission to do so first because we are only stupid people and don’t know anything’ (Si Kariman, Mola Selatan).

If we get the consequences of taboo, we must apologise to mbo madilao in order that we are safe from danger, from the consequences of taboo. When we have given them food, mbo madilao will go away, and the condition of the sea will be safe and the consequences of the taboo gone (Si Dudda, Mola Selatan).

Fishing success is said to be also dependent on the correct construction and use of fishing gear.

Before we begin fishing with a shark rattle we must say a prayer first to the ancestors, and ask to be given good fortune so we can aim to return home quickly. Then we dip the end of the shark rattle in the water three times. Once this is done then we can begin fishing (Si Mudir, Mola Selatan).

Each person operating a shark rattle must also wear a hat. If there are no hats available they must tie a sarong or shirt around their head. In the words of Si Mudir, ‘it is taboo to not wear a hat, if we don’t wear a hat, the fish will not appear, or if they appear, the fish will not eat the bait’.

Plate 7-7: Squally west monsoon conditions on the return voyage to Mola.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-7.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

During the west monsoon period from December 1994 to March 1995, most of the remaining Bajo families in Pepela also returned to Mola and Mantigola. Many of the Bajo women living on the Tanjung during the 1994 fishing season had stayed on during the 1993–94 west monsoon and found living conditions difficult, many having to evacuate their houses during strong winds and wet conditions. Families returned home to visit relatives, attend religious feasts and celebrations, and check on houses. This time also provided an opportunity for men to work in the live fish trade that operated in Southeast Sulawesi and the Tukang Besi Islands during early 1995.Internet.

The Economics of Shark Fishing

Chapter 7. Sailing, Fishing and Trading in 1994

The Economics of Shark Fishing

Bajo shark fishing voyages in 1994 were financed by a system of credit between fishermen and traders or money lenders that served to strengthen and maintain the regional trade in shark fin. The practice of obtaining credit to fund fishing voyages was not something new to the Bajo, but credit relationships have become the mechanism through which changes in market prices affect the practice of shark fishing. If the price of shark fin were to fall to the level prevailing in the mid-1980s, the entire fishery would undergo considerable change.

An examination of credit and profit-sharing arrangements reveals the economic incentive for Bajo to base themselves in Pepela, Roti Island. There are also clear economic reasons why Bajo continue to fish in the AFZ. First, while shark fishing does not guarantee good returns, or any returns, it can provide higher returns for the owner and crew of an unmotorised perahu lambo than any other long distance voyaging activity. Second, the debts that fishermen owe to bosses, traders or money lenders as a result of a poor fishing trip or season, or because of the apprehension and confiscation of their boats, equipment and catch, force them to return to Pepela and embark on further shark fishing ventures in the Timor and Arafura seas. In other words, they are caught in a cycle of indebtedness and poverty from which further voyages offer a means of escape. This means that the Australian policy of apprehension and confiscation does not appear to be effective as a deterrent to further fishing incursions.

The Trader-Bosses of Pepela - Rote Island

The Pepela traders are only interested in the fishermen as suppliers of marine commodities in exchange for credit to fund the search for them. The relationships between fishermen and traders are of a type that Acciaioli (1987: 10) describes as ‘transitional ties of dependence’ rather than ‘traditional ties of patronage’. This type of indebtedness has replaced traditional patron–client relations throughout the maritime societies of eastern Indonesia (Pelras 1996: 332).

In Pepela in 1994 there were four main traders, each with his own network. These men are often called buyers (pembeli) by the fishermen, but the most common term is bos (after the English word ‘boss’). Some of these traders operated in conjunction with other members of the local community (also called bos) who supplied the fishermen with boats, capital and provisions.

The largest and wealthiest trader (Bos A) [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e6118" \t "new"

] was born in Pepela and was of part-Saudi descent. He worked for a husband-and-wife team based in Hong Kong who provided him with capital to purchase sun-dried fin for export to that destination. Bos A provided interest-free financial capital to fishermen or bought fin from fishermen who were financially independent. He also worked in conjunction with his uncle (Bos B), who operated from his own premises and offered capital and provisions to fishermen on credit with the condition that their product be sold to Bos A. Bos A owned 18 perahu and would lend these to Bajo and Pepela fishermen. It is difficult to know for certain but Bos A probably controlled 40–50 per cent of the shark fin trade in Pepela.

Bos C was of Chinese descent and lived in Ba'a on Roti. Of all the traders, he had the longest established relationship with fishermen in Pepela, being the first local trader to buy marine products from them although he had never lived in the village or directly supplied goods on credit to its residents. Bos A worked for Bos C for a time before he started working with his current Hong Kong partners. Bos C co-operated with another trader (Bos D), who was himself a relative of Bos A and Bos B. Bos D owned six perahu lambo which he would lend to Bajo fishermen, and would also provide supplies and money if needed. But Bos D did not buy shark fin himself; the fishermen indebted to him would sell their fin to Bos C who would forward it to his partner in Ujung Pandang (Makassar).

A Kupang-based Bugis trader (Bos E) started operating in Pepela in 1992, with finance supplied by another trader from Surabaya. His three Bugis collectors would buy provisions in Kupang, transport them to Pepela, supply the fishermen on credit, and purchase catch in return. Another Kupang-based trader provided capital for at least one Mola perahu in 1994 and would buy fin directly from some of the Bajo fishermen who were financially independent of the Pepela traders.

As a result of the good profits from shark fishing in the early 1990s, some of the wealthier residents and boat owners in Pepela purchased more perahu lambo and eventually branched out to become entrepreneurs in their own right. One of these newer entrepreneurs (Bos F) was selling fin to Bos E in Kupang, or sometimes to other traders. He also owned a fleet of 11 perahu lambo which he would lend out, and in 1994 he provisioned a total of 40 Bajo and Pepelan perahu operating out of Pepela. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e6212" \t "new"

] Other wealthy Pepela residents were also buying fin from the crew of vessels that they owned and selling it to traders in Pepela or Kupang. Local shop owners were making a profit on the higher price charged to fishermen for goods obtained on credit, and they too would sometimes buy fin and sell it to local or Kupang-based traders.

Grading and Marketing Shark Fin

The prices commanded by fins from different shark species vary in accordance with the quality and quantity of the fin needles used to make shark fin soup. The highest commercial value is attached to white-finned sharks and shark-like rays such as the white-spotted guitarfish (Rhynchobatus djiddensis), both of which are known to the Bajo as kareo nunang or lontar(white shark). Then come the five types of black-finned shark (Carcharhinus spp) know to the Bajo as kareo simburoh, kareo tarang tikkolo, kareo lapis gigi, kareo pote', and kareo angtugan. Least valuable are the tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) known as kareo mangali) and the hammerhead sharks (Eusphyra blochii and Sphyrna spp) known as kareo bingkoh.

In the traditional grading system, fins are classified either according to the species or the colour of the skin, and then distinguished by their size, dryness, and the type of cut. The best quality fins from one shark are normally sold as a set comprising two pectoral fins, the first dorsal fin and one caudal fin (see Figure 7-2). The second dorsal, ventral and anal fins and the fins from small sharks are not sold as a set but as mixed dried fins (Lai Ka-Keong 1983: 38). The upper lobe of the tail has little or no commercial value. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e6277" \t "new"

] Internet.

Chapter 8. An Evaluation of Australian Policy

Table of Contents

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08.html" \l "d0e7004"

What is ‘Traditional’ Activity?

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08.html" \l "d0e7031"

Traditional’ Activities in the MOU

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08.html" \l "d0e7057"

The Case of the Karya Abadi

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08.html" \l "d0e7132"

Commerce and Tradition

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s02.html"

How Effective is Australian Policy?

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s02.html" \l "d0e7244"

The Australian Aid Program

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s02.html" \l "d0e7375"

The Record of Apprehensions

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s03.html"

New Policy Approaches

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s03.html" \l "d0e7579"

A Licensing System

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s03.html" \l "d0e7605"

Reasons for Inaction

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch08s03.html" \l "d0e7654"

The Way Forward

There are a number of reasons why Australian policy is not effective in deterring illegal activity. A key feature of Australian policy has been the definition of ‘traditional’ fishing encapsulated in the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that regulates access for Indonesian fishermen in the AFZ. This concept of the ‘traditional’ reflects a simplistic but popular evolutionist view that emphasises the static, timeless, and non-commercial aspects of culture and ignores any process of cultural change and adaptation. While contemporary anthropological and legal opinions in Australia depict tradition and culture as dynamic in the face of changing circumstances, government policy towards Indonesian fishermen and indigenous Australians still tends to oppose the ‘traditional’ to the ‘commercial’. This adherence to a notion of the ‘traditional’ as something culturally inert is at odds with the understanding and behaviour of Bajo fishermen, and regulation of access to the MOU area by reference to ‘traditional’ technology has resulted in all sorts of misunderstandings and inconsistencies.

In practice the Bajo have lost their ‘traditional’ access rights to areas of the AFZ where they previously fished, while the Australian definition of ‘traditional’ fishing provides the Australian Government with a justification for continuing the policy of apprehension, confiscation and forfeiture of perahu. Moreover, it appears that such views have contributed to a lack of will on the part of the Australian Government to consider alternative approaches to managing a traditional Indonesian fishery in the AFZ. The extent to which the MOU has been effective in providing recognition of fishing rights and curbing illegal fishing activity is debatable. Under the terms of the MOU, no specific rights exist for groups who operated in the region prior to Australian maritime expansion. Bajo fishermen are denied normal cultural dynamism in pursuit of their livelihood. There are double standards being applied here: Australians can change, but Bajo cannot — Bajo must operate ‘traditionally’.

Over-exploitation of marine resources has occurred within the MOU box area because there are no restrictions on access to it, so it is now regarded as a poor shark fishing ground. Fishermen therefore fish illegally in order to access more abundant shark populations to secure reasonable profits. The basic nature of Bajo navigational methods also means that it is often difficult for the fishermen to determine the location of marine boundaries. Educational campaigns and the policy of deterrence have been largely ineffective. Large numbers of fishing boats continue to be apprehended for illegal incursions in the AFZ. The burning of boats that provide a livelihood for some of the poorest people in eastern Indonesia while Australia continues to fund aid projects to alleviate poverty in the region represents a seriously inconsistent and counterproductive foreign policy.

A range of complex and competing political, territorial, commercial, environmental and legal factors continue to influence government inaction on the complex problem of illegal fishing in the AFZ. A more inclusive, culturally informed approach should now be taken to devise new agreements for specific groups with a historic interest in the area prior to Australian maritime expansion. The challenge for Australian and Indonesian policy makers is to find a flexible arrangement that incorporates the cultural dynamics of a traditional Indonesian fishery while at the same time maintaining the legal, territorial, commercial and environmental principles and objectives of the nation state.

What is ‘Traditional’ Activity?

The Eurocentric worldview has been criticised for the ‘distorted way that it constructs and presents alien societies’ (Carrier 1992a: 195). Debate on this subject was stimulated by anthropological reflections on the ‘colonial encounter’ (Asad 1973), and then by Said’s (1979) study of ‘Orientalism’, which focused on the way that Oriental or Asian societies have been portrayed in essentialist terms as static and simple, isolated from Western influence (Carrier 1992b: 3). Fabian (1983: 31) calls this the ‘denial of coevalness’ which positions the ‘Other’ in another time, or out of time, from the West — a process that developed out of nineteenth century evolutionary schemes which placed all societies in a developmental sequence of progress, ‘a temporal slope … a stream of Time — some upstream and some downstream’ (ibid.: 16). This discourse holds that societies passed through stages of development from the ‘savage’ to the ‘civilised’. Terms used in ‘temporal distancing’ (ibid.: 71), like ‘primitive’ or ‘traditional’, came to refer to less technologically developed societies that were untouched, static survivals of the past. From these discourses arose a tendency to discuss ‘Other’ societies in terms of dichotomies such as progress versus stagnation, development versus underdevelopment, and modernity versus tradition (ibid.: 144). These dichotomies obstructed the realisation that ‘Other’ societies also have histories (Wolf 1982) and exist in the same time and space as ourselves.

Much early anthropological writing about so-called ‘traditional’, ‘native’ or ‘indigenous’ societies focused on ‘traditionalism’ (Fabian 1983; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Carrier 1992b; Miller 1994: 59; Merlan 1998: 3). This ‘traditionalism’ is the process of ‘the reproduction of idealized representations of native societies as they allegedly are, in the terms of how they supposedly were’ (Merlan 1998: 231). These ‘traditionalist’ accounts of indigenous peoples ‘support a vision of the world in which at least some portions of it, some peoples of it, remain customary, unchanged, and therefore different from ‘us’, inherent and unreflective in their relation to their “culture’” (ibid.: 4).

Anthropology has since ‘involved itself in a thorough-going critique and rejection of static models of culture’ (Scott 1993: 322). Studies concerning ‘the invention of culture’ (Wagner 1975), the ‘invention of tradition’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), or the ‘reinvention of traditional culture’ (Keesing and Tonkinson 1982) point to processes whereby people actively formulate and codify their traditions. Anthropologists now generally agree that ‘there is no traditional baseline of unchanging homeostasis’ from which to measure tradition, ‘nor is there any one-sided change caused by colonialism and modernisation’, but ‘in encounters with colonial and other “modern” powers, so called traditional systems tend to generate creative responses to the challenges from afar’ (Hviding 1996: 29). Or as Marcus and Fischer would have it:

Most local cultures worldwide are products of a history of appropriation, resistances, and accommodations. The [present] task … is … to revise ethnographic description away from [a] self-contained, homogenous, and largely ahistorical framing of the cultural unit toward a view of cultural situations as always in flux, in a perpetual historically sensitive state of resistance and accommodation to broader processes of influence that are as much inside as outside the local context (Marcus and Fischer 1986: 78).

In an overview of developments in the ‘invention of tradition’ literature since 1982, specifically in regard to Oceania, Tonkinson (1993: 598) explored aspects of tradition ‘that continue to offer useful avenues for further research … in light of what we know about it as a complex and ramifying domain of meaning, discourse and action’. He concluded that ‘tradition is most effectively conceptualised as a resource employed (or not employed) strategically by certain (but not all) of a community’s members’ (ibid.: 599). This approach is particularly useful in places like Australia and North America, where the nation state demands that indigenous minorities ‘present their claims to rights and resources largely in terms of “traditional” validatory criteria, such as kin group affiliation, land tenure principles, religion and language’ (ibid.: 603).

Following the 1992 Australian High Court decision known as the Mabo decision, the Commonwealth Government passed the Native Title Act 1993. Despite the fundamental changes thus made to the recognition of native title, claimants are required to demonstrate their possession of ‘traditional law and custom’, so the concept of traditionalism is still embedded in Australian law. In a subsequent paper dealing with native title controversies, Tonkinson made the following observation:

Adopting a perspective on tradition that conceptualises it as a resource, strategically deployed by groups of people in the defence or furtherance of their interests, raises larger political issues, particularly in societies like Australia where indigenous cultures coexist with a dominant nation state. For example, it poses a considerable challenge to law-makers: how to frame and implement heritage and similar legislation so as to take account of the dynamism inherent in indigenous constructions of tradition and the variety of pressures that influence the nature and trajectory of these constructions. The difficulty here is the tension that exists between the need to ensure some degree of flexibility — to allow for the dynamism inherent in these constructions of tradition — and legal requirements for sufficient boundedness or closure to allow legislators to formulate widely applicable criteria for assessing ‘significance’ (Tonkinson 1997: 12).

He then went on to describe the way in which emergent traditions were labelled as ‘suspect’ and ‘inauthentic’, and to note that they are especially vulnerable to attack when they ‘threaten in any significant way the interests of governments or the private sector, and potentially large financial returns are seen as endangered by successful invocation of Aboriginal heritage legislation (ibid.: 18). In Australia, there remains a ‘lack of public awareness’ of the dynamism inherent in Aboriginal culture and a failure to recognise that ‘the inevitable transformations through time are due partly to powerful external forces’ (ibid.: 19). This is also a problem that needs to be addressed in the way that Australian laws and policies have dealt with Indonesian fishermen.

‘Traditional’ Activities in the MOU

The idea that Indonesians were engaged in subsistence fishing influenced the 1968 decision to permit ‘traditional’ Indonesian fishing to continue within the 12 nm territorial sea adjacent to Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), Cartier Island, Seringapatam Reef, Scott Reef, Browse Island, and Adele Island, provided their operations ‘were confined to a subsistence level’ (DFAT 1988: 1). The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding made no direct reference to the mode of production; ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen’ were instead defined as ‘fishermen who have traditionally taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters by methods which have been the tradition over decades of time’ (see Appendix B).

Under the 1989 amendments to the MOU, further qualifications were introduced when access to Australian waters was limited to ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines’ (see Appendix C). Since ‘decades’ had to refer to a minimum period of two decades, [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7040" \t "new"

] ‘traditional vessels’ were defined as perahu without motors. The direct reference to Indonesian fishermen with a history of activity in the AFZ was dropped, is indirectly present in the inference that ‘traditional fishermen’ have been fishing ‘over decades’. Implicit in the MOU is the notion of traditional societies operating in a static and unchanging fashion over a long period of time. Traditional rights of access are thus determined by continuing use of ‘traditional’ — that is, unchanging — technology.

The notion of the ‘traditional’ in the 1974 MOU reflects the essential elements of a popular and prevailing view of indigenous tradition, common both in Australia and elsewhere, as ancient and unchanging (Handler and Linnekin 1984; Merlan 1991; Hovelsrud-Broda 1997; Ewins 1998; Ritchie 1999). An everyday definition of tradition used in relation to the Pacific is ‘those beliefs and practices that have been handed down from generation to generation’ (Ewins 1998: 3). This view assumes that ‘an unchanging core of ideas and customs is always handed down from the past’ (Handler and Linnekin 1984: 273) — in the case of the MOU ‘over decades of time’. The prevailing view of ‘traditionalism’ (Merlan 1998) is that changes in tradition, such as the adoption of new technologies as a result of adaptation to changing circumstances, are considered to be ‘inauthentic’ and therefore not ‘traditional’. Since ‘modern’ often means ‘commercial’, ‘traditional’ is equated with ‘subsistence’, and this ‘underpins the belief that “traditional” is, and should continue to be associated with primitive technology’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 75–6).

While such notions and dichotomies are now rejected in social theory, they still inform the Australian Government’s understanding of Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ. Australia’s version of the Orientalist discourse is based on a fictionalised cultural inertia ascribed to Indonesian fishermen. The irony is that Australia makes allowance for its own cultural dynamism by expanding its territorial waters, appropriating Indonesian fishing grounds, and continually upgrading and modernising its maritime technology to patrol these waters. Indonesian fishermen, on the other hand, are forced to use simple fishing gear and unmotorised vessels in order to remain traditional, primitive, stagnant, underdeveloped and technologically unsophisticated. And the Bajo suffer a double jeopardy, because they are also subject to pressure from Indonesian authorities who have ‘traditionally’ viewed minority cultural groups in much the same light.

The regulations in the 1974 MOU effectively lock Indonesians and their material culture of fishing into a time-bound past. They are forced to operate outside of their own time (Fabian 1983: 2), in a state of ‘reified timelessness’ (Carrier 1992b: 11), resulting in a technological freeze (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 185). The modernisation of Bajo fishing vessels means that Australian authorities consider they are no longer operating ‘traditionally’, but are commercial operators whose activities fall outside the regulations of the MOU. The following court case illustrates the shifting status of Indonesian fishermen caught in this traditional/commercial dichotomy.

The Case of the Karya Abadi

On 18 May 1997, a Mola Bajo captain, Si Nasir, and four crew of the Karya Abadi were apprehended for illegally fishing outside the MOU box area, exactly 10.7 nm south of the southern MOU boundary, south of Browse Island, and taken to Broome. The crew and captain were charged under Section 100 of the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act 1991 with using a foreign fishing vessel in the AFZ without a licence. The captain was also charged under Section 101 with being in charge of a foreign fishing vessel equipped for fishing. The captain and the crew pleaded not guilty to the charges. Although legal aid was not provided, a lawyer from Perth decided to defend the fishermen on a pro bono basis. The crew were held at Willie Creek until their case was finally heard five months later in the Broome Court of Petty Sessions on 16 and 17 October.

The case received an unprecedented level of print and television media coverage before and during the trial because the defence lawyer presented a Mabo-style sea claim and asserted that the fishermen had a native title right to fish in areas of the AFZ outside the MOU box area. If the defendants were all traditional fishermen exercising traditional fishing rights recognised under Australian law, then Sections 100 and 101 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 would not apply to them (Vincent 1997).

Legal precedents set in previous cases in Australia had outlined the evidence required to prove native title rights for land or sea, and these formed the basis of the defence case. The first traditional fishing rights case in Australia was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court in March 1993. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7077" \t "new"

] It dealt with a man called Mason who was arrested for having more than the allowed limit of abalone in his possession. Mason’s defence was that he was ‘exercising his native title right to fish and therefore outside the scope of the fisheries regulations’ (Peterson and Rigsby 1998: 11). The court ‘recognised the existence of a traditional right to fish but questioned whether the defendant was actually practising that right at the time of his arrest’, so Mason lost his case (Cane 1998: 66).

Justice Kirby’s judgement on appeal found that the right to fish based upon traditional laws and customs is a recognisable form of native title under common law. Justice Kirby also set out the type of evidence required to establish a successful common law claim for native title. The criteria adopted by Nasir’s defence to demonstrate the validity of the Bajo claim were informed by this judgement. These were that:

(1) the traditional laws and customs covering the right to fish were observed by the communities from which the defendants originated immediately before Australia exercised its sovereignty over the waters in question;

(2) the defendants were indigenous people and descendants (‘or within the permitted group’) of the relevant communities;

(3) they had continued, uninterrupted, to observe the relevant traditional laws and customs; and

(4) their activities in fishing for shark fin were an exercise of those traditional laws and customs. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7093" \t "new"

]

In submissions to the magistrate the defence highlighted two contentious questions about the definition of ‘traditional’ activities. The first was whether fishing for shark fin for sale or barter could be regarded as a traditional practice and the second was whether the use of longline gear could be regarded as a traditional fishing method. Not only did the defence argue that sale of shark fin is in keeping with the traditional practices of the Bajo; it was also argued that there is in law no requirement for customary practices to be immutable or fixed in time. The second argument was based on judgements by Justice Brennan in the Mabo case and by Justice Kirby in the Mason case.

The magistrate handed down his decision on 11 November 1997. He ruled that the Fisheries Management Act 1991 was plainly intended to extinguish foreign traditional fishing rights in Australian waters. Since the MOU set aside areas within the AFZ where traditional fishermen could operate, he said that this indicated a legislative intention to abrogate any such rights that may have existed in other parts of the AFZ (Roberts 1997: 15). He also found that the defendants could establish points (1) and (2) in their main argument, but could not establish points (3) and (4), and could not therefore be properly regarded as ‘traditionally fishing’ (ibid.: 19). One of his reasons was that evidence presented by a Western Australian fisheries officer showed that longlines cannot be considered as a traditional fishing method because of their recent adoption and size.

Previously shark boats used only handlines and the fishermen kept all of the shark. Now they only keep the fins or a small proportion of the body.… Further, the price of shark fin has increased dramatically whereby Indonesian fishermen may receive up to $80A per kilo for No 1 grade product.… Even allowing for cultural dynamics, the recent development of relatively sophisticated longlining appears to be as a direct result of the high price paid to Indonesian fishermen for shark fin and the desire to maximise profits. In my view this method of fishing cannot be said to be a traditional fishing practise [sic] — even making allowances for changing fishing equipment technology (ibid.: 21).

The magistrate also noted that the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 ‘excludes traditional fishing from the definition of commercial fishing’, but no such exclusion is made in the Fisheries Management Act 1991, so he concluded that the defendants were engaged in commercial fishing (ibid.: 6).

I have reservations in accepting the proposition that a defence based upon a traditional fishing right extends to fishing for commercial purposes … the formal written contract entered into by Nasir with the money lender, the sale and/or exchange of shark fin for goods or money and the use of the longline demonstrate that his venture was of a commercial rather than traditional nature (ibid.: 21–2).

The magistrate convicted the fishermen on all charges and placed them on good behaviour bonds of A$ 3000 for five years. He ordered forfeiture of the fishing gear but not the vessel. His reasons for this decision were that six months in detention awaiting the trial and judgement amounted to fair punishment for the crew, and that the vessel was only 10.7 nm outside the MOU box. However, he added that by using what he called ‘imprecise’ and ‘primitive’ navigational equipment (compass and depth lead line), the captain was reckless to be fishing so close to the MOU box boundary. A few days later, the vessel was stocked with food and towed for three days to the outer edge of the AFZ from where the captain and crew returned to Indonesia.

The Broome decision is strangely contradictory. Fishermen using longline gear operating inside the MOU box area are not apprehended for being non-traditional and therefore engaged in illegal activity. The Karya Abadi had been boarded by a senior WA fisheries officer inside the MOU box area northeast of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) ten days before its apprehension. According to the evidence presented in court, the officer stated that he informed the captain where he could and could not fish and also inspected his fishing gear. In doing so, he acknowledged that the men were ‘traditional fishermen’ since they were carrying out ‘traditional fishing’ within the terms of the MOU regulations. No Indonesian perahu has ever been apprehended and convicted for charges of being ‘non-traditional’ in the MOU box. However, if the same vessel is found operating outside the MOU box area using the same longline gear, the activities of the crew become ‘non-traditional’, ‘commercial’ and ‘illegal’.

Commerce and Tradition

There is now widespread academic awareness of the paradoxical fluidity of tradition (Ewins 1998: 12). Culture is shaped by changes in social, economic and historical circumstances although ‘it has taken some time for anthropology to come to terms with a humanity that is equal, that is universally dynamic and changing, possibly in different ways within different cultural projects, but which could not simply be sundered into the progressive and the traditional’ (Miller 1994: 59). Legal precedents in Australia, in some instances informed by contemporary anthropological opinion, have come some way towards acknowledging cultural dynamism, and rejecting a definition of ‘traditional’ activities based on technology, but this is in stark contrast to the approach written into the 1974 MOU and its amendments.

In 1986, the Australian Law Reform Commission rejected such a definition of ‘traditional’ Aboriginal hunting and fishing activity:

In determining whether an activity is ‘traditional’ attention should focus on the purpose of the activity rather than the method (LRC 1986: 181).

The Commission also acknowledged the changing nature of Aboriginal traditions:

Aboriginals have had to adapt to change and outside influence … [and] in many cases hunting and fishing practices have incorporated new materials. Nylon fishing nets may have replaced those made of bush fibre … guns may very often have replaced spears, aluminium dinghies are used instead of dugouts (ibid.: 121).

The Commission’s findings related to Aboriginal subsistence activities, broadly including ‘consumption within local family or clan groups … even though elements of barter or exchange may be present’ (ibid.: 181). They do not directly apply to Indonesian fishermen since the latter are not fishing for subsistence and are not Australian citizens. However, as Campbell and Wilson (1993: 78–9) have previously argued, a definition of ‘traditional’ activity based on the purpose rather than the method has already been applied to foreign fishermen in the Torres Strait Treaty 1978 between Australia and Papua New Guinea.

According to Article 10(3), the principal aim of this treaty is ‘to acknowledge and protect the traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants including their traditional fishing and free movement’. In Article 1(l), the treaty defines traditional fishing as ‘the taking, by traditional inhabitants for their own or their dependants’ consumption, or for use in the course of other traditional activities, of the living resources of the sea, seabed, estuaries and coastal tidal areas, including dugong and turtle’. In Article 1(k), it defines ‘traditional activities’ as:

Activities performed by the traditional inhabitants in accordance with local tradition, and includes, when so performed —

(i) activities on land, including gardening, collection of food and hunting;

(ii) activities on water, including traditional fishing;

(iii) religious and secular ceremonies or gatherings for social purposes, for example, marriage celebrations and settlements of disputes; and

(iv) barter and market trade.

In the application of this definition, except in relation to activities of a commercial nature, ‘traditional’ shall be interpreted liberally and in light of prevailing custom.

There is no reference to the methods of traditional fishing, only to the purpose, and there is a recognition that customs can change. This last point has been recognised more recently in the Australian High Court’s second Mabo decision, where Justice Brennan stated that the ‘laws and customs of any people will change’. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7174" \t "new"

] The Broome decision contradicted these important findings.

There is still contention in Australia about whether a traditional fishing activity or right can have a commercial purpose. The Torres Strait Treaty denies this possibility.

[A]fter a century of commercial fishing by the Strait’s indigenous inhabitants it was uncertain what fishing activities could be legitimately regarded as ‘traditional’. By adopting a narrow definition of traditional which excludes commercial activities, the Treaty failed to acknowledge the fluidity of tradition as well as the dynamic quality of economic decision making in the face of changing social conditions (Schug 1996: 219).

In Nasir’s case the magistrate relied on Section 3 of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984, which defines ‘commercial fishing’ as ‘fishing for commercial purposes, but does not include traditional fishing’.

In Australian courts there have been no clear legal determinations on whether Aboriginal native title rights include commercial activities (Sutherland 1996: 28; Peterson and Rigsby 1998: 12). There are indications that the right to native title and traditional practice extends to commercial use (Kilduff and Lofgren 1996) but this has yet to be successfully tested. It would appear that in Australia official perceptions of Indonesian fishermen are consistent with representations of indigenous Australians. The ‘traditional’ is still largely represented as an inversion of the ‘commercial’. But for as long as Indonesian fishermen are known to have been fishing in the north Australian region, this has primarily been for commercial rather than subsistence purposes (Campbell and Wilson 1993). Drawing a distinction between traditional and commercial fishing activity is untenable in the case of the Bajo fishery.

There is, as the Broome case illustrates, a generally held belief on the part of the Australian authorities that fishermen have switched from ‘traditional’ to ‘commercial’ fishing because of increases in the price of shark fin in recent years and are now catching more sharks with the adoption of more ‘modern’ fishing gear (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995b: 120). Campbell and Wilson (1993: 75) provide an alternative account of this perception: ‘shark fishermen take shark fin “traditionally” provided the profit is small; once they begin to make significant commercial returns their activities cease to be traditional’. This understanding was reflected in the Broome case, and parallels the point made by Tonkinson (1997: 18) about Aboriginal traditions ceasing to be ‘traditional’ if they change in ways that threaten government or private sector interests. The Australian Government focuses on the high returns Indonesians are making on successful shark fishing trips and the perceived loss of Australian revenues as a result of this activity. As one Darwin magistrate stated in his decision to convict the Mola Bajo captain of the Bintang Nusantara for illegal fishing in the AFZ in March 1999: ‘Clearly fish in the AFZ is an asset which the court jealously guards, and an asset if not properly controlled will be plundered by a people with no legal right’.

This sort of thinking provides a justification for continuing the policy of apprehension and prosecution. The Australian authorities apprehend Bajo and other groups of fishermen operating in sail-powered boats outside the MOU box area using longline gear to fish for shark fin because they are seen to have betrayed their earlier authentic ‘traditional’ status and thus forfeited any ‘traditional’ rights they may have previously had.Internet.

How Effective is Australian Policy?

Chapter 8. An Evaluation of Australian Policy

How Effective is Australian Policy?

The 1974 MOU recognises some form of traditional fishing rights and attempts to regulate access for traditional Indonesian fishermen in an area now under Australian control. However, in the words of Fox (1998: 114), ‘numerous problems have arisen as a result of this seemingly well-intended endeavour’ and led to a succession of ‘unintended consequences’.

The MOU does not specifically identify who is allowed access into the MOU area. Rather, access is open to any Indonesian ‘traditional’ fishermen as long as they comply with the regulations which narrowly define ‘traditional’ methods and vessels. Access is not determined by historically recognised use rights for specific groups who operated in the region prior to Australian maritime expansion; any group of fishermen using a sail-powered boat is allowed to fish in the region. By failing to identify the specific groups who historically accessed the AFZ, the effectiveness and original intention of the MOU has been undermined and its outcomes severely attenuated.

The original purpose of excluding the use of motorised vessels and methods in the face of increasing motorisation in the small-scale perahu sector in Indonesia was to limit the number of boats entering the area. This policy was designed to control the level of resource exploitation and therefore function as a form of resource management. The idea was that if the technology was unsophisticated or ‘primitive’ it could offer some protection for marine resources. But this technological freeze has failed to achieve the desired outcome. By not restricting the numbers of vessels or the amount of product taken, it opened the area up to an unlimited number of fishermen in sail-powered vessels, of which there is no shortage in eastern Indonesia, and this has resulted in over-exploitation of resources in the MOU box area, particularly sedentary species on reefs and inshore waters.

By not permitting the use of motorised vessels in times of bad weather, the Government has also been accused of enforcing a policy that subjects the fishermen to unnecessary risks (Campbell and Wilson 1993; Fox 1998: 121). Over the last decade, a number of sailing boats and their crews have been lost during cyclones in the MOU area. For example, in April 1994, four Pepela-owned boats and their mostly Bajo crews drowned during a cyclone in the Timor Sea. On the other hand, in periods of little or no wind, or strong currents, when it is impossible to make any headway in a sail-powered vessel, strong currents can easily drag a sail-powered vessel beyond the permitted areas.

Legal fishing in the MOU box area can also be seen as a gateway to illegal fishing (Fox 1998). The 1989 amendments that created this area did not incorporate the most productive Bajo shark fishing grounds. Apart from a few areas around reefs and islands and along the edges of the MOU box, it is a relatively poor shark fishing ground (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 34). No motorised Type 3 perahu have been apprehended for illegal shark fishing activity in this area. Butonese and Bajo fishermen from across eastern Indonesia who use motorised boats to target shark prefer to concentrate their activities in the more productive waters to the north and east of the MOU box (ibid.). Bajo fishermen often seek access to these waters by passing through the MOU box, but in doing so they run the risk of apprehension. Fishermen are forced to fish illegally outside the MOU box area in an attempt to secure adequate returns. Illegal fishing and boat apprehensions thus occur in direct response to the ineffectiveness of the MOU itself.

Naturally, the borders of the MOU box area cannot be marked or signposted. They only exist as lines on maps, unconnected to any geographical features. Bajo navigation is based on reference to familiar landmarks and sea features. Their sailing and fishing activities have, until recently, never been confined to areas bounded by lines on maps. Even for the most experienced navigators, it is difficult to determine exactly where the boundaries of the MOU box are. The MOU restricts access to fishermen using ‘traditional methods’ but expects the accuracy of modern navigation. Accurate determination of latitude and longitude requires the use of marine charts and sophisticated navigational equipment such as a Global Positioning System. Prior to the early 1990s, fishermen found within an unspecified reasonable distance of the permitted areas were generally warned but not apprehended. The tougher approach adopted by AFMA in recent years has seen Bajo and other fishermen apprehended as little as 5–8 nm outside the MOU box. Fishermen who are denied the use of motors and sophisticated equipment under the MOU are treated in the same fashion as an industrial foreign fishing vessel worth millions of dollars caught illegally fishing in the AFZ.

Neither the 1974 MOU nor the Plan of Management for Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve (ANPWS 1989) makes any mention of this reef’s cultural heritage value. At least eight Indonesian graves have been identified on West Island and others on East and Middle islets (ANPWS n.d.), and fishermen are officially prohibited from landing on the islands to visit these sites. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7230" \t "new"

] However, formal requests by fishermen are made to the caretaker to obtain permission to visit and maintain the graves, perform ceremonies and present offerings, and the caretaker often accompanies the fishermen on these visits (personal communication, Paul Clark, 1999).

Indonesian fishermen have played no role in shaping the MOU itself. The agreement makes some attempt at recognising their rights but they have not been invited or allowed to participate in its formulation or implementation. They are not alone, for the interests of maritime peoples are often ‘ignored, dismissed or marginalised’ (Schug 1996: 210) in the formulation of international maritime boundaries and agreements designed to protect their livelihood. The case of the indigenous people of the Torres Strait is one example: the boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Australia established under the Torres Strait Treaty were developed ‘without sufficient consultation with the people who would be affected most directly by the political division’, and this has ‘created an unstable situation which threatens to undermine intention the Treaty’s efforts to provide for the protection of the Strait’s marine environment’ (ibid.: 222). In the case of the MOU, dialogue may be effective at a government-to-government level but other stakeholders, such as Indonesian fishermen, are unable to participate.

The Australian Aid Program

Included in the minutes of the meeting between Australian and Indonesian government officials in April 1989 is a provision which states that:

Indonesian and Australian officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in developing alternative income projects in Eastern Indonesia for traditional fishermen traditionally engaged in fishing under the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or P.I.R.). Both sides mutually decided to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

The ‘nucleus fishing enterprise scheme’ is a transmigration program in the fisheries sector which is used to shift the rural and/or fishing population from densely populated areas to those islands where population density is low. No Australian aid was subsequently directed to the Bajo fishermen who operate in the AFZ, and it was not until the late 1990s that any official Australian delegations visited the villages of Mola, Mantigola or Pepela. The idea of direct engagement with fishermen and an understanding of the issues from their point of view appeared to be completely alien to the Australian authorities.

The educational and information tours undertaken by Australian officials to eastern Indonesia in 1995 were in response to high levels of incursion into the AFZ in 1994. During the visits, maps were distributed in an effort to explain the complex maritime jurisdictions existing between Australia and Indonesia in the Timor and Arafura seas and the MOU area. These were accompanied by two handouts in Indonesian entitled Pesan Permerintah Australia untuk Nelayan (‘Message for Fishermen from the Australian Government’) and Pesan Pemerintah Australia untuk Pemilik Perahu/Kapal dan Otorita Pelabuhan (‘Message for Perahu/Boat Owners and Harbour Authorities from the Australian Government’).[

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7313" \t "new"

] The Australian authorities seem to think that their maps are readily understood by Indonesian fishermen and that they can help them to determine where they can and cannot fish. Fishermen with maps certainly have no excuse if found outside of the permitted areas. However, some Bajo captains, especially those who were illiterate, found the maps highly confusing and difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.

During the course of their awareness-raising tours, officials from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) did explore the opportunities for delivery of aid to poor isolated fishing communities. As a result AusAID has implemented some small projects, but these have not been directed to fishermen whose activities are covered by the MOU, but to people from Sinjai in South Sulawesi who were apprehended in large numbers in 1994–95 following a wave of illegal trepang fishing activity in the northern part of the AFZ. Some support from the Direct Assistance Program of the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia was given to other fishing communities, including Pepela, but the outcome was somewhat ironic. In one instance the money was used to purchase a perahu lambo on the understanding that the proceeds from fishing would be distributed among the community, but the perahu (the Bintang Pagi) was subsequently apprehended, confiscated and destroyed in Darwin.

There is a serious inconsistency here. Australia has a policy commitment to deliver aid to eastern Indonesian fishermen operating under the terms of the MOU, yet retains a policy of confiscating and destroying the sources of livelihood of these very same people. In February 1995, an ABC journalist interviewed a representative from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and a senior officer from the WA Fisheries Department who had just returned from the first educational tour of eastern Indonesia. The embassy representative explained that the Australian Government was exploring opportunities for the delivery of aid for ‘isolated poor fishing communities in eastern Indonesia … who need, for their livelihood, to gain income to support their families and are ready and willing … to often engage in some risky fishing activities south of the border’ (ABC Radio National 1995: 2). In the same interview, the fisheries officer discussed the effectiveness of the deterrence policy:

From our experience … we’ve found the only real deterrent is to continue prosecuting them and to take their boats off them and just fly them home.… I think this is the only real way we can deter them is to continually confiscate and burn their boats, so they lose all their boats and all their fishing equipment, and fly them home back to Indonesia. And just continually do that (ibid.: 5).

As Fox (1998: 131) noted, it is an ‘outright contradiction’ for the Australian Government to fund aid projects to alleviate poverty in eastern Indonesia while burning vessels belonging to some of the poorest inhabitants of the region.

The Record of Apprehensions

For over a decade, the policy of apprehension and confiscation of boats, catch and equipment as a form of deterrent to further illegal activity has been in place. Between 1988 and 1993, there was an overall decline in the number of boat apprehensions, which gave the impression that the policy of apprehension and confiscation was working. However, there was a dramatic increase over the course of the next four years, and this included an increase in the apprehension of Type 2 perahu using longline gear (see Figure 8-1). Of the total number of Indonesian boats apprehended between 1975 and 1997, approximately 22 per cent or 134 boats were Type 2 vessels.

Figure 8-1: Total number of boat apprehensions and total number of Type 2 boat apprehensions, 1975–97.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/figure-8-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

The educational and information campaigns of the 1990s seem to have introduced the AFZ to coastal peoples who may not have previously been aware of the existence of the MOU and the permitted areas. The campaigns themselves may therefore have contributed to larger numbers of boats from eastern Indonesia beginning to engage in illegal activity. If we look at the proportion of Bajo Type 2 perahu among the total number of Type 2 perahu apprehended in those years when there were any apprehensions of such vessels, we can see that the proportion declined in those years when the total number of apprehensions suddenly began to increase (Table 8-1). In 1996, when 49 Type 2 perahu were apprehended, only 18 of them were Bajo perahu.

The present enforcement and prosecution approach costs the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars each year. Expenses include the costs of towing the vessels to Darwin or Broome, carrying out immigration, quarantine and customs checks, maintaining crews and vessels until the completion of court hearings, repatriation of fishermen and destruction of forfeited boats. The costs incurred for each apprehension boat crew depend on the length of time the fishermen are detained, and this in turn depends on the prosecution process. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7407" \t "new"

] It is difficult to obtain official government figures on these expenses because there is a reluctance to place such information in the public domain and many different government departments and agencies are involved in the process.

Table 8-1: Total number of Type 2 apprehensions and Bajo Type 2 apprehensions, 1975–97.

Year

Total Type 2

Bajo Type 2

1975

3

3

1980

2

0

1985

5

5

1988

3

0

1990

4

4

1991

5

5

1992

3

3

1993

9

0

1994

12

8

1995

8

1

1996

49

18

1997

31

15

Total

134

62

Source: AFMA Apprehension lists, Northern Territory and Western Australia.

In its submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFDAT) in 1991, AFMA reported that the costs associated with the apprehension of Indonesian vessels in 1989–90 was A$ 750 499 (Fox 1998: 132). A senior AFMA official has stated that his organisation spent around A$ 3 500 000 on 124 foreign fishing apprehensions, of which 113 were Indonesian, in the financial year 1997/98. This amount included the salaries of 15–20 fisheries officers on AFZ patrolling duties and other fisheries support functions and the costs of caretaking and security operations while fishermen are in detention. In Darwin the contracting caretakers receive about A$ 1000 a day from AFMA for each vessel and crew in their care. This amount covers staff salaries and the cost of providing food, medical treatment, and transport for the fishermen who have been detained. Legal Aid lawyers say that the cost of legal representation for the fishermen is also around A$ 1000 a day. From Darwin, fishermen are normally repatriated to Kupang on a Merpati flight. A one-way ticket costs A$ 244–319 depending on the time of year. Repatriation from Broome is more expensive. For those few fishermen who are able to pay security bonds and return to Indonesia in their boats, the Australian authorities incur several thousand dollars in additional costs by towing the vessels to the international border.

The effectiveness of the policy of apprehension in deterring illegal activity was questioned by the JSCFDAT in 1993. The committee concluded that was a drop in the price of trochus shell, and not surveillance and enforcement, that had caused a decline in illegal trochus harvesting in the AFZ in the early 1990s. The committee also considered that similar enforcement and prosecution approaches were ‘unlikely to be effective’ against illegal shark fishing while the price of shark fin remained high (JSCFDAT 1993: 129).

Figure 7-2: Location and names of shark fins.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/figure-7-2.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Shark fins are now simply graded by size, colour and type of cut because each exporting country had its own grading practices and species are often hard to identify (Lai Ka-Keong 1983: 38). Most of the black fin sold in Pepela in 1994 had a half moon cut (potong semi), with only a few fishermen attempting the full moon cut (potong full), and only In some instances, the fins from the larger black species were sometimes sold in sets of four (see Plate 7-8). The fins from white species were sold in sets of three and were always crude cut (potong biasa) (see Plate 7-9).

Tables 7-5 and 7-6 show examples of the grading and pricing systems used by traders in Pepela in 1994. The range of prices depended in part on the quality of the fin. There were small variations between traders but competition between them meant that the average price of a given colour, size and cut of fin was relatively stable. However, fishermen might be offered lower prices or might lose a percentage of the total price if their fins were not completely dry.

Plate 7-8: A set of black shark

fins.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-8.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

 Plate 7-9: A set of white shark

fins.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/plate-7-9.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

 Table 7-5: An example of grading and prices of black shark fin at Pepela, September 1994 (prices shown are in rupiah per kilogram).

 Crude cut

Half moon

Full moon

Large (30 cm and above)

40 000–45 000

105 000

150 000

Medium (25–29 cm)

22 000–22 500

55 000

75 000

Small (15–24 cm)

10 000–12 500

27 500

40 000

Miscellaneous (kepel)*

5000

17 500

 * The term kepel refers to ventral fins, anal fins,and second dorsal fin.

Table 7-6: An example of grading and pricing for white shark fin from two traders in Pepela, 1994 (prices shown are in rupiah per kilogram).Internet.

New Policy Approaches

Chapter 8. An Evaluation of Australian Policy

New Policy Approaches

Current Australian policies toward Indonesian fishermen are clearly inappropriate and ineffective. Apprehension and confiscation of Bajo perahu should cease. New approaches and new agreements are needed to regulate Indonesian fishing in the AFZ. The MOU is a simple document designed to deal with a complex situation. Despite its failings, it does grant some form of fishing rights to small-scale fishermen from Indonesia. However, an open access fishery system, which determines the right of entry by reference to technology rather than specific user rights, and which then confines fishermen to inappropriate fishing grounds, cannot achieve an equitable allocation of resources or prevent illegal activity. A new agreement should be negotiated in line with the ‘spirit of cooperation and good neighbourliness’ of the original MOU.

A number of alternative approaches and regulations have been suggested (Russell and Vail 1988: 139–42; Reid 1992: 8; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 186; JSCFDAT 1993: 132–3; Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 34, 1995b: 121; Fox 1992, 1996: 174, 1998: 130). Taken in combination, they indicate that Australia should move to: (1) abandon the current definition of traditional fishing that defines access in terms of technology and assumes that traditions cannot change;

(2) identify specific groups of fishermen who have historically fished in the AFZ and guarantee specific rights of access for them;

(3) introduce some form of management intervention in the form of a quota or licensing system to avoid over-exploitation of existing stocks; and

(4) provide access to an area that more closely resembles traditional fishing grounds and takes account of resource availability.

A Licensing System

Some suggestions have already been made about how a licensing system could operate and what benefits it would deliver to Indonesia and Australia once groups with a historical interest in the AFZ have been identified (Reid 1992; Campbell and Wilson 1993; Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a; Fox 1998). [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7586" \t "new"

] An arrangement of this kind could be operated through the harbour master in Pepela who currently keeps records of arrivals and departures and issues sailing clearances. In one version of the system, the harbour master would be responsible for issuing seasonal non-transferable licences to perahu captains in line with conditions set down by the Australian Government. Decisions about who obtained the licences would be made by local community members and carefully monitored. The Australian authorities would be informed at the beginning of each season of the details of all licensed perahu. Any violations would result in the suspension of the licence for three years.

The licensing of boats to fish for shark only inside the existing MOU box area (Fox 1998) would not actually deter illegal fishing outside the box since there are not sufficient stocks available in the box area. Bajo fishermen are prepared to pay relatively large amounts of money for licences as long as they are assured of access to fishing grounds that have reasonable fish stocks. Many fishermen would then have no further incentive to engage in illegal fishing activities and this in turn would save Australia millions of dollars in apprehension and prosecution costs. Fishermen with specific access rights would be reluctant to commit offences which risked their privileged access; they would have an interest in helping Australian authorities protect “their” resources from illegal voyaging … [and their new rights] would deliver aid to certain communities in the form of guaranteed access to resources (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 194).

Through direct engagement with fishermen in the implementation of new policies and procedures, there could also be education in the appropriate forms of resource management and conservation (ibid.: 195).

Reasons for Inaction

New policy approaches have not been tried because there is a lack of political will on the part of the Australian and Indonesian governments to instigate or support research on the groups that would qualify for specific user rights. Only when this information is known can consideration be given to developing appropriate conditions under which a traditional fishery could operate in the AFZ. [

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7612" \t "new"

] The Bajo are one group of Indonesian fishermen who historically fished in the AFZ prior to Australian maritime expansion and have continued to do so. However, we need to know much more. A detailed analysis of the other groups operating in the MOU still needs to be undertaken. Groups of fishermen from the villages of Pepela and Oelaba, as well as the Madurese, can also claim to have legitimate rights of access to Australian waters.

There is also lingering uncertainty over seabed and water column boundaries between Indonesia, Australia and Timor Leste. In 1973, a bilateral agreement between Australia and Indonesia established seabed boundaries extending from the Papua New Guinea border in the east to waters between Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and Roti Island in the west, but left a gap in the boundary south of the then Portuguese colony of East Timor which became known as the Timor Gap (Kaye 1995: 45). The western extension of the seabed boundary between the two countries from a point north of Pulau Pair (Ashmore Reef) was also undecided. Once the two countries had extended their exclusive economic zones, the Timor Gap Treaty established a Zone of Cooperation between Australia and Indonesia that provided for the sharing of oil revenues under the seabed south of East Timor (ibid.: 53). This was re-negotiated in 2002 as the Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of Australia and the newly independent state of Timor Leste during a period when that state was both politically and economically fragile, so it remains a bone of contention in the area. Map 8-1 shows the current maritime boundaries between the three countries, with the letter ‘A’ designating the Joint Petroleum Development Area defined by the Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and Timor Leste.

Map 8-1: International maritime boundaries in the Timor and Arafura seas.

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/map-8-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

The maritime boundaries between Australia and Indonesia should have been further clarified by the Australia–Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty signed in 1997 (DFAT 1997), but a number of problems arose in the process of ratification, and these became the subject of an inquiry by the Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Under the provisions of this treaty, Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) would generate a 24 nm exclusive economic zone in place of the 12 nm zone recognised in the 1974 MOU, and this would place an additional restriction on the rights of Indonesian fishermen as well as raising more enforcement problems. The committee therefore recommended that

the Australian Government in consultation with the relevant State and Territory governments, review the 1974 traditional fisher Memorandum of Understanding with Indonesia in light of the changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone boundary in the vicinity of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Islands), and … review the issue of ongoing Indonesian traditional fisher access to Australian waters and its impact on the sustained management of Australian fish resources (JSCT 1997: ix). Political developments in East Timor since 1999 have entailed a further reassessment of the 1997 treaty which could still have significant implications for Bajo fishing activity in the Timor Sea.

There appears to be a perception by the Australian government that the education, enforcement and prosecution approach is a workable solution to illegal fishing activity. The approach may work for certain groups operating in the AFZ at certain times, but it has been ineffective against other groups by virtue of the ongoing access afforded under the MOU. As one commentator observes:

without serious reconsideration … [the policy] is difficult to comprehend. One can only speculate on why Australia persists with a policy that is so evidently inappropriate to the problem that it is intended to solve (Fox 1998: 134).

One possible explanation is the belief generated in Australian government circles that the Government of Indonesia is responsible for the activities of its many small-scale fishermen and has the capacity to control the thousands of boats used by villagers (Fox 1998: 134–5; see also JSCFDAT 1993: 129; JSCT 1997: 36). There is also a belief that the situation could be remedied by regulating the activities of those entrepreneurs in Indonesia who control the trade in marine products and the middlemen who are thought to control the activities of the fishermen (Fox 1998: 134).

The antiquated definition of ‘tradition’ also enters into the equation. According to Fox:

Other, perhaps deeper, attitudes are involved in maintaining present policy — a determination on the part of some Australians to uphold, at whatever cost, the integrity of territorial boundaries and an equal determination to preserve a strict interpretation of the law. Perhaps more pertinent is a perceived difficulty in dealing with what has been defined as ‘traditional’, as if tradition was something frozen in time and not amenable to processes of reasonable discussion and negotiation (ibid.: 135).

Another commentator has suggested that the Australian Government’s refusal to change its understanding of tradition

is nothing else but a rhetorical device serving the legitimation and execution of its policies. There is obviously no political will to adopt any other definition, as the present one serves the stated objectives of territorial, commercial, and environmental protection quite adequately. It is, therefore, in Australian policy makers’ interests to continue to view Indonesian fishing in the AFZ as a largely homogenous phenomenon, with virtually no differentiation made between fisheries and fishermen … without considerations of time-depth, or a clear understanding of the social complexity which underwrites small-scale commercial fishing (Van der Spek 1995: 21–2).

This logic provides the necessary justification to continue the policy of apprehensions, potentially cancel the MOU with Indonesia, and close access to the AFZ for Indonesian traditional fishermen.

There is also an antiquated but powerful form of conservation thinking that has informed Australian policies; one that considers indigenous peoples as ‘enemies’ and ‘threats’ to natural resources, rather than as the key to their sustainability (Stevens 1997: 4). The exclusionary management regime of the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve exemplified this kind of consciousness.

The Way Forward

Australia does in fact have some legal obligation to recognise prior activity in the AFZ by people from Indonesia. Under Article 62(2) of UNCLOS III, the nationals of foreign states are technically entitled to the surplus of the total allowable catch in an Exclusive Economic Zone. In allocating this surplus to foreigners, a coastal state is required by Article 62(3) to take account of several factors, including the significance of the living resources of the area to its own economy and the need to minimise economic dislocation in states whose nationals have habitually (that is, traditionally) fished in the zone. However, Article 77(2) says that foreign states and their citizens do not have any direct legal rights to the resources on the continental shelf, which relieves Australia of any obligation to grant Indonesian fishermen access to sedentary species around offshore reefs and islands in the MOU area. Furthermore, UNCLOS III does not specifically protect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, and the way forward for Australia and Indonesia will depend less on their legal obligations under this convention than on bilateral relations and commitments between the two countries (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 194; Tsamenyi 1995: 10).

Australia has other international obligations with regard to indigenous peoples’ rights of access to resources. Multilateral environmental and human rights treaties, to which Australia is a signatory, have recognised that indigenous people retain traditional ecological knowledge and methods of natural and cultural resource management which can contribute to sustainable development.[

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/boats/mobile_devices/chapter-notes.htm" \l "ftn.d0e7662" \t "new"

] International human rights standards require that governments recognise indigenous people’s rights to ‘customary use of resources, even in protected areas, rights to participate in decision-making and be included in management regimes which recognise customary resource use, and rights to benefit equitably in the returns generated by resource use’ (Sutherland 1996: 5).

The MOU needs to be renegotiated on the basis of contemporary circumstances and fishery management principles and practices, not those of the early 1970s. Future strategies need to excise outdated assumptions and be brought into line with national and international standards. Contemporary approaches to fisheries management are now moving away from biological management, scientific modelling and centralised government responses. They are moving towards partnerships between people, administrative decentralisation, and co-management between government and local communities. It is now clear that fisheries management will not succeed without the involvement of the fishermen themselves (Pomeroy 1994: 2; White et al. 1994; Hviding and Baines 1996: 80; Mace 1997: 2). More specifically, fishermen must have a recognised ‘stake’ in resource management in the form of rights if they are also to have incentives for resource protection (Bailey and Zerner 1992: 11; White et al. 1994: 14).

Fisheries management also needs to take into account the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of resource use and exploitation (White et al. 1994: 9). These issues were reiterated in a number of presentations at the Second World Fisheries Congress held in Brisbane in 1997 (Hancock et al. 1997). Guidelines developed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation on precautionary approaches to fisheries management also emphasise the necessity for cooperation between stakeholders in the development of management plans (Mace 1997: 13). One of the guiding principles of AFMA’s management philosophy is to ensure active participation of user groups in the ‘development and implementation of fisheries management measures’ (McColl and Stevens 1997). It is now an appropriate time for the Australian Government to apply its stated philosophy to Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ. Internet.

Appendix A.

Table of Contents

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apa.html" \l "d0e7679"

Appendix A: Sources on Indonesian Fishing in Australian Waters

Appendix A: Sources on Indonesian Fishing in Australian Waters

The history of Indonesian voyages to northern Australia, from the early seventeenth century to the early twentieth century, has been the subject of detailed archaeological research. The major work on the Macassan trepang industry is Macknight (1976). More recent archaeological research on Macassan visits to the Northern Territory was undertaken by Mitchell (1994) and on Macassan activity in Western Australia by Morwood and Hobbs (1997).

The main bodies of literature on the diverse groups of fishermen from Indonesia who have fished in the northwest Australian waters from the early twentieth century until the late 1960s are reports from various newspapers and government archives, an unpublished compilation of material by Bottrill (1993), and publications by Bach (1955) and Bain (1982). Both Bach and Bain devote some attention to foreign fishing and poaching activities in their studies of the northwest Australian pearling industry. Other sources on Indonesian fishing activity include: the records of a 1949 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation fisheries survey in the Timor Sea (CSIRO 1949), including one publication by the senior scientist in the survey team (Serventy 1952); an account by Lind (1994) who was a resident in the Kimberley region in Western Australia; the Australian Customs Service file on the apprehension of an Indonesian perahu in 1957; and sections of the doctoral thesis by Crawford (1969) which was subsequently published in 2001.

There is also a range of material stemming from research on Indonesian fishing vessels held in museum collections around Australia (see Stacey 1997). The Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney has the Madurese perahu lete lete Sekar Aman and associated fishing equipment in its collection. Articles and reports from research on the voyage of the Sekar Aman and other Madurese voyages to the Timor Sea region can be found in Mellefont (1988, 1991a, 1991b, 1997) and Scott (1988). The Western Australian Maritime Museum in Fremantle has a perahu lambo,the Sama Biasa, which originated in Pepela, Rori Island and was later confiscated and donated to the museum in 1980 along with other collections of fishing equipment. This has vessel has been the subject of research on perahu lambo boat building traditions (Burningham 1989). The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (MAGNT) in Darwin has the largest ethnographic collection of Indonesian watercraft and fishing material culture in Australia. Some of the boats in the collection (such as the Karya Sama and the Tujuan) were donated to the museum after being confiscated for illegal fishing activity, and one has been the subject of detailed research (Stacey 1992).

From the early 1970s, the major sources on Indonesian fishing activity in Australian waters are reports and records from various government departments. These include both files and databases on boat apprehensions and prosecutions from the Western Australian Fisheries Department in Broome (cited in literature as the AFS Indonesian Database and the Western Australian Fisheries Files), and the records of the Foreign Fishing Operations Branch of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority held either in Canberra or at the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in Darwin (cited in literature as the Northern Territory Fisheries Files). Parks Australia boarding and patrol reports from Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) are located at the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water Resources offices in Canberra. A variety of published and unpublished material is held by the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including a compendium of information compiled in 1988 (DFAT 1988).

MAGNT staff were engaged as consultants to investigate the impact of Indonesian fishing activities on the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (Russell and Vail 1988). Their report summarises historical data on traditional Indonesian fishing activities at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), provides an analysis of the various groups of Indonesians visiting the region during the years 1986–1988, presents data on the status of marine resources targeted by these fisherment, and includes information collected from interviews with 13 perahu crews and captains present at Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) during their fieldwork. There is also a separate consultancy report on Indonesian fishing at Cartier Island (McCarthy 1989).

A comprehensive, but as yet unpublished, report by the Fisheries Resources Branch of the Bureau of Rural Sciences, now part of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, assesses the nature and extent of Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ based on an analysis of information from various government departments gathered in 1994 (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a). The report assesses the impact of Indonesian fishing on marine resources in the AFZ and makes recommendations for future management of these resources, ways of improving the information base, and alternative strategies to deal with traditional Indonesian fishermen operating in the MOU area.

Appendix B

Table of Contents

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apb.html" \l "d0e7714"

Appendix B: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf (7 November 1974)

 Internet.

bAppendix B: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf (7 November 1974)

Following discussions held in Jakarta on 6 and 7 November, 1974, the representatives of the Government of Australia and of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia have agreed to record the following understandings.

1. These understandings shall apply to operations by Indonesian traditional fishermen in the exclusive fishing zone and over the continental shelf adjacent to the Australian mainland and offshore islands.

By “traditional fishermen” is meant the fishermen who have traditionally taken fish and sedentary organisms in Australian waters by methods which have been the tradition over decades of time.

By “exclusive fishing zone” is meant the zone of waters extending twelve miles seaward off the baseline from which the territorial sea of Australia is measured.

2. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that in relation to fishing in the exclusive Australian fishing zone and the exploration for and exploitation of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, in each case adjacent to:

Ashmore Reef (Pulau Pasir) (Latitude 12° 15’ South, Longitude 123° 03’ East), Cartier Islet (Latitude 12° 32’ South, Longitude 123° 33’ East), Scott Reef (Latitude 14° 03’ South, Longitude 121° 47’ East), Seringapatam Reef (Pulau Datu) (Latitude 11° 37’ South, Longitude 122° 03’ East), Browse Islet (Latitude 14° 06’ South, Longitude 123° 32’ East).

The Government of Australia will, subject to paragraph 8 of these understandings, refrain from applying its laws regarding fisheries to Indonesian traditional fishermen who conduct their operations in accordance with these understandings.

3. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that, in the part of the areas described in paragraph 2 of these understandings where the Government of Australia is authorised by international law to regulate fishing or exploitation for or exploitation of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf by foreign nationals, the Government of Australia will permit operations by Indonesian nationals subject to the following conditions:

a) Indonesian operations in the areas mentioned in paragraph 2 of the understandings shall be confined to traditional fishermen.

b) Landings by Indonesian traditional fishermen shall be confined to East Islet (Latitude 12° 15’ South, Longitude 123° 07’ East), and Middle Islet (Latitude 12° 15’ South, Longitude 123° 03’ East) of Ashmore Reef for the purposes of obtaining supplies of fresh water.

c) Traditional Indonesian fishing vessels may take shelter within the island groups described in paragraph 2 of these understandings but the persons on board shall not go ashore except as allowed in (b) above.

4. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that the Indonesian will not be permitted to take turtles in the Australian exclusive fishing zone. Trochus, beche de mer, abalone, green snail, sponges and all molluscs will not be taken from the seabed from high water marks to the edge of the continental shelf, except the seabed adjacent to Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Browse Islet and the Scott and Seringapatam Reef.

5. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that the persons on board Indonesian fishing vessels engaging in fishing in the exclusive Australian fishing zone or exploring for or exploiting the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, in either case in areas other than those specified in paragraph 2 of these understandings, shall be subject to the provisions of Australian law.

6. The Government of Australia understands that the Government of the Republic of Indonesia will use its best endeavours to notify all Indonesian fishermen likely to operate in areas adjacent to Australia of the contents of these understandings.

7. Both Governments will facilitate the exchange of information concerning the activities of the traditional Indonesian fishing boats operating in the area west of the Timor Sea.

8. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia understands that the Government of Australia will, until the twenty-eighth day of February 1975, refrain from applying its laws relating to fisheries to Indonesian traditional fishermen in areas of the Australian exclusive fishing zone and continental shelf other than those specified in paragraph 2 of these understandings.

Appendix C.

Table of Contents

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7750"

Appendix C: Agreed Minutes of Meeting Between Officials of Australia and Indonesia on Fisheries (29 April 1989)

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7755"

Memorandum of Understanding of 1974

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7772"

North West Coast of Australia

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7779"

Arafura Sea

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7786"

Fishing in waters between Christmas Island and Java and other waters

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7791"

Wildlife Cooperation

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7796"

Consultations

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7801"

Annex I: Co-ordinates of MOU Area (‘The Box’)

 HYPERLINK "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apc.html" \l "d0e7810"

Annex II: Practical Guidelines for Implementing the 1974 MOU

 .Internet.

Appendix C: Agreed Minutes of Meeting Between Officials of

Australia and Indonesia on Fisheries (29 April 1989)

1. In accordance with the agreement reached by Mr. Ali Alatas, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia and Senator Gareth Evans, the Foreign Minister of Australia in Canberra on 2 March, 1989, Officials from Indonesia and Australia met in Jakarta on 28 and 29 April 1989 to discuss activities of Indonesian fishing vessels under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia regarding the operation of Indonesian traditional fishermen in an Area of the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf, concluded in Jakarta on 7 November 1974. They also discussed activities of Indonesian fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone off the coast of North West Australia and in the Arafura Sea, and fishing in the waters between Christmas Island and Java.

Memorandum of Understanding of 1974

2. Officials reviewed the operation of the MOU. Both sides stressed their desire to address the issues in a spirit of cooperation and good neighbourliness. They noted that there had been a number of developments since 1974 which had affected the MOU. In 1974 Australia and Indonesia exercised jurisdiction over fisheries on 12 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines. In 1979 and 1980, Australia and Indonesia respectively extended their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from their respective territorial sea baselines, and in 1981 a provisional fishing line was agreed. Since the areas referred to in the MOU are south of this line, new arrangements are necessary for the access by Indonesian traditional fishermen to these areas under the MOU.

3. The Australian side informed the Indonesian side that there were also changes in the status of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef) and Cartier Islet as a separate territory of the Commonwealth of Australia and the establishment of the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. The Australian side further informed that there had been a considerable increase in the number of Indonesian fishermen visiting the Australian Fishing Zone and a depletion of fishery stocks around the Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), that wells on Middle Islet and East Islet where Indonesian traditional fishermen were permitted under the MOU to land for taking fresh water had been contaminated; that Australia had also incurred international obligations to protect wildlife, including that in the territory of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore) and Cartier Islands. The Indonesian side took note of this information.

4. Since the conclusion of the MOU, both Indonesia and Australia had become parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

5. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the implications of the developments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. They affirmed the continued operation of the MOU for Indonesian traditional fishermen operating by traditional methods and using traditional fishing vessels. An Australian proposal that Indonesian traditional fishermen could conduct fishing not only in the areas adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet as designated in the MOU, but in a wider ‘box’ area in the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf was welcomed by the Indonesian side. A sketch map and coordinates of this ‘box’ area appears in Annex 1 of this Agreed Minutes.

6. In view of the developments that had occurred since 1974 as highlighted above, Officials considered that to improve the implementation of the MOU, practical guidelines for implementing the MOU as appears in the Annex of these Agreed Minutes were considered necessary.

7. The Indonesian side informed the Australian side on measures that had been and were being taken by the Indonesian authorities to prevent breaches of the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to assist in preventing breaches of the MOU and to take necessary steps to inform Indonesian fishermen of the practical guidelines annexed to this Agreed Minutes.

8. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in developing alternative income projects in Eastern Indonesia for traditional fishermen traditionally engaged in fishing under the MOU. The Indonesian side indicated they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides mutually decided to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

North West Coast of Australia

9. The Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed matters related to the activities of Indonesian fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone off the coast of North West Australia. They noted that those activities were outside the scope of the MOU and that Australia would take appropriate enforcement action. The Australian side indicated the legal and economic implications of such activities.

10. The Indonesian and Australian Officials felt the need for a long-term solution to the problem. To this end, they agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in projects to provide income alternatives in Eastern Indonesia for Indonesian fishermen engaged in fishing off the coast of North West Australia. The Indonesian side indicated that they might include mariculture and nucleus fishing enterprise scheme (Perikanan Inti Rakyat or PIR). Both sides decided mutually to discuss the possibility of channelling Australian aid funds to such projects with appropriate authorities in their respective countries.

Arafura Sea

11. Indonesian and Australian Officials discussed the activities of Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels in the Arafura Sea on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line of 1981. Officials agreed that both Governments should take effective measures, including enforcement measures, to prevent Indonesian non-traditional fishing vessels from fishing on the Australian side of the provisional fishing line without the authorisation of the Australian authorities.

12. Officials agreed to make arrangements for cooperation in exchange of information on shared stocks in the Arafura Sea for the purpose of effective management and conservation of the stocks.

Fishing in waters between Christmas Island and Java and other waters

13. The Officials of Indonesia and Australia noted that fisheries delimitation in waters between Christmas Island and Java and in the west of the provisional fishing line remained to be negotiated and agreed. Pending such an agreement, the Officials noted that both Governments would endeavour to avoid incidents in the area of overlapping jurisdictional claims.

Wildlife Cooperation

14. The Indonesian and Australian Officials considered the mutual advantages of the exchange of information on wildlife species populations believed to be common to both countries. It was agreed that each country’s nature conservation authorities would exchange information on such wildlife populations and management programs and cooperation in the management of wildlife protected areas. In the first instance Indonesian authorities would be consulted on the management plan for the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.

Consultations

15. The Indonesian and Australian Officials agreed to hold consultations as and when necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the MOU and agreed minutes.

Annex I: Co-ordinates of MOU Area (‘The Box’)

 INCLUDEPICTURE  "http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/images/1989-map.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

Annex II: Practical Guidelines for Implementing the 1974 MOU

1. Access to the MOU area would continue to be limited to Indonesian traditional fishermen using traditional methods and traditional vessels consistent with the tradition over decades of time, which does not include fishing methods or vessels utilising motors or engines.

2. The Indonesian traditional fishermen would continue to conduct traditional activities under the MOU in the area of the Australian Fishing Zone and the continental shelf adjacent to Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Islet. In addition, Indonesian traditional fishermen would be able to conduct traditional fishing activities in an expanded area as described in the sketch map and coordinates attached to Annex 1 of the Agreed Minutes.

3. To cope with the depletion of certain stocks of fish and sedentary species in the Ashmore Reef area, the Australian Government had prohibited all fishing activities in the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, but was expected soon to adopt a management plan for the Reserve which might allow some subsistence fishing by the Indonesian traditional fishermen. The Australian side indicated that Indonesia would be consulted on the draft plan. Because of the low level of stock, the taking of sedentary species particularly Trochus nilotocus in the Reserve would be prohibited at this stage to allow stocks to recover. The possibility of renewed Indonesian traditional fishing of the species would be considered in future reviews of the management plan.

4. As both Australia and Indonesia are parties to CITES, Officials agreed that any taking of protected wildlife including turtles and clams would continue to be prohibited in accordance with CITES.

5. Indonesian traditional fishermen would be permitted to land on West Islet for the purpose of obtaining supplies of fresh water. The Indonesian side indicated its willingness to discourage Indonesian traditional fishermen from landings on East and Middle Islets because of the lack of fresh water on the two islets.

References

ABC Radio National, 1995. ‘Illegal Indonesian Fishing off North Australia.’ Libby Price Show Transcript, 3 February 1995.

Acciaioli, G., 1985. ‘Culture as Art: From Practice to Spectacle in Indonesia.’ Canberra Anthropology 8(1/2): 148–72.

———, 1987. ‘Kinship and Debt: The Social Organisation of Bugis Migration and Fish Marketing at Lake Lindu, Central Sulawesi.’ Paper presented at the Second International Workshop on Indonesian Studies, Leiden, 2–6 November.

———, 1990. ‘How to Win Followers and Influence Spirits: Propitiation and Participation in a Multi-Ethnic Community of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.’ Anthropological Forum 6(2): 207–35.

———, 1996. ‘Exhibiting the Indigenous: Indonesian Government Representations of the Bajau.’ Paper presented at the Asian Studies Association of Australia conference, Melbourne, 8–11 July.

Acheson, J., 1981. ‘Anthropology of Fishing.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 275–316.

AFMA (Australian Fisheries Management Authority), 1995. Annual Report 1994–1995. Canberra: AFMA.

Alexander, P., 1982. Sri Lankan Fishermen: Rural Capitalism and Peasant Society. Canberra: Australian National University (South Asia Monograph 7).

Ammarell, G., 1995. ‘Navigation Practices of the Bugis of South Sulawesi, Indonesia.’ In R. Feinburg (ed.), Seafaring in the Contemporary Pacific Islands: Studies in Continuity and Change. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

Anderson, L.P., 1978. The Role of Aboriginal and Asian Labour in the Origin and Development of the Pearling Industry, Broome, Western Australia 1862–1940. Perth: Murdoch University (Honours thesis).

ANPWS (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service), 1985a. Annual Report 1983–1984. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

———, 1985b. Annual Report 1984–1985. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

———, 1986. Annual Report 1985–1986. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

———, 1987. Annual Report 1986–1987. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

———, 1989. Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve Plan of Management. Canberra: ANPWS.

———, n.d. ‘A Tour Guide to West Island, Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve.’ Darwin: ANPWS (unpublished pamphlet).

Asad, T. (ed.), 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.

Bach, J.P.S., 1955. The Pearling Industry of Australia: An Account of its Social and Economic Development. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bailey, C. and C. Zerner, 1992. ‘Community-Based Fisheries Management Institutions in Indonesia.’ MAST 5(1): 1–17.

Bain, M.A., 1982. Full Fathom Five. Perth: Artlook Books.

Bergin, A., 1989. ‘The Politics of Intrusion: The Case of Ashmore and Cartier Islands.’ Indian Ocean Review 2(1): 13–19.

Bottignolo, B., 1995. Celebrations with the Sun: An Overview of Religious Phenomena among the Badjaos. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Bottrill, A.M., 1993. ‘Some Chronologically Arranged Notes Randomly Garnered from West Australian Sources Concerning Indonesians in Northwest Australia.’ Unpublished manuscript.

Burmester, H., 1985. ‘Island Outposts of Australia.’ In W.S.G. Bateman and M. Ward (eds), Australia’s Offshore Maritime Interests. Canberra: Australia Centre for Maritime Studies (Occasional Paper in Maritime Affairs 3).

Burningham, N., 1989. ‘Four Double-Ended Perahu Lambo.’ The Beagle: Records of the Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences 6(1): 179–93.

———, 1993. ‘Bajau Lepa and Sope: A “Seven-Part Canoe” Building Tradition in Indonesia.’ The Beagle: Records of the Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences 10(1): 193–222.

———, 1996. ‘The Perahu Lambo: A 20th Century Merchant Sailing Ship.’ Unpublished manuscript.

Campbell, B., 1991. The Politics of Exclusion: Indonesian Distant Shore Fisheries and the Expansion of Australia’s Maritime Boundaries. Perth: Murdoch University, School of Social Sciences (Honours thesis).

Campbell, B. and B.V.E. Wilson, 1993. The Politics of Exclusion: Indonesian Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone. Perth: Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies and Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.

Cane, S., 1998. ‘Aboriginal Fishing on the New South Wales South Coast: A Court Case.’ In N. Peterson and B. Rigsby (eds), Customary Marine Tenure in Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney (Oceania Monograph 48).

Carrier, J., 1992a. ‘Occidentalism: The World Turned Upside-Down.’ American Ethnologist 19(2): 195–211.

———, 1992b. ‘Introduction.’ In J. Carrier (ed.), History and Tradition in Melanesian Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chou, C., 1997. ‘Contesting the Tenure of Territoriality: The Orang Suku Laut.’ Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 153(4): 605–29.

Collins, G.E.P., 1936. East Monsoon. London: Jonathon Cape.

———, 1937. Makassar Sailing. London: Jonathon Cape.

Collins, J., 1995. ‘Preliminary Notes on the Languages of the Bajo Sangkuang Community of Bacam, East Indonesia.’ Paper presented at the ‘International Conference on Bajau/Sama Community’, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, 24–28 June.

Commonwealth Ombudsman, 1998. ‘Report into Administrative Arrangements for Indonesian Fishermen Detained in Australian Waters.’ Canberra: Office of the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Cordell, J., 1989. ‘Introduction: Sea Tenure.’ In J. Cordell (ed.), A Sea of Small Boats. Cambridge (MA): Cultural Survival.

Cowan, S., C. Mellon and K. Anderson, 1990. ‘Fishing a Fine Line — Indonesian Fishing in the AFZ.’ Australian Fisheries 49(2): 19–23.

Crawford, I., 1969. Late Prehistoric Changes in Aboriginal Cultures in Kimberley, WA. London: University of London (Ph.D. thesis).

———, 2001. We Won The Victory: Aborigines and Outsiders on the North-West Coast of the Kimberley. Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press.

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), 1949. ‘F.R.V. “Warreen” — Cruise Number 35 (July–November 1949): Biological Log.’ Hobart: CSIRO Division of Fisheries (unpublished report).

Darling, J., 1994. ‘Below the Wind: Sea Nomads of Indonesia.’ Documentary film screened on ABC Television, 13 January.

DFAT (Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), 1988. ‘The Control of Indonesian Traditional Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone of North-West Australia.’ Canberra: DFAT (unpublished report).

———, 1997. Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty. Canberra: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Dick, H.W., 1975. ‘Perahu Shipping in Eastern Indonesia, Part I.’ Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 2(2): 69–107;

Donohue, M., 1994. ‘Direction in Tukang Besi.’ Paper presented at the Third Maluku Research Conference, Pattimura University, Ambon, 30 June.

———, 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Grammar Library 20).

Endicott, K.M., 1970. An Analysis of Malay Magic. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Environment Australia, 2002. ‘Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve (Commonwealth Waters) Management Plans.’ Canberra: Environment Australia.

Errington, S., 1983. ‘Embodied Sumange’ in Luwu.’ Journal of Asian Studies 42(3): 545–70.

———, 1989. Meaning and Power in a Southeast Asian Realm. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Evers, H-D., 1991. ‘Traditional Trading Networks of Southeast Asia.’ In K.R. Haellquist (ed.), Asian Trade Routes. London: Curzon Press.

Ewins, R., 1998. Changing Their Minds: Tradition and Politics in Contemporary Fiji and Tonga. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

Fabian, J., 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fairbridge, R.W., 1948. ‘Discoveries in the Timor Sea, North-West Australia.’ Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Australian Historical Society 38(4): 193–218.

Flinders, M., 1814. A Voyage to Terra Australis. London: G. and W. Nichol.

Fox, J.J., 1977a. ‘Notes on the Southern Voyages and Settlements of the Sama-Bajau.’ Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 133(4): 459–65.

———, 1977b. Harvest of the Palm: Ecological Change in Eastern Indonesia. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

———, 1992. ‘Report on Eastern Indonesian Fishermen in Darwin.’ In Illegal Entry! Darwin: Northern Territory University, Centre for Southeast Asian Studies (Occasional Paper 1).

———, 1995a. ‘Foreword.’ In M. Southon, op. cit.

———, 1995b. ‘Maritime Communities in the Timor and Arafura Region: Some Historical and Anthropological Perspectives.’ Paper presented at the conference on ‘Neighbours at Sea: The Shared Interests of Australia and Indonesia in the Timor and Arafura Seas’, Darwin, 1–2 November.

———, 1996. ‘Fishing Resources and Marine Tenure: The Problems of Eastern Indonesian Fishermen.’ In C. Barlow and J. Hardjono (eds), Indonesia Assessment 1995: Development in Eastern Indonesia. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies/Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

———, 1998. ‘Reefs and Shoals in Australia–Indonesia Relations: Traditional Indonesian Fishermen.’ In A. Milner and M. Quilty (eds), Australia in Asia: Episodes. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Gibson-Hill, C.A., 1950. ‘The Indonesian Trading Boats Reaching Singapore.’ Journal of the Malay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 23(1): 108–38.

Handler, R. and J. Linnekin, 1984. ‘Tradition, Genuine or Spurious.’ Journal of American Folklore 97(385): 273–90.

Hancock, D.A., D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds), 1997. Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State of the Science and Management. Collingwood: CSIRO (Proceedings of the Second World Fisheries Congress).

Harvey, B., 1974. Tradition, Islam and Rebellion: South Sulawesi 1950–1965. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University (Ph.D. thesis).

Hawkins, C.W., 1982. Praus of Indonesia. London: Nautical Books.

Heersink, C.G., 1994. ‘Selayar and the Green Gold: The Development of the Coconut Trade on an Indonesian Island (1820–1950).’ Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25(1): 47–69.

Hickey, C.M., 1950. Geography of Fish-Stupefying Plants and Practices in Indonesia. Berkeley: University of California (M.A. thesis).

Hobsbawm, E. and T. Ranger (eds), 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horridge, A., 1979. The Lambo or Prahu Bot: A Western Ship in an Eastern Setting. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum (Maritime Monographs and Reports 39).

———, 1985. The Prahu: Traditional Sailing Boat of Indonesia (2nd edn). Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Hovelsrud-Broda, G., 1997. ‘Arctic Seal-Hunting Households and the Anti-Sealing Controversy.’ Research in Economic Anthropology 18: 17–34.

Howe, H.V., 1952. ‘Sea Poaching is a Major Industry.’ Sydney Morning Herald, 2 February.

Hughes, D., 1984. The Indonesian Cargo Sailing Vessels and the Problem of Technology Choice for Sea Transport in a Developing Country: A Study of the Consequences of Perahu Motorisation Policy in the Context of the Economic Regulation of Inter-island Shipping. Cardiff: University of Wales, Department of Maritime Studies (Ph.D. thesis).

Hviding, E., 1996. Guardians of Marovo Lagoon. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

——— and G. Baines, 1996. ‘Marine Tenure and Fisheries Management: Solomon Islands.’ In R. Howitt, J. Connell and P. Hirsch (eds), Resources, Nations and Indigenous People: Case Studies from Australia, Melanesia and South-East Asia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Johannes, R.E., 1996. ‘A Fisheries Time Warp?’ Australian Marine Science Bulletin 136: 20–1.

JSCFADT (Australian Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade), 1993. Australia’s Relations with Indonesia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

JSCT (Australian Joint Standing Committee on Treaties), 1997. Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty: 12th Report. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Kabupaten Buton, 1994a. ‘Kecamatan Wangi Wangi Dalam Angka [Wangi Wangi Sub-District in Figures].’ Baubau: Kabupaten Buton, Kantor Statistik [Buton District Statistical Office].

———, 1994b. ‘Kecamatan Kaledupa Dalam Angka [Kaledupa Sub-District in Figures].’ Baubau: Kabupaten Buton, Kantor Statistik [Buton District Statistical Office].

———, 1994c. ‘Kecamatan Tomia Dalam Angka [Tomia Sub-District in Figures].’ Baubau: Kabupaten Buton, Kantor Statistik [Buton District Statistical Office].

———, 1994d. ‘Kecamatan Binongko Dalam Angka [Binongko Sub-District in Figures].’ Baubau: Kabupaten Buton, Kantor Statistik [Buton District Statistical Office].

Kasmin, 1993. Perlawan Suku Bajo Terhadap Bajak Laut Tobelo di Perairan Kepulauan Wakatobi, Buton, Sulawesi Tenggara [Bajo Opposition to Tobelo Pirates in the Waters of the Wakatobi Islands, Buton, Southeast Sulawesi]. Kendari: Haluoleo University, Faculty of Teaching and Education Science (B.Sc. thesis).

Kaye, S., 1995. Australia’s Maritime Boundaries. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, Centre for Maritime Policy.

Keesing, R. and R. Tonkinson (eds), 1982. ‘Reinventing Traditional Culture: The Politics of Kastom in Island Melanesia.’ Special Issue 13(4) of Mankind.

Kilduff, P. and N. Lofgren, 1996. ‘Native Title Fishing Rights in Coastal Waters and Territorial Seas.’ Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3(81): 16–17.

Kriebel, D.J.C., 1920. ‘Het Eiland Bonerate [The Island of Bonerate].’ Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indie 76: 202–22.

Lai Ka-Keong, E., 1983. ‘Shark Fins — Processing and Marketing in Hong Kong.’ Infofish Marketing Digest 5: 35–9.

Langdon, R., 1966. ‘Our Far Flung Empire.’ New Guinea and Australia, the Pacific and South-East Asia June/July: 54–8.

Lenhart, L., 1995. ‘Recent Research on Southeast Asian Nomads.’ Nomadic Peoples 36/37: 245–60.

Levinson, D. (ed.), 1993. Encyclopedia of World Cultures — Volume 5. New Haven (CT): Human Relations Area Files Press.

Lind, R., 1994. Cockatoo Island Memories Yampi, Western Australia. Stuart Hill (WA): R. Lind.

LRC (Australian Law Reform Commission), 1986. The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws — Volume 2. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (LRC Report 31).

Mace, P., 1997. ‘Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State of the Science and Management.’ In D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds), op. cit.

Macknight, C.C., 1976. The Voyage to Marege’: Macassan Trepangers in Northern Australia. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Marcus, G. and M. Fischer, 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, M., 1989. ‘Indonesian Divers at Cartier Island.’ In The Flamingo Bay Voyage. Perth: Western Australian Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology (Report 45).

McColl, J. and R. Stevens, 1997. ‘Australian Fisheries Management Authority: Organizational Structure and Management Philosophy.’ In D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds), op. cit.

McGann, P.J., 1988. ‘Malays’ as Indentured Labour: Western Australia 1870–1900. Perth: Murdoch University (Honours thesis).

Mellefont, J., 1988. ‘The Lete-Lete of Raas: A Report on the Geographic, Economic, Social and Technological Context of the Lete-Lete Sekar Aman Acquired by the Australian National Maritime Museum.’ Sydney: Australian National Maritime Museum (unpublished report).

———, 1991a. ‘Sekar Aman: Indonesian Trading Perahu.’ Signals 15: 8.

———, 1991b. ‘Between Tradition and Change: An Indonesian Perahu in an Australian Collection.’ The Great Circle 13(2): 97–110.

———, 1997. ‘A Lete-Lete from Raas.’ Signals 41: 26–30.

Merlan, F., 1991. ‘The Limits of Cultural Constructionism: The Case of Coronation Hill.’ Oceania 61: 341–52.

———, 1998. Caging the Rainbow: Places, Politics, and Aborigines in a North Australian Town. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Miller, D., 1994. Modernity: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.

Mitchell, S., 1994. Culture Contact and Indigenous Economies on the Cobourg Peninsula, Northwestern Arnhem Land. Darwin: Northern Territory University, Faculty of Arts (Ph.D. thesis).

Morwood, M. and D. Hobbs, 1997. ‘The Asian Connection: Preliminary Report on Indonesian Trepang Sites on the Kimberley Coast, N.W. Australia.’ Archaeology in Oceania 32: 197–206.

Nadjmabadi, S., 1992. ‘“The Sea Belongs to God, the Land Belongs to Us”: Resource Management in a Multi-Resource Community in the Persian Gulf.’ In M.J. Casimir and A. Rao (eds), Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics. New York: Berg.

Nagatsu, K., 1995. ‘Magambit: Sama’s Traditional Fishing Technique and its Change.’ Sama-Bajau Studies Newsletter May: 7–8.

Naylor, P., 1995. ‘Coastwatch: Civil Maritime Surveillance — An Australian Perspective.’ Paper presented at the conference on ‘Neighbours at Sea: The Shared Interests of Australia and Indonesia in the Timor and Arafura Seas’, Darwin, 1–2 November.

Nimmo, H.A., 1990. ‘Religious Beliefs of the Tawi-Tawi Bajau.’ Philippine Studies 38: 166–98.

Noorduyn, J., 1991. A Critical Survey of Studies on the Languages of Sulawesi. Leiden: KITLV Press.

Nooteboom, C., 1947. ‘The Study of Primitive Sea-Going Craft as an Ethnological Problem.’ Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie 45: 216–24.

Pallesen, A.K., 1985. Culture Contact and Convergence. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Pannell, S., 1993. ‘“Circulating Commodities”: Reflections on the Movement and Meaning of Shells and Stories in North Australia and Eastern Indonesia.’ Oceania 64: 57–76.

———, 1996. ‘Homo Nullius or “Where Have All the People Gone”? Refiguring Marine Management and Conservation Approaches.’ Australian Journal of Anthropology 7(1): 21–42.

Pelras, C., 1972. ‘Notes sur Quelques Populations Aquatiques de l’Archipel Nusantarien [Notes on Some Aquatic Populations of the Indonesian Archipelago].’ Archipel 3: 133–68.

———, 1996. The Bugis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Peterson, N. and B. Rigsby, 1998. ‘Introduction.’ In N. Peterson and B. Rigsby (eds), Customary Marine Tenure in Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney (Oceania Monograph 48).

Pomeroy, R.S., 1994. ‘Introduction.’ In R.S. Pomeroy (ed.), Community Management and Common Property of Coastal Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, Methods and Experiences. Manila: ICLARM.

Reid, A., 1983. ‘The Rise of Makassar.’ Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 17: 117–60.

———, 1992. ‘Indonesian Fishermen Detained in Broome.’ In Illegal Entry! Darwin: Northern Territory University, Centre for Southeast Asian Studies (Occasional Paper 1).

Ritchie, D., 1999. ‘Constructions of Aboriginal Tradition for Public Purpose.’ In S. Toussaint and J. Taylor (eds), Applied Anthropology in Australasia. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.

Roberts, C., 1997. ‘Reason for Decision: Mitchell v Nasir, Sahaba, Dona, Dualin and Laduma.’ Broome: Court of Petty Sessions (Magistrate’s Judgement).

Rose, D.A., 1996. An Overview of World Trade in Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fishes. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.

Russell, B. and L. Vail, 1988. ‘Report on Traditional Indonesian Fishing Activity at Ashmore Reef Nature Reserve.’ Darwin: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (unpublished report).

Said, E., 1979. Orientalism. New York: Random House.

Sather, C.A., 1985. ‘Boat Crews and Fishing Fleets: The Social Organisation of Maritime Labour among the Bajau Laut of Southeastern Sabah.’ Contributions to Southeast Asian Ethnography 4: 165–214.

———, 1993a. ‘Samal.’ In D. Levinson (ed.), op. cit.

———, 1993b. ‘Bajau.’ In D. Levinson (ed.), op. cit.

———, 1997. The Bajau Laut: Adaptation, History and Fate in a Maritime Fishing Society of South-Eastern Sabah. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schug, D., 1996. ‘International Maritime Boundaries and Indigenous People: The Case of the Torres Strait.’ Marine Policy 20(3): 209–22.

Scott, C., 1993. ‘Custom, Tradition, and the Politics of Culture: Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada.’ In N. Dyck and J. Waldram (eds), Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Scott, N., 1988. Sekar Aman: An Indonesian Perahu in Australia. Perth: Scott and Scott.

Serventy, D.L., 1952. ‘Indonesian Fishing Activity in Australian Seas.’ Australian Geographer 6: 13–16.

Sopher, D.E., 1977 (1965). The Sea Nomads: A Study of the Maritime Boat People of Southeast Asia. Singapore: National Museum of Singapore.

Southon, M., 1995. The Navel of the Perahu: Meaning and Values in the Maritime Trading Economy of a Butonese Village. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.

Stacey, N., 1992. The Tujuan: A Study of the Material Culture of an Indonesian Fishing Vessel held in the Collection of the Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences. Townsville: James Cook University, Material Culture Unit (Grad. Dip. thesis).

———, 1997. ‘Points of Encounter: Indonesian Fishing Boats in Australian Museum Collections.’ Proceedings of the 4th National Conference of Museums Australia Inc. Darwin: Museums Australia, Northern Territory Branch.

Stanzel, K.B. and H. Newman, 1997. ‘Operation Wallacea Progress Report on the 1996 Marine Survey of the Tukang Besi (Wakatobi) Archipelago, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.’ Unpublished report to Ecosurveys Ltd (United Kingdom) and Wallacea Development Institute (Indonesia).

Stevens, S., 1997. ‘Introduction.’ In S. Stevens (ed.), Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas. Washington (DC): Island Press.

Sutherland, J., 1996. Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Studies, Policies and Legislation. Canberra: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (Report 3).

Teljeur, D., 1990. The Symbolic System of the Giman of South Halmahera. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Tomascik, T., A.J. Mah, A. Nontji and M.K. Moosa, 1997. The Ecology of the Indonesian Seas — Volume VIII, Part Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tonkinson, R., 1993. ‘Understanding “Tradition” — Ten Years On.’ Anthropological Forum 6(4): 597–606.

———, 1997. ‘Anthropology and Aboriginal Tradition: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Affair and the Politics of Interpretation.’ Oceania 68(1): 1–26.

Tsamenyi, M., 1995. ‘Managing Indonesian Traditional Fishing Activities in Australian Waters: An Australian Perspective.’ Paper presented at the conference on ‘Neighbours at Sea: The Shared Interests of Australia and Indonesia in the Timor and Arafura Seas’, Darwin, 1–2 November.

Van der Spek, K., 1995. Marine Right, Marine Wrong: Bajau Perspectives on Illegal Fishing. Canberra: Australian National University, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology (Honours thesis).

Velthoen, E., 1997. A Historical Perspective on Bajo in Eastern Indonesia. Unpublished paper.

——— and G. Acciaioli, 1993. ‘Fluctuating States and Mobile Populations: Shifting Relations of Bajo to Local Rulers and Bugis Traders in Colonial Eastern Sulawesi.’ Paper presented at the ‘International Seminar on Bajau Communities’, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, 22–25 November.

Verheijen, J.A., 1986. The Sama/Bajau Language in the Lesser Sunda Islands. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific Studies, Department of Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics D70).

Vincent, P., 1997. ‘Defendants’ Written Submissions: Mitchell v Nasir, Sahaba, Dona, Dualin and Laduma.’ Broome: Court of Petty Sessions (Complaint No. 590-5/97).

Wagner, R., 1975. The Invention of Culture. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.

Wallner, B. and K. McLoughlin, 1995a. ‘Review of Indonesian Fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone.’ Canberra: Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Bureau of Rural Sciences (unpublished paper).

———, 1995b. ‘Indonesian Fishing in Northern Australia.’ In K. McLouglin, B. Wallner and D. Staples (eds), Fishery Status Reports 1994 — Resource Assessments of Australian Commonwealth Fisheries. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.

Warren, C., 1993. Adat and Dinas: Balinese Communities in the Indonesian State. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Waterson, R., 1990. The Living House: An Anthology of Architecture in South-East Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard and L. Cortesi (eds), 1994. Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Experience. Bloomfield (CT): Kumarian Press.

Wilkinson, R.J., 1901. A Malay–English Dictionary. Singapore: Kelly and Walsh.

Wolf, E., 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Woodward, H.P., 1917. ‘The Phosphatic Deposits of Western Australia.’ Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Western Australia 74: 9–28.

Zacot, F., 1978. ‘To Be or Not to Be Badjo — This is our Question.’ Prisma 10: 17–29.

Zerner, C., 1994. ‘Tracking Sasi: The Transformation of a Central Moluccan Reef Management Institution in Indonesia.’ In A.T. White, L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard and L. Cortesi (eds), op. cit. Internet.

Gambar dibawah ini : Perahu-perahu Nelayan Indonesia  yang berasal dari Pelabuhan Papela Rote Timur-NTT, di bakar oleh petugas keamanan penjaga Pantai di Darwin, karena dianggap melanggar perairan Australia. (Sumber :Internet). Map 5-1: Location of permitted areas of access for Indonesian fishermen in the Australian Fishing Zone under the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding.

Penulis : Drs.Simon Arnold Julian Jacob