selected indonesian fisheries subsidies - nature.or.id · i selected indonesian fisheries...

Selected Indonesian Fisheries SubsidiesQuantitative and Qualitative Assessment of

Policy Coherence and Effectiveness

By A. Ghofar, D.K. Schorr, and A. Halim

The Nature Conservancy - Coral Triangle Center

Sanur, Bali, Indonesia

December 2008

:

The Authors

(Note: Institutional affiliations are given for purposes of identification only)

Abdul Ghofar is a senior member of the Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science at Diponegoro University in Semarang, Indonesia (email: [email protected]); David Schorr is an independent consultant based in Washington, DC, with expertise in international fisheries policy and environmental aspects of globalization (email: [email protected]); Abdul Halim is Program Manager at The Nature Conservancy - Coral Triangle Center in Bali, Indonesia (email: [email protected]).

Copyright :

The Nature Conservancy – Coral Triangle Center, Jl. Pengembak No. 2 Sanur, Bali, Indonesia. 2008.

All photos copyright of The Nature Conservancy, except photo on page 9 used by permission from Jones/Shimlock - Secret Sea.

i

Selected Indonesian Fisheries Subsidies: Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Policy Coherence and Effectiveness

Acknowledgements

This study was commissioned by The Nature Conservancy through its Coral Triangle Center (CTC) in Bali, Indonesia, and was carried out in cooperation with the Government of Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) and MMAF’s senior advisory body, the Komnas Kajiskan.

The authors acknowledge the invaluable support and help of many individuals during data gathering and field observations, especially from key staff of the MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT), MMAF DG-Marine Coasts and Small Islands (DJ-K3PK), DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP), the MMAF Secretariat General, the Komnas Kajiskan, and the Provincial Fisheries and Marine Services in Semarang, Surabaya, Denpasar, Mataram and Kupang, the District Fisheries and Marine Services in Pekalongan, Batang, Pati, Banyuwangi, Jembrana, Lombok Timur, Kota and Kabupaten Kupang. Extensive and useful discussions were also held with key staff at Gappindo (Indonesia’s Fisheries Entrepreneurs Association) MPN (Indonesia’s Fisheries Society) and HNSI (Fishermen Association of Indonesia), whom we deeply appreciate.

The authors received invaluable help and support during the field work in those districts, from Dr. A. Suherman of the Diponegoro University (UNDIP) Fisheries Department, Mr. I. Gede Wiadnya of the Nature Conservancy, Ir. Mian S. Sitanggang of the MMAF, Mr. Sarjani, and Mr. Suhadi, MM, Chief, Fisheries Enterpreneur in Juwana - Pati, Central Java, without whom data collection would not have been effective. Special thanks are due to Dr. Purwito, Chief of Komnas Kajiskan, Dr. Victor Nikijuluw of MMAF, and Rili Djohani, TNC’s Country Director, whose continuous support and encouragement made this publication possible. Maps and some translation services were provided by Arief Darmawan and Juliana Tomasouw of TNC CTC. And also Mr. Imran Amin of TNC CTC for layout and design, to whom the authors express their gratitude.

Finally we thank the intrepid fishermen of the districts in which this study was carried out for their generous time in interviews and discussions. It is our hope that this study will contribute to their continued development and the security of their livelihoods—and to the sustainable future of all of Indonesia’s marine fisheries and fishing communities. Special thanks are extended to Mr. Sarjani, a prominent fisherman in Juwana, Pati, whose long and intelligent efforts have contributed greatly to the independence and prosperity of many Indonesian fishermen. Our sincere gratitude is always due to the late Mr. Badaruddin, who passed away in August shortly after providing invaluable assistance to our field research team.

Naturally, however, the analysis and conclusions presented in this study—and any errors they may contain—remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

ii


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................. iv

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................1

A. Indonesian fisheries at the crossroads .............................................................. 1

B. The goal: healthy ecosystems, sustainable livelihoods ..................................... 2

II. Data Underlying this Report ...............................................................................5

III. An Overview of Indonesia’s Fisheries Subsidies .................................................7

A. The definition of “fisheries subsidy” ................................................................. 7

B. The scale of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ...................................................... 8

C. The kinds of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ..................................................... 9

D. Indonesian fuel subsidies ................................................................................ 11

E. The “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies ........................................ 12

IV. The Perceptions of Fishermen .......................................................................... 16

V. Discussion: Policy Coherence & Effectiveness .................................................... 19

A. The first issue—sustainability ......................................................................... 19

B. Other issues — effectiveness, equity, and transparency ................................. 21

VI. Conclusions & Recommendations ..................................................................... 24

A. General conclusions ........................................................................................ 24

B. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 25

Appendix A — Definitions of “Fisheries Subsidy” ................................................... 28

Appendix B — Tabel 6 Exploitation Levels of Major Indonesian Fisheries ............... 32

APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................. 33

Appendix Table 1 —Total Subsidies by Authority and Year (Rp) ............................ 34

Appendix Table 2 —Total Subsidies by Authority and Year (USD) ........................ 35

Appendix Table 3 — MMAF Budgets, by Program & Year ..................................... 36

Appendix Table 4 — Provincial & District Budgets, by Program & Year ................ 38

Appendix Table 5 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries) .................. 43

iii


Appendix Table 6 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands) .................................................................................................. 51

Appendix Table 7 — Activities by Risk (MMAF DG-Product Processing & Marketing) ...................................................................................................... 60

Appendix Table 8 — Survey Results (Bali Strait Fishers) ........................................ 65

Appendix Table 9 — Survey Result (Java Sea Fishers) ........................................... 67

Appendix Table 10 — Survey Results (Nusa Tenggara Fishers) .............................. 71

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 75

Endnotes ............................................................................................................... 78

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation English Meaning Equivalent in Bahasa Indonesia

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Kerjasama Ekonomi Asia-PasifikASCM WTO Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing MeasuresPerjanjian WTO tentang subsidi dan Countervailing Measures

BBM Fuel Oil Program Bahan Bakar MinyakDJ-KP3K MMAF DG-Marine Coasts & Small

IslandsDirektorat Jenderal Kelautan Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil

DJ-P2HP MMAF DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing

Direktorat Jenderal Pengolahan dan Pemasaran Hasil Perikanan

DJPT MMAF DG-Capture Fisheries Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan TangkapFAO U.N. Food and Agriculture

OrganizationOrganisasi Pangan dan Pertanian PBB

FMP Fisheries Management Plan Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan (“RPP”)Komnas Kajiskan National Commission for Fish

Resources AssessmentKomisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan

MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan (“DKP”)

MPA Marine Protected Area Kawasan Konservasi PerairanOECD Organization for Economic

Cooperation and DevelopmentOrganisasi untuk Kerjasama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan

PEMP Coastal Community Economy Empowerment Program

Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Masyarakat Pesisir

PUPTSK Small Scale Fishing Enterprise Development Program

Pengembangan Usaha Perikanan Tangkap Skala Kecil

Rakornas National Coordination Meeting Rapat Koordinasi NasionalWTO World Trade Organization Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia

I. Introduction

A. Indonesian fisheries at the crossroads

Indonesia is blessed with many rich and prolific fisheries—fisheries that provide livelihoods to nearly 5.5 million Indonesians and are the primary source of dietary protein for more than half of the nation’s 225 million people. But even Indonesia’s fisheries are not limitless. After decades in which both private sector economics and government policies encouraged a dramatic expansion of fishing (see Table 1 – Indonesia’s Fishing Fleet and Fisheries Production), many of Indonesia’s most valuable fisheries have reached or exceeded their biological limits. The future of Indonesia’s fisheries—and of communities that depend on them for income and food—now depends on policies to halt overfishing and to manage Indonesian fisheries for long term sustainability.

Table 1 – Indonesia’s Fishing Fleet and Fisheries Production

The need to shift Indonesia’s fisheries policies towards sustainability has been clearly recognized by the Komnas Kajiskan (“National Commission for Fish Resources Assessment”), the eminent stakeholder committee that advises the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF). In 2007, the Komnas issued a report warning that more than half of Indonesia’s fisheries are fully- or over-exploited, with another quarter in “uncertain” condition (see Figure 1 and Appendix B). As the Komnas noted in a formal policy recommendation accompanying the report:

Indonesia’s capture fisheries are threatened by a precipitous decline due to over-exploitation of major income-generating fish stocks. This puts at risk incomes and job opportunities of Indonesia’s coastal communities. Given that millions of people in Indonesia are dependent upon small-scale fishing for protein and cash, the current focus on continued expansion of fisheries is endangering economic development and food security.1

Fortunately, the process of reform has begun, guided by new Indonesian legislation. Fisheries Law No. 31/2004 requires an end to policies focused only on expanding

Number of decked vessels Total catch (tones)

Based on FAO 2002, Fig. 15 Source: FAO 2008

Indonesia’s fishing fleets have been among the fastest growing in the world, rising more than 600% from 1975 to 1994, and continuing to grow to the present. Catches also rose steadily . . . until 2003.

2


production, while Law No. 27/2007 calls for improved management of coastal zones and small islands. Taken together, this new legal framework enshrines sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystem management at the core of Indonesian fisheries policy.2 As a critical step towards fulfilling this vision, the Komnas Kajiskan has also recommended the prompt creation and implementation of fisheries management plans (FMPs) in all priority Indonesian fisheries.3

However, the shift towards sustainable fisheries in Indonesia is still in its early phases. The old emphasis on expanding production continues to be found in elements of MMAF policy and practice. For example, as recently as 2007, MMAF strategic plans continued to call for the continuous expansion of Indonesia’s wild capture fisheries production by approximately 3% per year.4

Indonesia—and MMAF as the steward of its valuable fisheries—is thus passing through a time of significant transition. There is good evidence that the policy trends are positive. Official publications5 as well as recent policy statements issued by the Director General of MMAF’s Capture Fisheries division6 suggest dynamic movement within MMAF towards policies that emphasize long-term sustainability. But the task is not small, especially considering the breadth of MMAF’s responsibilities for fisheries across dozens of increasingly autonomous provinces and districts.

In this context, there is a pressing need to focus new attention on the role of subsidies in Indonesia’s fishery sector. As noted below, Indonesia makes significant use of subsidies as part of its sectoral strategy. But, as history has shown in developed and developing countries around the world, inappropriate subsidies can contribute to fleet overcapacity and overfishing. Indonesian policymakers and stakeholders are increasingly aware of ongoing international efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and elsewhere to curtail harmful subsidies and to prevent them from contributing further to the global overfishing crisis.7

B. The goal: healthy ecosystems, sustainable livelihoods

The fundamental question presented in this report is whether Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are currently used in a manner consistent with the core principles at the heart of Indonesia’s fisheries legislation. These core principles begin with the goal of maximizing the contribution of the fisheries sector to the welfare of Indonesia’s fisheries-dependent communities, with a high priority on poverty reduction and improved livelihoods.

Indonesian fisheries today are at an important crossroads, poised between the “industrial development” models of the past and the “sustainable management” model of the future. In this context, it is important to consider how fisheries subsidies are being used.

3


Figu

re 1

— S

tatu

s of

Indo

nesi

a Fi

sher

y Re

sour

ces

Stat

us o

f Fis

heri

es R

esou

rces

per

Fish

ery

Man

agem

ent A

rea

and

per

Stoc

k C

ateg

ory

6

4


But the ability of fisheries to provide livelihoods and food security ultimately depends on the long-term sustainability of fishing itself. The contribution of fisheries subsidies to Indonesia’s economic development thus depends on the success of Indonesia’s fisheries management. This essential triangle—explored more deeply in the discussion of policy coherence in Section V, below—is summarized graphically in Figure 2.

Figure 2 -- The Critical Problem: Policy Coherence

The inextricable links among the economics of fishing, the husbandry of fisheries resources, and the development of Indonesian communities is already clearly acknowledged in Indonesian fisheries policy.8 It has also been noted in leading reviews of Indonesia’s fisheries sector, such as one recently conducted by the Asia Development Bank.9 The goal of this report is to advance dialogue over the degree to which Indonesian fisheries subsidies are playing the positive role desired by the government and by stakeholders. Although this report is restricted to a preliminary review of selected subsidy programs, it is hoped that the conclusions presented in Section VI will serve as a solid basis for further discussion and reform.

II. Data Underlying this Report

This report is based primarily on two sets of data collected by our research team from July 2007 to February 2008. The first set consists of budgetary information received from MMAF and from a small number of provincial and district level authorities. Much of this information is being made public for the first time. The authors wish to acknowledge and thank MMAF and local authorities for their remarkable openness and cooperation throughout this study.

Notwithstanding the high level of cooperation from MMAF and others, however, the budgetary data presented in this study is only partially representative of all Indonesian fisheries subsidy programs. Given limited resources for field research, we have been unable to conduct a comprehensive review. However, we have been able to collect budgetary data from three key MMAF departments: DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT); DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP); and DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands (DJ-KP3K). Limited provincial and district level data was also collected in some of the sites where we conducted local case studies. Largely excluded from our study were subsidies that are provided by national ministries other than MMAF, as well as subsidies granted at the provincial and district level outside of our case study sites. For an overview of the data made available for this study, see Table 2.

Table 2 — Budget Data Obtained for this Study

Jurisdictional Level

Administering Authority Years Covered

National (MMAF)

DG-Capture Fisheries (DJPT) 2005-07

DG-Fisheries Product Processing & Marketing (DJ-P2HP) 2005-06

DG-Marine Coasts & Small Islands (DJ-KP3K) 2005, 2007

Provincial

Bali Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005-06

Central Java Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006

East Java Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005

East Lombok Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005

East Nusa Tenggara Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006

West Nusa Tenggara Province (Fishery & Marine Service) 2006

District/ Local

Banyuwangi District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2004

Batang District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2004-05

Kota Kupang & District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2007

Pati District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005-06

Pekalongan District (Fishery & Marine Service) 2005

6


The second set of data underlying this report came from a series of field interviews conducted by our research team with over eighteen hundred Indonesian fishermen. These surveys were designed to learn about the impact of fisheries subsidies from the perspective of fishermen, and to “spot check” what kinds of subsidies are evident on the ground in a few specific localities. The sites for these case studies were selected to cover major Indonesian fisheries of several different kinds. Surveys were conducted in fishing communities located in five provinces and involving fishermen active in seven different fisheries (see infra Section IV).

These two data sets were collected through an inclusive process of research and stakeholder consultations that comprised:

(i) Preliminary discussions with, and data collection from, MMAF and national stakeholders, including through an initial stakeholders workshop held in Jakarta on 16 May 2007 (co-convened by TNC and the Komnas Kajiskan);

(ii) Discussions with, and data collection from, five provincial Marine Fisheries Services in Semarang (Central Java), Surabaya (East Java), Denpasar (Bali), Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara), and Kupang (East Nusa Tenggara);

(iii) Discussions with, and data collection from, ten district- and town-level Marine Fisheries Services in Pekalongan, Batang, Pati, Banyuwangi, Muncar, Jembrana, Lombok Timur, Kabupaten Kupang, and Kota Kupang;

(iv) Observations and discussion with key fishermen and/or informal leaders at the case study sites;

(v) Collection of survey data from 250-300 fishers at each of seven sites;j

(vi) Preliminary data analysis and summarizing;

(vii) Results verification with officials at district and provincial levels and with MMAF in Jakarta;

(viii) Discussions with stakeholders at a second workshop held in Bogor (West Java) on 17 June 2008, to receive feedback on a summary (in Bahasa) of an early draft of this paper; and

(ix) Discussions with MMAF and Komnas Kajiskan at a third workshop in Jakarta on 25 July 2008, for input into the conclusions and recommendations section of this paper.

It is hoped that the final draft of this report will be formally presented to national MMAF officials and stakeholders convened by the Komnas Kajiskan. It is also proposed that these be followed by further follow-up meetings at MMAF and with provincial and district stakeholders.

III. An Overview of Indonesia’s Fisheries Subsidies

A. The definition of “fisheries subsidy”

As described more fully in Appendix A, the term “fisheries subsidy” can be the subject of substantial technical and political debate. In many cases, the specific meaning of the term depends on the context in which it is used. Most narrowly, the term has a legal definition at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the technical concept of a “subsidy” delimits the government activities disciplined by the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “ASCM”” or “WTO Subsidies Code”). More broadly, a purely economic definition may consider a subsidy to be any commercial benefit that is not monetized and “purchased” by its beneficiary. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tends this way, at times defining “subsidy” to include uncompensated commercial benefits transferred entirely among private actors, and reserving the term “government financial transfers” for subsidies provided by the public sector. Technical discussions within the FAO have concluded that no single, simple, and universal definition of “fisheries subsidy” is possible, and have identified at least four basic kinds of “public-to-private” benefits that may be covered by the term.

This paper need not look far into this definitional discussion. We are mainly focused on direct and indirect financial transfers that have both budgetary consequences for the Government of Indonesia and real-world impacts on the health of Indonesian fisheries and fishing communities. Accordingly, we adopt an approach that examines “fisheries subsidies” of four basic kinds:

• Direct government payments, loans, or in-kind transfers of goods (such as subsidized fuel, ice, or bait) or services (such as training) to fishermen or fishing enterprises;

• Indirect transfers in the form of goods, services, or activities from which fishers derive an immediate benefit (such as port infrastructure, marketing and promotion programs); and

• Tax rebates or other tax relief offered to fishermen or fishing enterprises;

• Direct programmatic spending on conservation and management of fisheries.

By calling these government expenditures “subsidies” we do not intend to take sides in any policy debate. For example, being

The fact

that an

expenditure

is included

in this

study does

not mean

that it is or

should be

considered

a “subsidy”

as defined by

the WTO.

8


included in this study does not mean that an expenditure is or should be considered a subsidy under the rules of the WTO. Expenditures on conservation and fisheries management almost certainly fall outside the WTO definition. We include such expenditures here for two reasons: first, a balanced review of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies requires some consideration of the government’s investments directly in sustainability; second, (as discussed in Appendix A), other leading discussions of fisheries subsidies, and some governments, routinely include management costs in their catalogue of fisheries subsidies, and so for the sake of comparison with the international literature it is useful to include them here as well.

B. The scale of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies

The total value of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies remains difficult to ascertain precisely, particularly in light of the limited sources of data available for this study. Nevertheless, in an effort to provide a “guesstimate” of Indonesia’s total, we considered three sources of information:

First, we looked at the MMAF and sub-national authority budgets available to us, as summarized in rupiah in Appendix Table 1 and in U.S. dollars in Appendix Table 2 In estimating the overall scale of Indonesian subsidies, we began by looking at MMAF expenditures in 2005, the most complete year for which we have data. The three directorate generals participating in this study provided subsidies in 2005 totaling Rp306.3 billion (USD $33.7 million). These figures do not include fuel subsidies, discussed separately (see Section III.D).

We then looked at provincial and district level data in the localities for which data was provided. Over the three years 2005-07, data from these five provinces and seven districts suggest average yearly subsidies that approach Rp80 billion (USD $8.8 million) per year.10

It is very difficult to extrapolate from this data to calculate total provincial and local fisheries subsidies nationwide. However, our data may allow a very rough estimate of this figure. Most of the subsidies for which we have provincial and local data come from the provinces of Bali and the two Nusa Tenggaras. Taken together, these provinces appear to have provincial and local subsidies in excess of Rp54.4 billion (USD $6.0 million) per year. The FAO reports that in 2004 the provinces of Bali and the Nusa Tenggaras accounted for 5.59% of Indonesia’s total marine catch. (FAO 2007) If subsidies were distributed evenly across Indonesia’s catch (which, of course, may not be the case, especially since the fisheries studied here are among the more important of Indonesia’s fisheries), this would suggest total provincial and district subsidies in the range of Rp973 billion (USD $107 million) annually.

By combining the foregoing, we arrive at a total of roughly Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year from the main MMAF subsidy programs plus provincial and local sources nationwide. Some additional subsidies certainly are provided from other national-level programs, but our study gives no basis for estimating these.

As a complementary method of estimating overall Indonesian fisheries subsidies, we have considered two previously published studies available in the international literature. The first was a regional study sponsored by APEC governments in 2000 and produced

9


by the international accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.11 That study was conducted in dialogue with the Government of Indonesia, among others. It reported Indonesian fisheries subsidies totaling approximately USD $250 million (Rp2,273 billion) per year, excluding fuel subsidies. A second study was published in 2006 by the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (Canada).12 That study—which in the case of Indonesia relied heavily on the APEC figures plus other information—estimated the Indonesian total to be USD $343.2 million (Rp3,120 billion) per year, excluding fuel.

The figures offered by the APEC and UBC studies are substantially higher than our own estimates. There may, however, be several reasons for this, such as the inclusion in those studies of programs we would tend not to count as subsidies (e.g., investments from international development banks) and of programs some of which may have been dedicated to aquaculture. Nevertheless, those studies suggest that Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year may be a conservative estimate.

C. The kinds of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies

Indonesia makes use of fisheries subsidies in many different forms and for different purposes. Drawing on preliminary interviews and desk studies, we originally identified six basic kinds of Indonesian fisheries subsidies programs:

1. Coastal community development subsidies, mainly through the Coastal Community Economy Empowerment Program (“Pemberdayaan Ekonomi Masyarakat Pesisir, or “PEMP”);

2. Fishing enterprise development programs, mainly through the Small Scale Fishing Enterprise Development Program (“Pengembangan Usaha Perikanan Tangkap Skala Kecil” or “PUPTSK”), which consists of several subsidiary programs for optimizing specific fishing or fisheries-related activities (known as the “OPTI” programs);

3. Fuel subsidies, mainly through the Fuel Oil Program (“Bahan Bakar Minyak” or “BBM”);

4. Various supports for fisheries and marine conservation, management, and rehabilitation;

5. Fishing harbor infrastructure subsidies, mainly through the Development of Infrastructure Program (“Pengembangan Sarana Prasarana” or “PSP”); and

6. Other programs, including price supports and subsidized credit programs for providing easily accessible capital to fishing, processing, and marketing activities.

We conservatively

estimate annual Indonesian

fisheries subsidies

to be Rp 1,280 billion (USD

$140 million), not including

subsidies to fuel

. . .

the total is equivalent to ≈ 10% of the total value of

Indonesia’s fisheries and ≈ 30% of its

fisheries exports.

Jo

nes/

Shim

lock

- Se

cret

Sea

10


However, a more detailed profile of Indonesian fisheries subsidies emerges from the data we collected in the field. As a general matter, that data is not consistently organized into the program categories just listed. This may be due to flux in the administrative names of programs, or to differing terms in budgetary and other administrative usage. In any case, a summary of subsidies broken out into the program categories used in the budget materials is set forth for MMAF in Appendix Table 3 and for provincial and district authorities in Appendix Table 4.

Even the program descriptions in the budgetary materials are rather broad. For a better understanding of how Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are actually used, we further categorized the available budget data on an activity-by-activity basis, relying on the brief activity labels associated with each budget line. The thirteen classification categories we used are included in Table 3.

Table 3 — Distribution of Subsidies by Activity Type (excluding fuel)

Activity Type Object of Subsidy % of Total

Infrastructure Port facilities (not otherwise categorized as “Value Added Equipment & Activities”)

20.1%

Conservation & Management Fisheries management activities & programs 17.5%

Fisheries Development A program category used by MMAF to describe various activities meant to increase production from fisheries

11.5%

Directly Capacity-enhancing Gear or vessel acquisition, repair, modernization, etc. (i.e. direct additions to physical fishing capacity)

10.4%

Value Added Equipment & Activities

Physical infrastructure and activities (other than training) for processing/handling to improve value or value added

11.8%

Marketing and Promotion Programs to help market fish products (including export promotion) or to increase fish consumption,

5.8%

Access to Credit Loans & loan guarantees (where use is not sufficiently restricted to allow categorization into another category)

5.3%

Skills (fishing) Training in fishing techniques 1.3%

Social Safety Net Income supports, unemployment relief, etc. 1.0%

Operating Costs (exclusive of fuel) Operating costs of fishing (e.g., bait, ice) 0.8%

Skills (value-added) Training in handling/processing techniques 0.4%

Other Subsidy type not clear or not included in other categories

13.9%

Total 100.0%

After classifying the subsidies in this manner, we calculated roughly the percentage of funds used in each category. This calculation was, however, complicated by the fact that much of the budget data was available only for one or two years in the 2005-07 period (see Table 2). For the three MMAF directorate generals participating in this study (together

11


comprising 88% of the budgetary data collected), complete data was available only for 2005. The data from provinces and districts were also spread across several years, with most jurisdictions providing data for only a single year.

To compensate for the uneven temporal distribution of available data, we ran the numbers three different ways,14 all of which produced roughly the same results, with no activity type varying by more than a few percentage points. Accordingly, Table 3 averages the results of the foregoing methods to give the proportional distribution of subsidy amounts by activity types across the basket of programs we studied. The totals are presented graphically in Figure 3.

D. Indonesian fuel subsidies

The foregoing discussion does not take account of fuel subsidies, which the fishery sector—like other economic sectors in Indonesia—has received in large amounts. The BBM fuel subsidy program mentioned in the previous section is a nationwide program aimed at small businesses. The portion of this national program made available to fishermen is administered by MMAF.

Estimating the quantity of fuel subsidies granted to Indonesia’s fishery sector is difficult, since fuel subsidies are disbursed in the form of low cost fuel, and thus do not appear as an item on MMAF program budgets. Still, according to information provided by MMAF, the total value of fuel subsidies received by Indonesian fishermen was Rp3,558 billion in 2005 and Rp3,624 billion in 2006—approximately USD $390-400 million per year15. By comparison, the UBC study mentioned earlier (Sumaila & Pauly (2006)) estimates

Figure 3 — Distribution of Subsidies by Activity Type (excluding fuel)

12


Indonesian fuel subsidies at Rp1,554 billion (USD $171 million) per year. Meanwhile, a press report from the Antara news service in April 2006 reported that Indonesian fishers consume approximately 2.61 billion liter of fuel each year at a subsidy rate of Rp829 per liter.16 This would give an annual subsidy level of around Rp2,163 billion (USD $238 million) per year. Other news reports further suggest that calculations of the legally available fuel subsidy for fishermen understate the real situation, since some fishers illegally purchase even more heavily subsidized fuel at prices intended to support poor households.17

By any measures, fuel subsidies for Indonesia’s fishery sector are very high—possibly as much as four times higher than our estimates for all other Indonesian fisheries subsidies combined (see Section III.B).

The fuel subsidy policy, however, appears to be undergoing rapid change, at least with regard to other sectors of the economy. In 2005, the government announced its intention to phase out fuel subsidies, and promulgated Presidential Regulation No. 22/2005, which raised the national price of fuel by 29%. The impact on the fisheries sector was immediate and severe, leading to a substantial outcry. A few months later, the President issued a second decree—Presidential Regulation No. 55/2005—ordering a new subsidy for small-scale fishers. The following year, Presidential Regulation No. 9/2006 extended this relief to nearly all fishermen, regardless of their vessel size.

Although the national policy of reducing fuel subsidies generally continues—another 28.7% rise in the basic national price was announced just a few months before completion of this study18—so far as we are aware there has been no reduction in fuel subsidies to the fishery sector. Indeed, at least one report suggests that the government considers the fishery sector one of the last where fuel subsidies will be eliminated.19 And as fuel prices rise sharply, political pressure to maintain or increase fuel subsidies for fishers also rise.20

In sum, fuel subsidies remain a very significant contribution to the underlying economics of Indonesia’s fishery sector. As discussed below, these and other direct subsidies to operating costs must be considered among the most likely to have a direct influence on fishing activities. Because such subsidies immediately intensify fishing activities, they are considered “high risk” subsidies in the discussion in the next section of this paper.

E. The “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies

The central question raised by this paper is the extent to which fisheries subsidies make a coherent and effective contribution to the sustainable management of Indonesia’s fisheries and marine environment. The limited resources available for this study have prevented a direct measurement of the impacts of fisheries subsidies in Indonesia. As a first step towards answering this question, we offer instead an overview of the “risk profile” of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies as a whole. This profile aims to classify subsidy types according to their potential for contributing to overfishing or overcapacity, or conversely, their potential to promote sustainability. The profile was assembled by adding a probable “risk level” to each of the subsidized activity categories discussed above (see Table 3), as follows:

13


Table 4 — Subsidized Activities and Risk Ratings

Subsidy Types Risk Rating

Directly capacity-enhancing Very HighOperating Costs Very High“Fisheries Development” Very HighAccess to Capital HighInfrastructure ModerateMarketing & promotion ModerateOther ModerateSkills (fishing) ModerateSocial Safety Net ModerateSkills (value added) Low (Positive?)Value added equip & activ. Low (Positive?)Conservation & Mgmt Likely to be Positive

These risk categories are consistent with the international literature on classification of fisheries subsidies and their potential impacts.21 Basic economic theory, as well as documented experience, has clearly shown that direct subsidies to fishing capital or effort (such as subsidies for vessel construction or modernization, or subsidies to operating inputs such as fuel) have a very high potential for contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. UNEP, among others, has rated such subsidies as “harmful” (and not just “possibly harmful”) in any fishery that is not fully managed under a strict “property rights” management regime.22 This kind of management regime remains the exception rather than the rule globally (even in developed countries), and is not yet practiced in Indonesia. Moreover, subsidies for “fisheries development” are classically associated with efforts to raise fisheries output, such the “old style” Indonesian fisheries policy discussed in Section I.A, above.

Below the subsidies that are classified as “very high risk” in Table 4, other subsidy types are given decreasing risk assignments. “Access to Capital” has been rated a “high” risk because it is closely associated with direct investments in fishing capacity. The remaining subsidy categories are rated from “moderate” to “low (positive?)” risk, or even “likely to be positive”. Again, both economic theory and case studies such as those cited above have shown that subsidies with an indirect relationship to fishing capacity and effort have some risk, but are significantly less likely to contribute to overfishing. Subsidies that increase value added can obviously have a positive impact on resource management (if steps are taken to avoid encouraging intensification of fishing), and management subsidies are in principal considered positive.

In short, the risk classifications used here are based on the degree to which certain classes of subsidies have the potential to contribute to unsustainable fishing capacity or effort. However, placing Indonesian subsidies into these categories is not intended as a definitive judgment of the quality of any specific program. These classifications are based on the activity titles in government budgetary documents—

14


the actual operation of the programs was not reviewed. Apart from the possibility of miscategorizing a program in this manner, it is possible that even programs considered “high risk” can have reduced risks if they are implemented in well-regulated fisheries.23 Nevertheless, the risk categories used here can assist policymakers and stakeholders in identifying subsidy programs that could benefit from priority attention and possible reform.

When the available data was reviewed according to these categories, and with fuel subsidies excluded, it was found that approximately 25% of expenditures were in the “Very High” or “High” risk categories, 45% in the “Moderate” risk category, and 30% in the “Low” or “Likely to be Positive” categories (see Figure 4). Again, given the partial nature of the data available, it is not possible to extrapolate these findings to the whole of Indonesian fisheries subsidies.

Figure 4 — Overall Risk Profile (available data 2005-07)

If the risk analysis is limited to MMAF data (i.e., excluding provincial and district subsidies), two noteworthy results appear. First, the overall risk profile shifts somewhat towards higher risk, with the combination of “Very High” and “High” moving from 25% of the total to 32% (see Figure 5). Second, the available data suggest significant variability in the risk profile for MMAF subsidies from year to year, as evident in Figure 6. It is especially interesting to note that MMAF substantially increased its “directly capacity enhancing” subsidies in 2006-07, due mainly to new spending on vessels and gear by DG-Capture Fisheries (see Appendix Table 3). On the other hand, spending on the lowest risk and positive categories also increased substantially.

15


Figure 5 — MMAF Risk Profile (available data 2005-07)

Figure 6 — MMAF Risk Profiles (available data, by year)

Finally, it is again necessary to consider fuel subsidies. If fuel subsidies (which fall squarely within the “operating costs” category) are counted at the 2005-6 levels of Rp3,600 billion per year (as MMAF data suggest), then the percentage of “High Risk” subsidies in the MMAF portfolio would rise to more than 90%.

IV. The Perceptions of Fishermen

As noted above, extensive field interviews were carried out with fishers in seven fishing communities located in five provinces and involving fishermen active in seven different fisheries. The sites for these surveys are summarized in Figure 7 and Table 5.

Table 5 — Field Study Locations

Province Locality Fisheries

Central JavaPekalongan

Java Sea small pelagic purse seine

Java Sea demersal handline & “cotok” and “cantrang”

BatangPati

East Java BanyuwangiBali Strait Oil Sardine purse sein

Bali Jembrana

West Nusa Tenggara

Lombok Timur Alas Strait squid (”oras”-lampara type)

Off Nusa Tenggara, shark long line

East Nusa Tenggara24

Kota Kupang port (Tenau) Sawu Sea tuna

handlineOebaba (landing site)

Sawu Sea small pelagic purse seine

Oesapa fishing villageKabupaten Kupang

Figure 7 — Field Study Locations (Map)

17


The surveys yielded both quantitative and qualitative (anecdotal) information. Even the quantitative data, however, is a reflection of the subjective experiences and perceptions of fishermen. Given the limited scope of this study, it has not been possible to measure objectively the impacts of subsidies on the respondents. Moreover, it has been impossible to correlate the responses with the implementation of specific fisheries subsidies programs, because respondents were almost always unaware of the administrative source of the subsidies they received.

The results of our surveys are summarized for Bali Strait fishers in Appendix Table 8, for Java Sea fishers in Appendix Table 9, and for fishers in the Nusa Tenggaras in Appendix Table 10. Due to local variations in the conditions for carrying out surveys, reliable data was not available for all questions in all locations. Despite these limits, however, it has been possible to draw several useful conclusions from the survey results. The quantitative tabulations of survey responses revealed the following:

• The types of subsidies most commonly received or experienced by our respondents were port infrastructure, fuel, and subsidies to gear/vessels, all of which were widely in use. Training was offered in all but two sites, but was received by only a small number of respondents in those sites. Other types of subsidies were received only sporadically.

• Nearly all respondents who had received subsidies for gear/vessels, for fuel, or for infrastructure reported that these subsidies resulted in the intensification of fishing. In the cases of infrastructure and fuel, nearly all respondents reported the subsidies also increased their income. However, the data suggests that gear/vessel subsidies may have produced fewer income gains.

• The subsidy type apparently most useful to fishers was infrastructure, which nearly all respondents had experienced and which nearly all respondents reported had improved their activities, raised fish prices, and raised income.

• Subsidies for improving sanitation and preserving fish (e.g., on-board ice boxes) were received by relatively few respondents, but were highly rated for their effective impact on quality and price.

• Subsidized training programs were given mixed reviews by their recipients. While most recipients did find the trainings useful, in some localities between 20-30% of recipients did not feel the training had improved their fishing or fish handling or increased their income.

• Access to subsidized capital appears to have been very limited.

In addition to these quantitative results, the surveys produced anecdotal reports about subsidy programs. These reports were usually in the form of complaints, mainly from fishers who had not received subsidies rather than from those who had. In many cases, fishers complained that subsidies had been administered with “inappropriate selection criteria”—i.e., in the opinion of the respondents, the wrong fishers got the subsidies. This does not mean, of course, that the subsidies were inappropriately administered in fact. It does, however, clearly show that fishermen believe there was poor administration, or at least unfairness, in how subsidies were distributed. To the extent that government policy is to reduce conflicts among fishers, this is a point worth keeping in mind. The distribution

18


of subsidies between localities is also noteworthy. For example, in the two Bali Straight survey sites, one (Jembrana) had 82 fishers out of 300 reporting gear/vessel aid, while in the other (Banyuwangi) only six out of 300 reported receiving such aid.

A second common complaint was that subsidies were not properly tailored to meet local conditions. This was true of training programs, where respondents in several localities complained that the programs were either repetitive of what fishermen already knew or were not relevant to local realities. More disturbing were a handful of anecdotal reports that inappropriate gear or vessels were provided through subsidies. In at least one case, several new vessels were provided to one locality in the Java Sea fisheries, but then remained unused on the beach because they were not the kind of vessels used by local fishers. (In this case, administrative errors may have benefited sustainability, since the Java Sea fisheries are already suffering from overcapacity).

Third, where access to subsidized capital was experienced, there were at least some problems because the recipients considered the subsidized loans to be grants that did not require repayment. This suggests that an effort to use more “market-like” instruments in the place of handouts may require additional efforts to educate fishermen about the nature of the subsidies in question.

V. Discussion: Policy Coherence & Effectiveness

The data collected and analyzed for this study provide a solid basis for a preliminary discussion of the policy coherence and effectiveness of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. As noted above, the ultimate goal of Indonesian fisheries policy is to ensure the long-term welfare and development of Indonesia’s fisheries-dependent communities. But with Indonesian fisheries now at a crossroads, it is clear that achieving poverty reduction and durable economic growth depends on policies that are balanced and integrated. The key elements of such a balanced and integrated approach are clearly set forth

in Indonesian fisheries legislation. In the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 31 of 2004 Concerning Fisheries, Article 2—the first substantive article of the law—states in its entirety:

Fisheries management shall be carried out under the principles of benefit, equality, partnership, equal distribution, integration, transparency, efficiency. and sustainable preservation.

(“Pengelolaan perikanan dilakukan berdasarkan asas manfaat, keadilan, kemitraan, pemerataan, keterpaduan. keterbukaan, efisiensi, dan kelestarian yang berkelanjutan.”)

The core concepts embedded in this legislative mandate—equity/fairness, participation/transparency, effectiveness (efficiency/benefits), and sustainability—are precisely those against which the policy coherence of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies should be tested. In speaking of “integration” (“keterpaduan”), Article 2 even establishes the principle of policy coherence itself.

A. The first issue—sustainability

In light of the heavily exploited condition of many important Indonesian fisheries, we begin with a focus on sustainability, and on identifying areas where current fisheries subsidies may be working against durable livelihoods and long-term development. Even subsidies that appear to have short term benefits must be considered harmful if they encourage fisheries depletion. In the context of national fisheries many of which are already showing signs of overcapacity and overfishing, policies in favor of sustainability must emphasize at least three areas of action:

• effectively managing fisheries through fisheries management plans that set appropriate limits on fishing capacity and effort, and that in appropriate cases establish a network of multi-use marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect spawning grounds and other critical habitat elements;

• maximizing the value of fishery products through quality improvement, value-added processing, and gains in efficiency that raise incomes without exerting increased pressure on fully- or over-fished stocks; and

• restructuring the sector where it is necessary to do so, including through programs to reduce fishing capacity and to promote alternative livelihoods.

20


While some of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are doubtless consistent with these goals, it is not possible to be fully satisfied. Too many of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies risk working in the wrong direction, and too few of them are implemented in an administrative context that ensures their coherence. Several indications of “room for improvement” arise from our research:

First, as already mentioned in Section III.E, a substantial portion of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies are in the highest two categories of risk for unintentionally contributing to overcapacity or overfishing. For subsidies administered by MMAF, these high risk subsidies may be more than 30% of overall subsidy spending, without even considering massive fuel subsidies.

Most disturbing in this regard is evidence that spending on directly capacity-enhancing subsidies has been increasing precisely at a time when coherent policies require limiting the size of fleets and emphasizing the three areas of action noted above. The sharp increase during 2006-07 in MMAF’s budget for subsidies to vessels and gear (see the fourth budget line listed in Appendix Table 3) was accompanied by declarations from national political leaders in favor of distributing vessels to “fishermen throughout Indonesia” and for keeping Indonesia’s ship building industry working at full capacity.25 Our field surveys confirm significant levels of subsidies to vessels and gear in many of the localities we studied. Unfortunately, capacity-enhancing subsidies were a significant factor in communities targeting fisheries that are already fully- or over-exploited.

The Java Sea is a particularly important case where this kind of policy incoherence has been evident, and especially dangerous. The Java Sea is home to some of Indonesia’s most prolific fisheries, producing between a quarter and a third of total national marine fishery production.26 It has long been recognized that the Java Sea is suffering from overcapacity and overfishing. In fact, national and international experts have concluded that capacity-enhancing subsidies were an important factor leading to these twin problems.27

In 2005, MMAF issued a management plan recognizing that almost all of the major Java Sea fish stocks are overexploited—exceeding sustainable utilization levels by 37% overall, and as much as 49% in the case of the pelagic stocks.28 The first element of the MMAF plan emphasizes the need to reduce fleet capacity, especially for the small pelagic fleet.

The experience of fishermen

suggests that Indonesia

should shift away from

subsidies to capacity/effort

and towards subsidies

that increase increasing

product value

21


MMAF’s approach to the fisheries management plan (“FMP”) for the Java Sea is an example of precisely the kind of leadership that will be necessary to secure a sustainable future for Indonesia’s fishing communities. But even as some offices within MMAF are calling for capacity reduction, subsidized vessels and gear continue to be introduced into the fishery. At both the national and local levels, these actions are working at cross-purposes with MMAF’s own sustainable management goals.

Recent policy pronouncements, such as highlighted at a recent MMAF “National Coordination Meeting” (“Rakornas”) held in Jakarta in March 2008, indicate MMAF’s intention to implement tighter controls on fishing capacity and effort throughout Indonesia’s fisheries.29 To be fully effective, however, such controls will have to be accompanied by steps to ensure that fisheries subsidies programs do not work in a contrary direction.

B. Other issues — effectiveness, equity, and transparency

Sustainability is not the only good reason to shift subsidies away from promoting capacity and effort—both effectiveness and “customer satisfaction” would suggest the same. As noted above, our field surveys indicate that subsidies to gear and vessels were less effective in raising catches or incomes than other subsidy types. Even where fishers reported that the subsidies did increase fishing intensity, improvements in catches did not always follow. This result is not surprising, particularly in the context of a growing number of over-exploited fisheries where decreasing “catch per unit effort” is a standard sign of stock depletion.30

In contrast, fishers reported their highest level of improved livelihoods from subsidies to promote product quality or value-added processing. Again, this makes sense wherever fisheries resources are under pressure or where the cash value of fish depends heavily on product condition. The experience of fishermen interviewed for this study thus suggests that Indonesian subsidies policies should be shifted away from subsidies to capacity/effort and towards increasing product value, not only for the sake of long-term sustainability but also for the sake of short-term effectiveness at promoting economic growth and poverty reduction.

Another factor that may reduce the effectiveness of Indonesian fisheries subsidies is the tendency of subsidies to erode the independence and initiative of fishermen. While difficult to capture in quantitative data, the tendency of subsidies to create dependencies and to reduce entrepreneurial spirit was evident to our field researchers in many of their interviews. In this regard, we note that efforts within MMAF to encourage use of “market based” subsidies (such as subsidized capital loans) may present one means for addressing this problem, but are not yet a significant proportion of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies programs.

The effectiveness of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies is also clearly being diminished by problems of misadministration. During our field research we repeatedly heard stories about subsidized vessels or gear being provided in a manner unsuited to the local fishery. In one example, a subsidy seemed to have been designed more to benefit a particular boat builder than to aid the development of the local fishery. No effort was made to ensure that

22


the vessels to be built were useful to the fishermen, and the boats have remained on the beach since delivery.

Unfortunately, we also heard of cases that appeared to involve outright theft or corruption. We were told more than once, for example of cases in which the flow of fuel from subsidized fuel stations was interrupted because the station operator sold fuel but failed to pay distributors for his shipments. In another case, our researchers were told of a local government official who had not previously been a fisherman receiving a boat and entering the fishery.

Even where effectiveness is not being reduced by misadministration (or outright fraud), Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies sometimes appear to fall short of the goal of “equity” emphasized in Art. 2 of the framework law. As noted in Section IV, our researchers encountered widespread complaints about the distribution of subsidy benefits. In several cases, respondents voiced the opinion that family or social connections influenced the selection of recipients more than objective need. In other cases, subsidies appeared to be biased towards industrial or export-oriented fleets, rather than favoring small-scale, locally-oriented enterprises. For example, in Jembrana the government subsidized construction of a fueling station for disbursing subsidized diesel fuel. Around Jembrana, however, diesel is used almost exclusively by an industrial scale purse seine fleet—leading smaller scale hand-liners (who use kerosene) to complain of unfairness in the construction of the diesel station.

Finally, we consider the principle of transparency also enshrined in Article 2 of Law 31/2004. We note that the law emphasizes this principle alongside the closely linked principles of partnership and participation. Public access to official information about fisheries subsidy programs is essential for both accountability and stakeholder involvement—both of which are fundamental conditions of good policy. Experts and civil society groups around the world have been calling for increased transparency in fisheries subsidies for nearly a decade,31 and these calls for have been repeated frequently by governments in the context of international negotiations at the FAO and the WTO. Unfortunately, concrete action to improve public access to information has remained the exception rather than the rule in both developing and developed countries, and much important information about fisheries subsidies is today still beyond public reach.

In this regard, the positive attitude of Indonesian government officials in supporting and cooperating with this study—and in particular in providing detailed budgetary materials—provides an unprecedented level of transparency about the fishery subsidy programs of a major developing country. Providing such transparency always involves risk, and any government that takes this risk must be prepared for public discussion of its policies and practices. But the principles of partnership and participation point precisely to the need for such dialogue as necessary for successful government. By beginning to open its books on fisheries subsidies as it has for this study, the Government of Indonesia is demonstrating both wisdom and true international leadership.

Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the lack of a regular mechanism for the routine publication of information about Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. For proper administration of subsidy programs, occasional studies such as this one cannot provide the necessary public access to

23


information. Moreover, as decentralization proceeds in Indonesia’s government structure generally, improvements in the transparency of subsidy programs will be needed just to ensure that MMAF and other national officials are kept aware of subsidy activities of provincial and district governments.

VI. Conclusions & Recommendations As noted in Sections I and II, this study must be considered preliminary in nature and limited in scope. On the other hand, the study presents what the authors believe is the largest and most detailed set of data yet to be published about fisheries subsidies in a major developing country. The budgetary information made available by MMAF and local officials, in combination with extensive interviews of hundreds of fishermen, provides a solid basis for a number of important conclusions and recommendations.

A. General conclusions

Conclusion 1 — The total level of subsidies granted to the Indonesian fisheries sector is significant, and almost certainly has an impact on the scale and kind of fishing carried out in Indonesia’s domestic fisheries. We conservatively estimate total fisheries subsidies nationwide to be on the order of be Rp1,280 billion (USD $140 million) per year, exclusive of fuel subsidies. Fuel subsidies in the fishery sector, while difficult to calculate and in constant flux, likely amount to trillions of rupiah (hundreds of millions of dollars) annually. These figures compare with a total value of Indonesian fisheries of approximately USD $5 billion per year,32 and with total Indonesian fisheries exports valued at approximately USD $1.5-2.0 billion per year.33 In other words, if fuel subsidies are included, total Indonesian fisheries subsidies could amount to almost 10% of the value of Indonesia’s fisheries and nearly 30% of Indonesia’s fisheries exports.

Conclusion 2 — Some fisheries subsidies in Indonesia are clearly supportive of sustainable fisheries management and conservation. In a growing number of fisheries, funding is being directed at establishing fisheries management plans, as called for by the Komnas Kajiskan. Moreover, significant subsidies are being directed at activities to improve the value extracted from fisheries without requiring intensified fishing. In some program areas, funding for improved fisheries management is clearly on the rise.

Conclusion 3 — A substantial amount of subsidy funding continues to flow towards uses that are not consistent with sustainable fisheries management. The overall risk profile of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies is dangerously slanted towards high risk subsidies, and there is direct evidence of many cases in which subsidies are increasing fishing capacity and effort in fisheries that are already heavily exploited. Moreover, our field research revealed significant problems with effectiveness, equity, and transparency in the administration of Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies.

25


Conclusion 4 — Significant levels of policy incoherence and ineffectiveness are detracting from the overall effectiveness of Indonesian fisheries subsidies. These problems appear to result from two underlying causes. First, as discussed in Section I, Indonesia is still in the early stages of a major transition away from policies aimed at ever-expanding production, towards the sustainable management of fish stocks and marine ecosystems. However, the “culture of sustainability” has not yet been fully disseminated within MMAF, and outside of MMAF there remains a pressing need to educate policymakers, fishers, and the public generally about the challenges facing Indonesia’s fisheries. Second, current administrative structures within MMAF appear inadequate to ensure policy coherence in subsidy administration. There is simultaneously a lack of centralized planning and monitoring of subsidy programs and a lack of proper involvement of local officials and stakeholders in subsidy design.

B. Recommendations

MMAF leadership and the Komnas Kajiskan are well aware of the challenges discussed above, and many steps towards reform are already underway. The specific recommendations set out below are, therefore, intended to reinforce the positive trends already evident in Indonesian fisheries policy.

Recommendation 1 — MMAF should take immediate steps to eliminate subsidies that are directly at odds with sustainable management goals. Specifically, a process should be launched to review subsidies in all Indonesian fisheries that are nearing or have already surpassed full exploitation. In such fisheries, subsidies that directly increase fishing capacity or effort should be phased out rapidly. More generally, wherever fisheries management plans are already in place, subsidies should be reviewed to determine their consistency with the FMPs.

Recommendation 2 — Special attention should be given to the use of fuel subsidies in the fishery sector. While it is clearly necessary to take account of the impact of high fuel prices on fishermen’s livelihoods, it is equally important to recognize the direct impact fuel subsidies can have by encouraging overexploitation. MMAF and stakeholders should consider conducting a detailed study of the impacts of fuel subsidies in order to develop a balanced plan for reform.

Recommendation 3 — MMAF should make increased use of positive subsidies. In particular, both sustainability and “customer satisfaction” could be increased by shifting subsidies towards infrastructure and training for improving product quality and value. Where FMPs are not yet in place, subsidies should also be used to facilitate FMP development, including through support for increased local stakeholder involvement.

26


Recommendation 4 — MMAF should give increased emphasis to developing and implementing fisheries management plans. Where appropriate (as is often the case in near-shore demersal fisheries, among others), such FMPs should be coordinated with and include the establishment of a network of multi-use marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect spawning grounds and other critical habitat elements. FMPs should explicitly address the use of subsidies in the relevant fisheries. To do this, the FMP process will need to move beyond traditional approaches to consider in detail the kinds of public investments needed to improve sustainability and economic efficiency under specific local circumstances. In other words, FMPs should include an explicit “subsidies needs analysis” on a fishery-by-fishery basis, taking account of the major issues in each fishery, the economics of the fishery, the existing infrastructure, and the real world status of existing management systems (including key elements of “monitoring, control, and surveillance”). Once an FMP is in place, mechanisms should be created for continuous monitoring of subsidies to ensure their consistency with the management plan.

Recommendation 5 — MMAF should continue to explore and accelerate specific steps to increase its effective administrative control over Indonesia’s fisheries subsidies. New administrative structures should aim at several key goals:

A. Improving centralized development of subsidy policy and strengthening centralized monitoring and review of subsidies expenditures, in order to ensure that subsidies are supportive of national goals and to increase coordination across MMAF offices. For example, it should not be possible for one office in MMAF to subsidize new vessels in a fishery while another office calls for capacity reduction in the same fishery.

B. Increasing the involvement of local officials and stakeholders in designing subsidies programs. Even as MMAF increases centralized policymaking and monitoring of subsidies, the specific “subsidy needs analyses” should be undertaken at the local level. This may require not only increasing local MMAF capacities, but also establishing better mechanisms for communications between central MMAF offices and local officials.

C. Improving inter-ministerial coordination. Although not examined in detail here, subsidies being provided to fishing communities by ministries other than MMAF appear to be significant. Inter-ministerial coordination is especially important in today’s context of transition, when many non-specialists are unaware of fisheries overexploitation and unfamiliar with the “sustainable management” policies that are now required,

27


Recommendation 6 — MMAF should take strong steps to improve the financial accountability and transparency of subsidy programs. In fact, stronger bookkeeping and reporting mechanisms are likely to be necessary for the success of administrative reforms such as suggested under Recommendation 5. Records showing the flow of funds and the basis for the distribution of subsidies should be mandatory. MMAF should consider establishing a public record of its fisheries subsidies, including routine publication of detailed budgetary information. MMAF should also explicitly commit to achieving full compliance with existing or future WTO rules on transparency and notification of subsidies.

Two “golden threads” run through these conclusions and recommendations. The first is the tool of fisheries management planning. FMPs are fundamentally tools for localizing and implementing fisheries and ecosystem management. If FMPs are properly developed and implemented—and if they are made a core function within MMAF, so that all MMAF offices interact with them in any fishery where they are active—they can go a long way to promoting the reforms suggested above.

The second golden thread is the thread of transparency and accountability. At present, fisheries subsidies are designed and administered in an atomized fashion, with different offices pursuing different programs for different purposes. It will never be possible or desirable to centralize programs completely. But where coordination is necessary—as it so obviously is where subsidies are concerned—increased information flow within and outside of MMAF is required. Where local stakeholders are to be involved, this also implies an increased flow of information to the local level.

There is good reason to be hopeful about the future of Indonesia’s fisheries and its fisheries subsidies policies in particular. The trends within the ministry and stakeholder groups are generally positive. But this study reveals that substantial work needs to be done to ensure genuine policy coherence both within MMAF and between MMAF and other national and local authorities. The pursuit of substantive policies that embrace a “culture of sustainability” and administrative practices that embrace a “culture of accountability” are the fundamental elements of success.

≈ ≈ ≈

28


Appendix A — Definitions of “Fisheries Subsidy”

FAO

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (“FAO”) is the leading intergovernmental body with expertise and governance responsibilities over fisheries on a worldwide basis. The issue of fisheries subsidies first came to international attention as a result of FAO analytic work in the early 1990s,34 and the FAO houses the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, which is the only international legal instrument yet to be adopted that addresses the need for eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies. The FAO has, however, never formulated a single clear definition of “fisheries subsidy”. The question has never been presented for political decision by FAO members.35 Moreover, an in-depth technical consultation on “Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry” conducted by the FAO in 2002 was unable to produce a simple or precise definition.36 Rather, as was reported in the 2002 edition of FAO’s biannual State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), “This discussion drew the conclusion that no single definition could be agreed to.”37 Instead, the FAO has noted a series of broad descriptions of what may constitute a “fisheries subsidy”, and has identified at least four general categories into which fisheries subsidies can be classified. Among the broad general formulas used to describe “fisheries subsidy” for the FAO expert consultation were the following:38

“[A] direct or indirect payment, economic concession, or privilege granted by a government to private firms, households, or other governmental units in order to promote a public objective.”

“[A]ny government intervention—or lack of intervention—that affects the fisheries industry and that has an economic value.”

“[A] subsidy should be something that is out of the ordinary, i.e. something that is done – or not done – outside of normal practices:

“[G]overnment actions or inactions that are specific to the fisheries industry and that modifies (sic)—by increasing or decreasing – the potential profits by the industry in the short-, medium- or long-term.”

The 2002 expert consultation also identified four categories of activities that can be covered by the term “fisheries subsidies”:39

Category 1 — Direct governmental payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., grants to purchase or modernize fishing vessels);

Category 2 — Government interventions other than direct payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., tax waivers, below-market loans, goods or services);

Category 3 — Lack of government intervention that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the short term (e.g., failure to impose or enforce limits

29


on target catch or bycatch) (also known in some contexts as “failures to internalize environmental costs”);

Category 4 — Government interventions other than direct payments that reduce costs or increase revenues for producers in the medium or long term (e.g., effective fisheries management measures).

The FAO has noted that the combination of Categories 1 and 2 comes closest to being coextensive with the WTO definition (see below), while governments and stakeholders take different views about whether Categories 3 and 4 are properly considered “subsidies.”

WTO

The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“ASCM”) defines a subsidy as any “financial contribution” by a government (or by a public or private entity on behalf of a government) that confers a specific “benefit” on a domestic industry. A “financial contribution” may be in the form of a direct transfer of funds (e.g., a grant or loan) or “potential” transfer (e.g., a loan guarantee), the provision of goods or services, a price support, or the foregoing of tax or other revenue otherwise due. The requirement that a benefit be “specific” to an industry (or, in some cases, to a region) is intended to exclude government interventions that produce general public benefits (such as social security or police services), and thus bears some relation to the idea articulated by the FAO Draft Guide (quoted above) that “a subsidy should be something that is out of the ordinary.”

As a general matter, government financial transfers to the fisheries sector (roughly equivalent to FAO Categories 1 and 2, discussed above) fall within the WTO definition of a subsidy, and thus come under existing WTO subsidy disciplines.40 Fisheries management services, except perhaps in very particular and unusual cases, do not fall within the WTO definition. Failures to internalize environmental costs (e.g., the short-term benefits of allowing overfishing) are certainly not covered by current WTO rules.

In the context of the current Doha Round, governments have agreed to “clarify and improve” the ASCM’s treatment of fisheries subsidies,41 and have further agreed to adopt a prohibition on fisheries subsidies “that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing”, taking account of the need for “special and differential treatment” of developing countries.42 As of this writing (October 2008), the negotiations had produced a draft “Chair’s Text” outlining a proposed annex to the ASCM on fisheries subsidies.43 While many aspects of the Chair’s Text have raised debate and even some controversy, the fisheries subsidies language was broadly accepted as a basis for further negotiations.

At the negotiating table, the question of defining “fisheries subsidy” has raised issues that can be roughly divided into the questions “What is meant by ‘fisheries’?” and “What is meant by ‘subsidy’?”

30


With regard to the concept of “fisheries”, the Chair’s Text proposes limiting the reach of new disciplines to:

• subsidies that confer benefits on “fishing vessels or service vessels” or on their operations (where “fishing vessel” are “vessels used for marine wild capture fishing and/or on-board processing of the products thereof” and “service vessels” are “vessels used to tranship the products of marine wild capture fishing from fishing vessels to on-shore facilities; and vessels used for at-sea refuelling, provisioning and other servicing of fishing vessels”);

• subsidies that confer benefits on the “landing, handling or in- or near-port processing activities for products of marine wild capture fishing”;

• subsidies to “port infrastructure or other physical port facilities exclusively or predominantly for activities related to marine wild capture fishing”;

• subsidies that provide “income support for natural or legal persons engaged in marine wild capture fishing”; and

• subsidies in the form of “price support for products of marine wild capture fishing”.

The proposed rules thus appear to exclude subsidies relating to inland fisheries and to the non-fishing aspects of aquaculture.

With regard to the concept of “subsidy” the Chair’s Text appears to clarify two points: First, on the controversial question of “foreign access payments” the text strikes a balance by explicitly excluding government-to-government access payments but by treating as “subsidies” the onward transfer of access rights from the government that has acquired them to its domestic industry.44 Second, the text implicitly excludes fisheries management services from the definition of “subsidy”. In many cases, the text would require that certain fisheries management services be provided as a condition precedent to the use of non-prohibited fisheries subsidies. These services are clearly treated as an essential public good, and not as subsidies in themselves.

OECD

The OECD—which has conducted more extensive technical work on quantifying fisheries subsidies than any other intergovernmental organization—has adopted the term “government financial transfers” (“GFTs”) in place of the more common term “subsidies”, and has given GFTs a broad economic definition:

“The [OECD] Committee [on Fisheries] has used the term “government financial transfers” in preference to the more general term “subsidies”. This is because, in general usage, subsidies encompass more than just the explicit transfer of money from the public purse to the sector. Since subsidies in general also include implicit transfers from consumers to the industry, GFTs are considered to be a subset of the whole range of subsidies. . . . Government financial transfers are defined as the monetary value of interventions associated with fishery policies, whether they are from central, regional or local governments. GFTs include both on-budget

31


and off-budget transfers to the fisheries sector. . . . Three categories of GFTs are identified: direct payments; cost-reducing transfers; and general services. A fourth category of transfer, market price support, is included in the classification scheme but was not addressed in the study on Transition to Responsible Fisheries. The extent of cost recovery undertaken by countries is also included in the classification.”

A. Cox, “OECD Work on Defining and Measuring Subsidies In Fisheries” (OECD 2003) ¶¶ 3-5 (emphasis added).

Cox explicitly notes that there is controversy over whether “general services” such as governmental fisheries management activities should be counted as a GFTs, and reports that OECD governments differ in their approach to the matter. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The fisheries subsidies data collected by the OECD from its members thus varies somewhat in scope from government to government. For purposes of reporting to the OECD, some governments clearly have treated budgetary expenditures for fisheries management services as “subsidies”.

UBC Fisheries Centre

The Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia in Canada has done more technical work quantifying fisheries subsidies than any other non-governmental entity, and is the only entity that has attempted a global quantification of fisheries subsidies that includes developing countries. In its major publication setting out worldwide estimates of fisheries subsidies on a country-by-country basis,45 UBC reviews several approaches to defining “fisheries subsidy”, but apparently declines to adopt a specific definition of its own.46 It is clear from its data and analysis, however, that the Centre adopts a fairly broad definition that includes expenditures for management services, which it generally classifies as “good” (as opposed to “bad” or “ugly”) subsidies.

Appendix B — Tabel 6 Exploitation Levels of Major Indonesian Fisheries

Stock Status Key: Source: Komnas Kajiskan (2007a)

U : Under exploited F : Fully exploited UN : Uncertain

M : Moderately exploited O : Overfished

33


APPENDIX TABLES

34

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

35

App

endi

x Ta

ble

1 —

Tota

l Sub

sidi

es b

y A

utho

rity

and

Yea

r (R

p)

Aut

hori

ty20

0420

0520

0620

07G

rand

Tot

alN

ation

al

306,

311,

772,

132

200,

887,

801,

076

150,

489,

170,

246

657,

688,

743,

454

D

JPT

(DG

-Cap

ture

Fis

heri

es)

17

2,83

6,60

1,90

710

1,18

5,68

8,13

398

,669

,804

,134

372,

692,

094,

174

D

J-KP

3K (D

G-M

arin

e Co

asts

&

Smal

l Isl

ands

)

97,8

33,8

75,3

77

51,8

19,3

66,1

1214

9,65

3,24

1,48

9

D

J-P2

HP

(DG

-Fis

heri

es P

rodu

ct

Proc

essi

ng &

Mar

ketin

g)

35,6

41,2

94,8

4899

,702

,112

,943

13

5,34

3,40

7,79

1Pr

ovin

cial

37

,194

,419

,694

40,1

36,5

98,6

91

77,3

31,0

18,3

85

Bali

6,

797,

908,

333

2,53

2,61

1,42

0

9,33

0,51

9,75

3

Ce

ntra

l Jav

a Pr

ovin

ce (F

ishe

ry &

M

arin

e Se

rvic

e)

13

,942

,014

,600

13

,942

,014

,600

Ea

st Ja

va P

rovi

nce

29

,848

,319

,004

29,8

48,3

19,0

04

Ea

st L

ombo

k Pr

ovin

ce (M

arin

e &

Fi

sher

y Se

rvic

e)

548,

192,

357

5,55

7,68

3,39

0

6,10

5,87

5,74

7

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

ra P

rovi

nce

10,8

18,6

19,2

81

10,8

18,6

19,2

81

East

Nus

a Te

ngga

ra P

rovi

nce

7,28

5,67

0,00

0

7,28

5,67

0,00

0D

istr

ict/

Loc

al1,

904,

542,

000

4,63

6,70

0,50

03,

447,

225,

000

2,45

0,75

0,00

012

,439

,217

,500

Ba

nyuw

angi

193,

520,

000

19

3,52

0,00

0

Bata

ng1,

711,

022,

000

450,

000,

000

2,16

1,02

2,00

0

Kota

Kup

ang

2,

450,

750,

000

2,45

0,75

0,00

0

Pati

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s D

ept

2,

410,

271,

000

3,44

7,22

5,00

0

5,85

7,49

6,00

0

Peka

long

an

1,77

6,42

9,50

0

1,

776,

429,

500

Gra

nd T

otal

1,90

4,54

2,00

034

8,14

2,89

2,32

624

4,47

1,62

4,76

715

2,93

9,92

0,24

674

7,45

8,97

9,33

9

(Thi

s ta

ble

incl

udes

onl

y da

ta m

ade

avai

labl

e fo

r th

is s

tudy

)

34

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

35

App

endi

x Ta

ble

2 —

Tota

l Sub

sidi

es b

y A

utho

rity

and

Yea

r (U

SD)

Aut

hori

ty20

0420

0520

0620

07G

rand

Tot

al

Nati

onal

$3

3,69

4,29

5$2

2,09

7,65

8$1

6,55

3,80

9$7

2,34

5,76

2

DJP

T (D

G-C

aptu

re F

ishe

ries

)

$19,

012,

026

$11,

130,

426

$10,

853,

678

$40,

996,

130

D

J-KP

3K (D

G-M

arin

e Co

asts

& S

mal

l Isl

ands

)

$10,

761,

726

$5

,700

,130

$16,

461,

857

D

J-P2

HP

(DG

-Fis

heri

es P

rodu

ct P

roce

ssin

g &

M

arke

ting)

$3

,920

,542

$10,

967,

232

$1

4,88

7,77

5Pr

ovin

cial

$4

,091

,386

$4,4

15,0

26

$8,5

06,4

12

Bali

$7

47,7

70$2

78,5

87

$1,0

26,3

57

Ce

ntra

l Jav

a Pr

ovin

ce (F

ishe

ry &

Mar

ine

Serv

ice)

$1,5

33,6

22

$1,5

33,6

22

Ea

st Ja

va P

rovi

nce

$3

,283

,315

$3,2

83,3

15

Ea

st L

ombo

k Pr

ovin

ce (M

arin

e &

Fis

hery

Se

rvic

e)

$60,

301

$611

,345

$6

71,6

46

W

est N

usa

Teng

gara

Pro

vinc

e

$1

,190

,048

$1

,190

,048

Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

Pro

vinc

e

$8

01,4

24

$801

,424

Dis

tric

t/ L

ocal

$209

,500

$510

,037

$379

,195

$269

,583

$1,3

68,3

14

Bany

uwan

gi$2

1,28

7

$21,

287

Ba

tang

$188

,212

$49,

500

$237

,712

Ko

ta K

upan

g

$269

,583

$269

,583

Pa

ti M

arin

e an

d Fi

sher

ies

Dep

t

$265

,130

$379

,195

$6

44,3

25

Pe

kalo

ngan

$1

95,4

07

$1

95,4

07G

rand

Tot

al$2

09,5

00$3

8,29

5,71

8$2

6,89

1,87

9$1

6,82

3,39

1$8

2,22

0,48

8

(Thi

s ta

ble

incl

udes

onl

y da

ta m

ade

avai

labl

e fo

r th

is s

tudy

)

36

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

37

App

endi

x Ta

ble

3 —

MM

AF

Budg

ets,

by

Prog

ram

& Y

ear

Dire

ctor

ates

/ p

rogr

ams

2005

20

06

2007

(Rp)

(USD

)(R

p)(U

SD)

(Rp)

(USD

)

DJP

T (D

G-C

aptu

re F

ishe

ries

)17

2,83

6,60

1,90

7$1

9,01

2,02

610

1,18

5,68

8,13

3$1

1,13

0,42

698

,669

,804

,134

$10,

853,

678

UN

Cod

e O

f Con

duct

for

Resp

onsi

ble

Fish

ing

988,

789,

888

$108

,767

4,56

1,05

9,96

0$5

01,7

171,

967,

975,

960

$216

,477

Dev

elop

men

t of c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

4,

302,

249,

761

$473

,247

4,30

2,24

9,76

1$4

73,2

47

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

y st

atisti

cs12

8,93

8,60

0$1

4,18

31,

219,

907,

199

$134

,190

1,29

7,10

7,19

9$1

42,6

82D

evel

opm

ent o

f fish

ing

vess

els

and

gear

s

64,6

82,8

94,9

12$7

,115

,118

75,9

58,7

90,8

41$8

,355

,467

Dev

elop

men

t of s

mal

l sca

le

fishe

ries

1,21

8,11

5,50

0$1

33,9

93

Fish

ing

licen

se3,

148,

315,

165

$346

,315

Fish

ing

port

11

,275

,895

,928

$1,2

40,3

49

Impr

ove

serv

ice

on fi

shin

g lic

ensi

ng75

1,30

1,68

6$8

2,64

315

,143

,680

,373

$1,6

65,8

0515

,143

,680

,373

$1,6

65,8

05

Inve

stm

ent a

nd jo

b cr

eatio

n1,

313,

530,

616

$144

,488

OPT

IHA

ND

IS10

,907

,392

,409

$1,1

99,8

13

OPT

IKA

PI14

9,42

7,69

2,05

3$1

6,43

7,04

6

OPT

ISA

RKA

N1,

952,

819,

795

$214

,810

Se

rvic

e an

d co

ntro

l of fi

shin

g lic

ense

2,99

9,70

6,19

5$3

29,9

68

DJ-

KP3K

(DG

-Mar

ine

Coas

ts &

Sm

all I

slan

ds)

97,8

33,8

75,3

77$1

0,76

1,72

6

51

,819

,366

,112

$5,7

00,1

30Co

nser

vatio

n of

mar

ine

natio

nal

park

5,72

5,44

2,20

0$6

29,7

99

Dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f co

asta

l sm

all-i

slan

d re

sour

ces

10,7

62,6

50,6

00$1

,183

,892

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

ies

reso

urce

s54

,123

,179

,500

$5,9

53,5

50

Man

agem

ent a

nd u

tiliz

ation

of

smal

l isl

ands

17,8

38,5

89,7

77$1

,962

,245

36

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

37

Dire

ctor

ates

/ p

rogr

ams

2005

20

06

2007

(Rp)

(USD

)(R

p)(U

SD)

(Rp)

(USD

)

DJP

T (D

G-C

aptu

re F

ishe

ries

)17

2,83

6,60

1,90

7$1

9,01

2,02

610

1,18

5,68

8,13

3$1

1,13

0,42

698

,669

,804

,134

$10,

853,

678

Mar

ine

reso

urce

s m

anag

emen

t

37

,430

,262

,452

$4,1

17,3

29M

CRM

P - m

arin

e an

d co

asta

l re

sour

ces

man

agem

ent p

rogr

am

14

,389

,103

,660

$1,5

82,8

01Sp

atial

pla

n fo

r co

asta

l and

sm

all-

isla

nds

9,38

4,01

3,30

0$1

,032

,241

D

J-P2

HP

(DG

-Fis

heri

es P

rodu

ct

Proc

essi

ng A

nd M

arke

ting

)35

,641

,294

,848

$3,9

20,5

4299

,702

,112

,943

$10,

967,

232

Busi

ness

dev

elop

men

t : p

roce

ssin

g &

mar

ketin

g fi

sher

y pr

oduc

ts2,

306,

260,

047

$253

,689

5,17

5,79

0,38

0$5

69,3

37

Im

prov

e qu

ality

and

dev

elop

men

t of

pro

cess

ing

for

fishe

ry p

rodu

ct4,

462,

325,

838

$490

,856

52,2

38,5

85,2

38$5

,746

,244

Impr

ove

publ

ic s

ervi

ce, H

R de

velo

pmen

t and

goo

d go

vern

ance

12,4

72,3

25,9

98$1

,371

,956

22,4

94,9

08,6

76$2

,474

,440

Mar

ketin

g de

velo

pmen

t and

im

prov

emen

t of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

ts16

,400

,382

,965

$1,8

04,0

4219

,792

,828

,649

$2,1

77,2

11

G

rand

tota

l30

6,31

1,77

2,13

2$3

3,69

4,29

520

0,88

7,80

1,07

6$2

2,09

7,65

815

0,48

9,17

0,24

6$1

6,55

3,80

9

38

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

39

App

endi

x Ta

ble

4 —

Pro

vinc

ial &

Dis

tric

t Bud

gets

, by

Prog

ram

& Y

ear

Loca

l Aut

hori

ties

/ P

rogr

ams

2004

(Rp)

(USD

)

2005

(Rp)

(USD

)

2006

(Rp)

(USD

)

2007

(R

p)

(USD

)

Bali

6,79

7,90

8,33

3$7

47,7

702,

532,

611,

420

$278

,587

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

y ag

ribu

sine

ss

1,58

2,16

9,09

5$1

74,0

39

Incr

ease

in th

e pr

ospe

rity

of

gove

rnm

ent s

taffs

.

39

,900

,000

$4,3

89

Man

agem

ent a

nd D

evel

opm

ent o

f Co

asta

l are

a

487,

199,

400

$53,

592

151,

171,

000

$16,

629

Man

agem

ent a

nd D

evel

opm

ent o

f us

e of

fish

ery

and

mar

ine

reso

urce

s

3,94

8,55

5,51

8$4

34,3

412,

115,

310,

920

$232

,684

Surv

eilla

nce,

con

trol

and

co

nser

vatio

n on

mar

ine

and

fishe

ry

reso

urce

s

779,

984,

320

$85,

798

226,

229,

500

$24,

885

Bany

uwan

gi19

3,52

0,00

0$2

1,28

7

Dev

elop

men

t of a

quab

usin

ess

100,

000,

000

$11,

000

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

men

and

fish

fa

rmer

s43

,520

,000

$4,7

87

Man

agem

ent a

nd p

rote

ction

on

fishe

ry a

nd m

arin

e re

sour

ces

50,0

00,0

00$5

,500

Bata

ng1,

711,

022,

000

$188

,212

450,

000,

000

$49,

500

Capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r fis

heri

es

com

mun

ities

40,0

00,0

00$4

,400

75,0

00,0

00$8

,250

Dev

elop

men

t of m

arin

e aff

airs

and

fis

heri

es10

9,90

0,00

0$1

2,08

9

Impr

ove

tech

nica

l fac

ilitie

s fo

r m

arin

e aff

airs

and

fish

erie

s1,

561,

122,

000

$171

,723

335,

000,

000

$36,

850

(bla

nk)

40

,000

,000

$4,4

00

Cent

ral J

ava

Prov

ince

(Fis

hery

&

Mar

ine

Serv

ice)

13,9

42,0

14,6

00$1

,533

,622

Dev

elop

men

t and

Em

pow

erm

ent o

f Ca

ptur

e fis

hery

3,34

7,43

6,00

0$3

68,2

18

38

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

39

Loca

l Aut

hori

ties

/ P

rogr

ams

2004

(Rp)

(USD

)

2005

(Rp)

(USD

)

2006

(Rp)

(USD

)

2007

(R

p)

(USD

)

Prog

ram

of e

mpo

wer

men

t of c

oast

al

com

mun

ity

14

9,08

9,00

0$1

6,40

0

Prog

ram

of e

mpo

wer

men

t of s

mal

l is

land

s

97

,916

,500

$10,

771

Prog

ram

of fi

sher

y bu

sine

ss

deve

lopm

ent

7,37

1,96

1,60

0$8

10,9

16

Prog

ram

of i

ncre

ase

in in

stru

men

t an

d in

fras

truc

ture

of t

he g

over

nmen

t

55

7,62

3,00

0$6

1,33

9

Prog

ram

of i

ncre

ase

in th

e qu

ality

of

dis

tric

t gov

ernm

ent h

uman

re

sour

ces

Dae

rah

124,

550,

000

$13,

701

Prog

ram

of s

uper

visi

on o

n m

arin

e re

sour

ces

expl

oita

tion

and

expl

orati

on

2,29

3,43

8,50

0$2

52,2

78

East

Java

Pro

vinc

e

29

,848

,319

,004

$3,2

83,3

15

Agr

ibus

ines

s de

velo

pmen

t

991,

260,

000

$109

,039

Dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f m

arin

e re

sour

ces

10

,863

,120

,306

$1,1

94,9

43

Food

sec

urity

41

1,68

3,80

0$4

5,28

5

Inte

grat

ed fi

sher

ies

deve

lopm

ent

43

7,33

7,50

0$4

8,10

7

Offi

ce o

pera

tions

17

,144

,917

,398

$1,8

85,9

41

East

Lom

bok

Prov

ince

(Mar

ine

&

Fish

ery

Serv

ice)

548,

192,

357

$60,

301

5,55

7,68

3,39

0$6

11,3

45

Empo

wer

men

t of e

cono

my

of th

e co

asta

l com

mun

ity (

sea

and

fres

hwat

er

fishe

rmen

& fi

sh fa

rmer

s)

156,

265,

950

$17,

189

98,9

55,0

00$1

0,88

5

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

env

ironm

enta

lly

frie

ndly

sci

ence

& te

chno

logy

(IPT

EK)

12

0,08

5,00

0$1

3,20

919

5,76

5,50

0$2

1,53

4

Incr

ease

in m

arin

e an

d fis

hery

in

fras

truc

ture

.

94,7

63,3

07$1

0,42

43,

484,

159,

090

$383

,257

40

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

41

Loca

l Aut

hori

ties

/ P

rogr

ams

2004

(Rp)

(USD

)

2005

(Rp)

(USD

)

2006

(Rp)

(USD

)

2007

(R

p)

(USD

)

Incr

ease

in th

e m

anag

emen

t of

mar

ine

and

fishe

ry e

nviro

nmen

t

55,9

26,7

00$6

,152

Incr

ease

in th

e pa

rtici

pato

ry m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

t man

agem

ent

219,

041,

250

$24,

095

Incr

ease

in th

e qu

ality

and

qua

ntity

of

fish

ery

and

mar

ine

hum

an

reso

urce

s

121,

151,

400

$13,

327

289,

480,

050

$31,

843

Reha

bilit

ation

and

Res

tora

tion

of

natu

ral r

esou

rces

rese

rve

(Cad

anga

n Su

mbe

rday

a A

lam

)

1,

270,

282,

500

$139

,731

Kota

Kup

ang

2,45

0,75

0,00

0$2

69,5

83

Incr

ease

fish

pro

ducti

on

2,45

0,75

0,00

0$2

69,5

83

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

ra P

rovi

nce

10,8

18,6

19,2

81$1

,190

,048

Dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f m

arin

e re

sour

ces

1,16

7,39

0,10

9$1

28,4

13

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

y re

sour

ces

9,65

1,22

9,17

2$1

,061

,635

East

Nus

a Te

ngga

ra P

rovi

nce

7,28

5,67

0,00

0$8

01,4

24

Dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f m

arin

e re

sour

ces

839,

000,

000

$92,

290

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

ies

reso

urce

s

6,

446,

670,

000

$709

,134

Pati

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s D

ept

2,41

0,27

1,00

0$2

65,1

303,

447,

225,

000

$379

,195

Catc

hing

Fac

ility

and

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Dev

elop

men

t

700,

000,

000

$77,

000

1,00

0,00

0$1

10

Catc

hing

pro

ducti

on im

prov

emen

t

283,

000,

000

$31,

130

291,

500,

000

$32,

065

Cont

rol o

f Exp

loita

tion

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s N

atur

e Re

sour

ces

Impr

ovem

ent

5,

000,

000

$550

Cultu

re p

rodu

ction

and

oth

er

com

mod

ity im

prov

emen

t

3,40

0,00

0$3

74

40

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

41

Loca

l Aut

hori

ties

/ P

rogr

ams

2004

(Rp)

(USD

)

2005

(Rp)

(USD

)

2006

(Rp)

(USD

)

2007

(R

p)

(USD

)

Effici

ency

& E

ffecti

vene

ss o

f A

dmin

istr

ation

and

tech

niqu

e se

rvic

es im

prov

emen

t

30,0

00,0

00$3

,300

Faci

lity

and

Infr

astr

uctu

re

fish

cultu

re im

prov

emen

t and

de

velo

pmen

t

1,33

9,42

1,00

0$1

47,3

36

Fish

erie

s pr

oduc

t pro

cess

ing

and

mar

ketin

g im

prov

emen

t

15,0

00,0

00$1

,650

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s H

uman

Res

ourc

es

Qua

lity

Impr

ovem

ent a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

9,

000,

000

$990

68,7

00,0

00$7

,557

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s in

stitu

tion

Dev

elop

men

t

5,00

0,00

0$5

50

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s In

stitu

tiona

l D

evel

opm

ent a

nd C

omm

unity

Em

pow

erm

ent

55,0

00,0

00$6

,050

Mar

ine

and

Fish

erie

s N

atur

e Re

sour

ces

Envi

ronm

ent Q

ualit

y D

evel

opm

ent

5,

000,

000

$550

135,

000,

000

$14,

850

Mar

ketin

g Fa

cilit

y an

d In

fras

truc

ture

Re

nova

tion

and

Dev

elop

men

t

2,

896,

025,

000

$318

,563

Plan

ning

, Mon

itori

ng, E

valu

ation

&

Repo

rt Im

prov

emen

t of M

arin

e an

d Fi

sher

ies

Dep

artm

ent D

istr

ict P

ati

15,4

50,0

00$1

,700

Peka

long

an

1,

776,

429,

500

$195

,407

Agr

ibus

ines

s de

velo

pmen

t

64,9

50,0

00$7

,145

Biod

iver

sity

pro

tecti

on

15,0

00,0

00$1

,650

Coas

tal c

omm

unity

dev

elop

men

t

74,7

00,0

00$8

,217

Dev

elop

men

t of E

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t zon

e

993,

559,

500

$109

,292

42

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

43

Loca

l Aut

hori

ties

/ P

rogr

ams

2004

(Rp)

(USD

)

2005

(Rp)

(USD

)

2006

(Rp)

(USD

)

2007

(R

p)

(USD

)

Man

agem

ent o

f nat

ural

en

viro

nmen

tPen

gelo

laan

Lin

gkun

gan

alam

49

8,22

0,00

0$5

4,80

4

Skill

s an

d kn

owle

dge

impr

ovem

ent

for

agri

cultu

re H

R

55,0

00,0

00$6

,050

Supp

ort p

rogr

am fo

r foo

d pr

oduc

tion

75

,000

,000

$8,2

50

Gra

nd T

otal

1,90

4,54

2,00

0$2

09,5

0041

,831

,120

,194

$4,6

01,4

2343

,583

,823

,691

$4,7

94,2

212,

450,

750,

000

$269

,583

42

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

43

App

endi

x Ta

ble

5 —

Acti

viti

es b

y Ri

sk (M

MA

F D

G-C

aptu

re F

ishe

ries

)Ri

sk R

ating

Prog

ram

Acti

vity

Very

Hig

hde

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re

fishe

ries

busi

ness

mee

ting

for

capt

ure

fishe

ryco

ntro

l of o

vers

eas

empl

oyee

s w

orki

ng a

t nati

onal

fish

ing

vess

els

deve

lop

man

agem

ent i

nfor

mati

on s

yste

m fo

r th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

busi

ness

deve

lopm

ent o

f int

egra

ted

capt

ure

fishe

ryev

alua

tion

on th

e de

velo

pmen

t of s

mal

l sca

le c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

(< 3

0 G

T)Ev

alua

tion

on th

e de

velo

pmen

t of s

mal

l-sca

le fi

sher

y (fi

shin

g po

wer

< 3

0 G

T)fe

asib

ility

and

allo

catio

n fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

heri

esfe

asib

ility

and

fish

ery

allo

catio

n fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

form

ulat

e sa

lary

sys

tem

and

pro

fit s

hari

ng in

cap

ture

fish

ery

busi

ness

form

ulati

on o

f mas

ter

plan

and

rens

tra

(str

ateg

ic p

lann

ing)

on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f sm

all-s

cale

cap

ture

fish

erie

s (P

UPT

SK)

inte

rnati

onal

coo

pera

tion

for

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f cap

ture

fish

erie

s bu

sine

ssin

tern

ation

al c

oope

ratio

n on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f cap

ture

fish

erie

sm

appi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce o

f arti

sana

l fish

erie

sm

appi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce o

f sm

all-s

cale

fish

erie

sm

ento

ring

on

revi

taliz

ation

of c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

men

tori

ng th

e op

erati

onal

of r

evita

lizati

on p

acka

ge fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

heri

espo

licy

form

ulati

on o

n op

en o

cean

cap

ture

fish

ery

Prom

ote

inve

stm

ent o

n ca

ptur

e fis

hery

soci

o-ec

onom

ic a

naly

sis

of fi

sher

’s b

usin

ess

tech

nica

l mee

ting

and

deve

lop

part

ners

hips

for

capt

ure

fishe

rytr

aini

ng T

OT

on in

stitu

tiona

l str

uctu

re o

f cap

ture

fish

ery

44

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

45

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyde

velo

pmen

t of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s an

d ge

ars

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

shin

g bo

ats

and

gear

sde

velo

pmen

t of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s an

d ge

ars

FAD

’s m

appi

ngim

prov

e fa

cilit

y fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

, dire

ct a

id to

com

mun

ity a

nd o

ther

sup

porti

ng a

ctivi

ties

impr

ovem

ent o

f fish

ing

faci

lities

, dire

ct a

id a

nd o

ther

sup

porti

ng a

ctivi

ties

map

ping

on

FAD

(Fis

h A

ggre

gatin

g D

evic

e)M

onito

ring

-Eva

luati

on (M

onEv

) of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

OPT

ILA

NPI

plan

ning

and

sup

ervi

sion

on

the

desi

gn a

nd s

eaw

orth

ines

s of

fish

ing

boat

s an

d ge

ars

Pre-

cons

ensu

s an

d co

nsen

sus

on s

tand

ardi

zed

fishi

ng v

esse

ls a

nd g

ears

pre-

cons

ensu

s &

con

sens

us o

n st

anda

rdiz

ed fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s an

d ge

ars

impr

ove

serv

ice

on

fishi

ng li

cens

ing

arra

ngem

ent f

or c

aptu

re fi

sher

y al

loca

tion

arra

ngem

ent o

n fis

hing

allo

catio

nev

alua

tion

on fi

shin

g al

loca

tion

eval

uatio

n, a

lloca

tion

and

impl

emen

tatio

n of

cap

ture

fish

ery

busi

ness

field

ext

ensi

on a

nd a

ccel

erati

on to

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

inte

grat

ed c

aptu

re fi

sher

y sy

stem

field

ext

ensi

on o

n bu

sine

ss s

ervi

ce o

n ca

ptur

e fis

hery

of fi

shin

g po

wer

< 3

0 G

TO

PTIK

API

Eval

uatio

n of

SPD

N/S

PBN

dev

elop

men

tFi

eld

cons

ulta

tion

to s

uppo

rt th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

fishi

ng v

esse

l dev

elop

men

tPr

ocur

emen

t of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

sO

PTIS

ARK

AN

deve

lopm

ent o

f sm

all s

cale

fish

erie

sH

igh

deve

lopm

ent o

f cap

ture

fis

heri

esfa

cilit

ate

certi

ficati

on o

f lan

d ow

ning

for

fishe

rmen

impr

ove

acce

ss o

n ca

pita

l inv

estm

ent o

f fish

ers

to b

ank

incr

ease

acc

ess

to c

apita

l inv

estm

ent f

or s

mal

l sca

le fi

sher

men

incr

ease

acc

ess

to c

apita

l of fi

sher

men

to b

ank

incr

ease

d ac

cess

to c

apita

l inv

estm

ent f

or fi

sher

thro

ugh

paw

ning

ser

vice

and

land

cer

tifica

te a

t fish

ing

port

/fish

la

ndin

gs (P

P/TP

I)m

ento

ring

to in

crea

se a

cces

s to

cap

ital f

or s

mal

l-sca

le fi

sher

stre

ngth

enin

g ca

pita

l for

fish

erm

enSt

reng

then

ing

capi

tal i

nves

tmen

t for

fish

erm

en

44

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

45

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyM

oder

ate

CCRF

follo

w u

p ac

tion

to s

olve

fish

erm

en c

onfli

ctde

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re

fishe

ries

capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r co

mpe

tenc

y im

prov

emen

t of t

he fi

sher

men

De-

regu

latio

n on

fish

ery

busi

ness

: pub

lic p

olic

y an

alys

es o

n fis

hery

bus

ines

sde

velo

pmen

t of l

ivel

ihoo

d di

vers

ifica

tion

for

smal

l sca

le fi

sher

men

impr

ove

fishe

rmen

com

pete

ncy

in b

asic

saf

ety

proc

edur

e (B

STF)

impr

ove

fishe

r’s

com

pete

nce

in m

achi

nery

(Atk

apin

III)

impr

ove

fishe

r’s

com

pete

nce

on b

asic

saf

ety

proc

edur

es (B

ST-F

)im

prov

e fis

her’

s co

mpe

tenc

e on

dec

k sk

ills

(Ank

apin

III)

impr

ove

fishe

rmen

com

pete

ncy

in e

ngin

e (A

tkap

in II

I)liv

elih

ood

dive

rsifi

catio

n fo

r sm

all-s

cale

fish

erm

enSo

cio-

econ

omic

s an

alys

es o

f fish

erm

ende

velo

pmen

t of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s an

d ge

ars

deve

lopm

ent o

f inf

orm

ation

sys

tem

for

fishi

ng p

ort

deve

lopm

ent o

f out

er r

ing

fishi

ng p

ort i

n In

done

sia

fishi

ng v

esse

l map

ping

at fi

shin

g po

rtgu

idel

ine

to m

easu

re v

esse

l dim

ensi

ons

harb

or m

aste

r of

fish

ing

port

impr

ove

fish

land

ing

faci

lities

in W

est J

ava

Prov

ince

impr

oved

faci

lities

of C

ilaca

p fis

hing

por

t (PP

S)im

prov

ed s

tatu

s of

PPP

Sun

gaili

at in

to P

PNIn

fras

truc

ture

dev

elop

men

t of J

akar

ta F

ishi

ng P

ort

Mon

itori

ng-E

valu

ation

(Mon

Ev) a

nd m

ento

ring

of t

he o

pera

tiona

l of fi

shin

g po

rtFi

shin

g po

rt o

pera

tiona

l mai

nten

ance

& re

porti

ngPl

anni

ng a

nd s

uper

visi

on o

n de

sign

of s

afet

y pr

oced

ure

for

fishi

ng v

esse

ls a

nd g

ears

revi

ew a

nd e

valu

ation

on

inte

grat

ed fi

shin

g po

rt m

anag

emen

t in

rela

tion

to lo

cal a

uton

omy

revi

ew o

n re

med

iatio

n of

sed

imen

tatio

n po

nd a

t fish

ing

port

stud

y th

e im

pact

of o

pera

tiona

l PER

UM

to p

erfo

rman

ce o

f fish

ing

port

tech

nica

l and

impl

emen

tatio

n gu

idel

ine

on th

e op

erati

onal

of fi

shin

g po

rtte

chni

cal t

rain

ing

on th

e de

velo

pmen

t of fi

shin

g ge

ars

trai

ning

for

boat

-mas

ter

46

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

47

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tytr

aini

ng fo

r offi

cial

s on

phy

sica

l and

doc

umen

t che

ckin

g of

fish

ing

vess

els

trai

ning

for

oper

ator

of U

PMB

trai

ning

for

oper

ator

UPM

Btr

aini

ng o

n de

velo

pmen

t of fi

shin

g ge

ars

trai

ning

on

fishi

ng b

oat m

aste

rtr

aini

ng o

n id

entifi

catio

n an

d m

easu

ring

fish

ing

boat

dim

ensi

ons

trai

ning

on

mai

nten

ance

and

repa

ratio

n of

fish

ing

mac

hine

trai

ning

on

mai

nten

ance

and

repa

ratio

n of

mac

hine

ry fo

r fis

hing

trai

ning

on

phys

ical

and

doc

umen

t che

ckin

g fo

r fis

hing

boa

ts/s

hip

trai

ning

on

safe

ty p

roce

dure

of fi

shin

g bo

attr

aini

ng o

n se

awor

thy

of fi

shin

g bo

ats/

ship

sde

velo

pmen

t of s

mal

l sc

ale

fishe

ries

trai

ning

on

smal

l-sca

le fi

sher

ies

fishi

ng li

cens

etr

aini

ng o

n fis

hing

fishi

ng p

ort

deve

lopm

ent o

f inf

orm

ation

sys

tem

for

fishi

ng p

ort

deve

lopm

ent o

f out

er-r

ing

fishi

ng p

orts

in In

done

sia

faci

lity

impr

ovem

ent o

f fish

ing

port

(PPS

) in

Cila

cap

harb

or m

aste

r of

fish

ing

port

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d te

chni

cal g

uide

line

of th

e op

erati

on o

f fish

ing

port

impr

ovem

ent o

f fish

ing

land

ing

site

s (T

PI) E

ast J

ava

Prov

ince

incr

ease

d st

atus

of P

PP S

unga

iliat

into

PPN

infr

astr

uctu

re im

prov

emen

t of J

akar

ta F

ishi

ng P

ort

Mon

itori

ng-E

valu

ation

(Mon

Ev) o

f the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

OPT

ILA

NPI

Mon

itori

ng-E

valu

ation

(Mon

Ev) o

f the

ope

ratio

nal o

f fish

ing

port

revi

ew a

nd e

valu

ation

of i

nteg

rate

d fis

hing

por

t man

agem

ent i

n re

latio

n to

loca

l aut

onom

yre

view

on

rem

edia

tion

of s

edim

enta

tion

pond

at fi

shin

g po

rtSt

udy

on im

pact

of P

ERU

M o

pera

tion

on th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f fish

ing

port

46

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

47

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyim

prov

e se

rvic

e on

fis

hing

lice

nsin

gco

achi

ng o

n no

n-ta

xed

gove

rnm

ent i

ncom

e (P

NBK

)es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f KU

B (c

oope

rativ

e)fie

ld e

xten

sion

on

busi

ness

ser

vice

on

capt

ure

fishe

ry o

f fish

ing

pow

er <

30

GT

HR

deve

lopm

ent i

n re

latio

n to

cap

ture

fish

ery

licen

sing

men

tori

ng o

n PN

BK (n

on-t

axed

gov

ernm

ent i

ncom

e)op

timiz

ing

of n

on-t

axed

gov

ernm

ent i

ncom

e (P

NBP

)op

timiz

ing

no-t

axed

gov

ernm

ent i

ncom

e (P

NBP

)O

PTIK

API

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

ies

land

ing

and

aucti

on p

lace

sim

prov

e fa

cilit

y of

fish

ing

port

impr

oved

ser

vice

of fi

shin

g po

rtO

pera

tiona

l im

prov

emen

t of fi

sher

y ha

rbor

Stan

dard

izati

on o

f cap

ture

fish

ery

faci

lities

trai

ning

on

cont

rol &

con

stru

ction

of fi

shin

g ha

rbor

trai

ning

on

fishi

ng fa

cilit

yLo

w (P

ositi

ve?)

CCRF

empo

wer

men

t of a

rtisa

nal fi

sher

ies

(fish

box

)de

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re

fishe

ries

deve

lop

conc

ept o

n th

e re

vita

lizati

on fi

sher

y bu

sine

ss

OPT

IHA

ND

ISfis

h ha

ndlin

g an

d pr

oces

sing

Impr

oved

faci

lity

of L

PPM

HP

(fish

qua

lity

cont

rol)

Opti

miz

e fis

h pr

oces

sing

faci

lities

qual

ity im

prov

emen

t of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tVa

lue

adde

d an

d qu

ality

impr

ovem

ent o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Posi

tive

CCRF

an o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r tr

awl o

pera

tion

in c

ross

bou

ndar

y be

twee

n M

alay

sia

- Ind

ones

iaCp

UE’

s m

onito

ring

& e

valu

ation

for

fishi

ng v

esse

ls <

30

GT

in W

PP (fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t are

as)

Dee

p se

a FA

D’s

mon

itori

ng a

nd e

valu

ation

Sul

awes

i and

Pap

ua, F

AD

’s id

entifi

catio

n in

Sou

th C

hina

Sea

Dev

elop

men

t of d

raft

man

agem

ent p

lan

for

spotf

in fl

ying

fish

in M

akas

sar

Stra

it an

d Fl

ores

Sea

eval

uatio

n an

d m

ento

ring

the

tran

s-bo

unda

ry fi

sher

men

eval

uatio

n an

d ve

rific

ation

on

the

use

of F

AD

s in

Nor

th S

ulaw

esi a

nd P

acifi

c oc

ean

eval

uatio

n of

fish

ery

regu

latio

n at

cro

ss b

ound

ary

of E

astK

al, W

estK

al w

ith M

alay

sia

exte

nsio

n of

CCR

F

48

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

49

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyEx

tens

ion

of N

POA

for

shar

k m

anag

emen

tfie

ld e

xten

sion

on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

CCR

FFi

sher

ies

man

agem

ent o

f end

ange

red

spec

ies

Fish

erie

s m

onito

ring

in A

rafu

ru S

eaFi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t of E

EZ a

nd o

pen

ocea

nfo

rmul

ation

of N

ation

al P

lan

of A

ction

on

Fish

ing

Capa

city

form

ulati

on o

f tec

hnic

al g

uide

line

on fi

shin

g ge

ar, F

AD

’s p

lace

men

t and

NPO

A fi

shin

g ca

paci

tyim

plem

enta

tion

of N

POA

for

shar

k m

anag

emen

tin

itial

dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t pla

n (R

PP) f

or A

rafu

ra S

eaIn

vent

ory

of fi

sher

y re

sour

ces

in th

e Pr

ovin

ce o

f Ban

gka

Belit

ung

man

agem

ent o

f red

sna

pper

fish

ery

in A

rafu

ru a

nd T

imor

Sea

man

agem

ent p

lan

for

Bang

gai C

ardi

nal fi

shM

ento

ring

on

Code

of C

ondu

ct fo

r Re

spon

sibl

e Fi

sher

ies

(CCR

F)M

onito

ring

-Eva

luati

on (M

onEv

) of fi

sher

y re

gula

tion

in a

rchi

pela

gic

area

sM

onito

ring

-Eva

luati

on (M

onEv

) of l

ongt

ail s

had,

Ten

ulos

a m

acru

raM

onito

ring

follo

w u

p ac

tions

of fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t pla

n (R

PP) o

f Tel

uk T

omin

iM

onito

ring

follo

w u

p ac

tions

of fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t pla

n in

Java

Sea

mul

ti-la

tera

l coo

pera

tion

(CCS

BT, I

OTC

, BO

BLM

E) a

nd p

repa

re th

e m

embe

rshi

p of

Indo

nesi

a in

CCS

BT a

nd W

CPFC

Nati

onal

FKP

PS (fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t for

um) m

eetin

gon

boar

d ob

serv

er o

n fis

hing

ves

sels

(SIP

O)

onbo

ard

obse

rver

pro

gram

polic

y fo

rmul

ation

on

capt

ure

fishe

ry m

anag

emen

t and

urg

ency

of m

embe

rshi

p of

Indo

nesi

a in

CCS

BT a

nd W

CPFC

Stud

y on

by-

catc

h uti

lizati

on a

nd m

anag

emen

t of t

raw

l fish

ery

in A

rafu

ra S

eaW

orks

hop

on fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t pla

n (R

PP) o

f Mal

acca

Str

ait

deve

lopm

ent o

f cap

ture

fis

heri

esco

ntro

l of o

vers

eas

empl

oyee

s w

orki

ng a

t nati

onal

fish

ing

vess

els

form

ulati

on o

f mas

ter

plan

and

str

ateg

ic p

lan

(Ren

stra

) for

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f sm

all s

cale

fish

erie

s (P

UPT

SK)

man

agem

ent i

nfor

mati

on s

yste

m fo

r th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

aptu

re fi

sher

ies

polic

y fo

rmul

ation

on

open

oce

an c

aptu

re fi

sher

y

48

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

49

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyD

evel

opm

ent o

f fish

ery

stati

stics

anal

yses

of t

he w

orld

fish

ery

App

reci

ation

of d

ata

colle

ction

sys

tem

for

tuna

fish

ery

appr

ecia

tion

and

impr

ovem

ent o

f sta

tistic

al s

yste

m fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

(SIS

PT)

data

ana

lyse

s an

d pr

esen

tatio

n on

fish

ing

boat

s/sh

ips

> 30

GT

data

ana

lyse

s an

d pr

esen

tatio

n on

sta

tistic

s fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

data

ana

lyse

s an

d pr

esen

tatio

n on

sta

tistic

s of

cap

ture

fish

ery

data

ana

lyse

s on

wor

ld fi

sher

yda

ta a

naly

sis

and

pres

enta

tion

on fi

shin

g bo

ats

fishi

ng p

ower

> 3

0 G

Tda

ta c

olle

ction

sys

tem

for

tuna

fish

ery

data

col

lecti

on s

yste

m fo

r tu

na fi

sher

y in

Indi

an O

cean

data

col

lecti

on s

yste

m fo

r tu

na fi

sher

y in

Pac

ific

area

data

col

lecti

on s

yste

m fo

r tu

na fi

sher

y in

Pac

ific

data

val

idati

on o

n st

atisti

cs fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

stati

stics

for

capt

ure

fishe

ries

valid

ating

sta

tistic

s of

cap

ture

fish

ery

deve

lopm

ent o

f fish

ing

vess

els

and

gear

sde

cisi

on o

n th

e de

sign

of n

ation

al s

tand

ard

inde

x (S

NI)

for

fishi

ng v

esse

ls a

nd g

ears

desi

gn o

f SN

I (N

ation

al S

tand

ard

Inde

x) fo

r fis

hing

ves

sels

and

gea

rgu

idel

ine

to m

easu

re fi

shin

g ve

ssel

dim

ensi

ons

iden

tifica

tion

and

map

ping

of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

s in

fish

ing

port

sIm

plem

enta

tion

of T

ED (t

rain

ing)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

TED

trai

ning

on

iden

tifica

tion

and

mea

sure

men

t of fi

shin

g ve

ssel

dim

ensi

ons

fishi

ng li

cens

efis

hing

lice

nse

cont

rol

50

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

51

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyim

prov

e se

rvic

e on

fis

hing

lice

nsin

gfie

ld e

xten

sion

on

allo

catio

n an

d fis

hing

lice

nsin

gfie

ld e

xten

sion

on

allo

catio

n an

d lic

ense

for

capt

ure

fishe

ryH

R de

velo

pmen

t in

rela

tion

to c

aptu

re fi

sher

y lic

ensi

ngO

pera

tiona

l and

mai

nten

ance

of i

nfor

mati

on s

yste

mre

view

on

smal

l pel

agic

fish

ery

in M

akas

sar

Stra

it an

d Fl

ores

Sea

revi

ew o

n sm

all-p

elag

ic fi

sher

y in

Mak

assa

r St

rait

and

Flor

es S

eaup

dat

e lic

ensi

ng s

yste

m fo

r ca

ptur

e fis

hery

up d

ating

fish

ing

licen

sing

sys

tem

for

capt

ure

fishe

ryin

vest

men

t and

job

crea

tion

impr

ove

serv

ice

on fi

shin

g lic

ense

OPT

IKA

PIRe

vita

lizin

g FK

PPS

(Fis

hery

man

agem

ent f

orum

) and

Fis

heri

es M

anaj

emen

Pla

nse

rvic

e an

d co

ntro

l of

fishi

ng li

cens

elic

ense

for

fishi

ng v

esse

ls

50

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

51

App

endi

x Ta

ble

6 —

Acti

viti

es b

y Ri

sk (M

MA

F D

G-M

arin

e Co

asts

& S

mal

l Isl

ands

)Ri

sk R

ating

Prog

ram

Acti

vity

Very

Hig

hD

evel

opm

ent o

f fis

heri

es re

sour

ces

Faci

litati

ng S

PDN

(fue

l sta

tion

for

fishe

rs) d

evel

opm

ent

Indu

stri

tekn

olog

i tep

at g

una

(inte

rmed

iate

tech

nolo

gy in

dust

ry)

Empo

wer

men

t of t

radi

tiona

l fish

ing

boat

bui

lder

s Lo

cal t

echn

olog

y de

velo

pmen

tFi

sher

men

Reg

ener

ation

to im

prov

e th

e qu

ality

of h

uman

reso

urce

s in

coa

stal

com

mun

ities

Man

agem

ent

and

utiliz

ation

of s

mal

l is

land

s

capi

tal a

id (w

ater

car

rier

shi

p an

d fis

hing

boa

ts)

Inve

ntor

y th

e re

cipi

ents

of s

mar

t shi

ps

Hig

hD

evel

opm

ent o

f fis

heri

es re

sour

ces

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

sher

men

insu

ranc

e sy

stem

Real

izati

on o

f ent

erpr

ise

capi

tal

LKM

Sya

riah

(Sya

riah

Mic

roFi

nanc

e es

tabl

ishm

ent)

Man

agem

ent

and

utiliz

ation

of s

mal

l is

land

s

Live

lihoo

d ca

pita

l aid

or

coas

tal c

omm

uniti

es a

t tra

ns b

ound

ary

area

sPr

omot

e in

vest

men

t for

sm

all i

slan

ds

Mod

erat

eCo

nser

vati

on o

f Mar

ine

Nati

onal

Par

kD

atab

ase

deve

lopm

ent a

nd m

anag

emen

t for

mar

ine

cons

erva

tion

area

s (K

KL)

Dev

elop

men

t and

m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al

smal

l-isl

and

reso

urce

s

Confl

ict r

esol

ution

s fo

r pr

oble

ms

in a

nd a

roun

d fis

hing

por

t at 9

diff

eren

t site

sCo

ordi

natio

n an

d fa

cilit

ation

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of s

trat

egic

miti

gatio

n of

coa

stal

are

asCo

ordi

natio

n, fa

cilit

ation

and

coa

chin

g to

sup

port

revi

taliz

ation

of L

osar

i Bea

chFi

eld

exte

nsio

n on

gen

eral

gui

delin

e of

RPK

P at

5 p

rovi

nces

Form

ulat

e po

licy

on m

itiga

tion

to ts

unam

i in

Wes

t Sum

ater

aM

ater

ial p

rodu

ction

and

dis

sem

inati

on o

f coa

stal

miti

gatio

nPr

ovid

e su

ppor

t to

revi

taliz

ation

of L

osar

i, M

akas

sar

Publ

icati

on o

n m

arin

e, c

oast

al a

nd s

mal

l isl

and

activ

ities

(pro

gram

s)Re

view

des

ign

of th

e re

vita

lizati

on o

f Kup

ang

Bay

52

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

53

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Dev

elop

men

t of

fish

erie

s re

sour

ces

Dev

elop

men

t of e

mpo

wer

men

t and

ser

vice

cen

ter

for

coas

tal c

omm

uniti

esD

evel

opm

ent o

f pro

fit s

hari

ng m

echa

nism

for

fishe

ries

(Bal

i and

Java

)D

evel

opm

ent o

f TPD

net

wor

kEx

tens

ion

and

docu

men

tatio

n of

PEM

P Pr

ogra

mCo

rpor

atiza

tion

of fi

sher

men

and

fish

farm

ers

Mar

itim

e cu

ltura

l dev

elop

men

t thr

ough

Wal

lace

a’s

insti

tutio

nD

evel

opm

ent o

f new

coo

pera

tives

/mic

rofin

ance

age

ncie

sD

evel

opm

ent o

f coa

stal

sho

ps (

Keda

i Pes

isir

)Em

pow

erm

ent o

f coa

stal

com

mun

ity e

cono

my

(PEM

P), s

endi

ng m

ater

ials

Empo

wer

men

t of c

oast

al c

omm

uniti

es th

roug

h sm

all s

cale

mar

ine

tour

ism

Empo

wer

men

t of c

oast

al c

omm

uniti

es th

roug

h in

term

edia

te te

chno

logy

Impl

emen

tatio

nEm

pow

erm

ent o

f coa

stal

wom

en th

roug

h de

velo

pmen

t of fi

sher

ies

prod

uct w

aste

s D

evel

opm

ent o

f LE

PP M

3/fis

heri

es c

oope

rativ

es n

etw

orks

.D

evel

opm

ent o

f coa

stal

com

mun

ity c

redi

t-ba

nkin

g (B

PR P

esis

ir).

Impr

ovem

ent o

f the

role

of L

EPP-

M3

thro

ugh

deve

lopm

ent o

f sup

er-m

arke

ts (W

aser

da).

Impr

ovem

ent o

f wom

en ro

le fo

r ho

useh

old

econ

omy

deve

lopm

ent

Dis

trib

ution

of b

ank-

cred

it to

LEP

PM3/

Fis

heri

es c

oope

rativ

esPu

blic

ation

of c

oast

al a

nd P

PK a

ctivi

ties

on c

oast

al c

omm

unity

em

pow

erm

ent

Man

agem

ent a

nd

utiliz

ation

of s

mal

l isl

ands

Dat

a m

anag

emen

t on

PPK

Dev

elop

men

t of i

nteg

rate

d m

arin

e to

uris

m in

Sul

sel,

Saun

ek, B

atam

, Lem

bong

an, M

oyo,

San

gihe

Dis

sem

inati

on o

f Min

iste

rial

Dec

ree,

Kep

men

Ped

um In

vest

asi a

t 5 D

istr

icts

/Citi

esFi

eld

visi

ts (c

oord

inati

on) t

o co

asta

l and

sm

all i

slan

ds a

reas

Mon

itori

ng-E

valu

ation

(Mon

Ev) o

fthe

impl

emen

tatio

n of

PPK

Mon

itori

ng o

n th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of fa

cilit

y ai

dsPr

omot

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of m

arin

e to

uris

mW

orks

hop

and

road

sho

w o

n to

uris

m d

evel

opm

ent i

n co

asta

l and

sm

all i

slan

d ar

eas

52

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

53

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

mar

ine

reso

urce

s m

anag

emen

tco

asta

l con

stru

ction

in s

uppo

rt o

f rev

italiz

ation

of L

osar

i Bea

ch (p

hase

III)

coas

tal d

evel

opm

ent i

n su

ppor

t of r

evita

lizati

on o

f Kup

ang

Bay

Dev

elop

men

t of W

areh

ouse

BM

KTfie

ld e

xten

sion

, tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tant

& m

onito

ring

of t

he im

plem

enta

tion

of c

oast

al v

illag

e de

velo

pmen

tFo

rmul

ate

draft

of g

over

nmen

t reg

ulati

on o

n m

itiga

ting

from

dis

aste

r fo

r co

asta

l com

mun

ities

Form

ulat

e st

rate

gic

plan

to m

itiga

te ts

unam

i in

Indo

nesi

aid

entifi

catio

n on

the

pote

ntial

use

of u

nuse

d (e

xs) O

il Ri

gIn

vent

ory

and

dist

ribu

tion

of B

MKT

to lo

cal m

useu

ms

Miti

gatio

n to

Tsu

nam

i with

Soft

Str

uctu

reO

pera

tiona

lizati

on o

f nati

onal

sec

reta

riat

of B

MKT

Revi

sitin

g Pr

esid

entia

l Dec

ree

107/

2000

, 25/

1992

and

Min

iste

rial

Dec

ree

KP 3

9/20

00Tr

aini

ng o

n BM

KT h

andl

ing

and

man

agem

ent

MCR

MP

- mar

ine

and

coas

tal r

esou

rces

m

anag

emen

t pro

gram

Acc

ompl

ishm

ent o

f rep

orts

on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

acti

vitie

s in

Ace

h to

AD

BA

dmin

acti

vitie

sCo

ordi

natio

n m

eetin

g on

BLN

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

nanc

ial r

epor

ts (c

entr

al a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts)

Dev

elop

men

t of y

earl

y pl

an w

ith p

rovi

ncia

l and

dis

tric

t lev

el in

stitu

tions

Dis

cuss

ion

on th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of S

NRM

Mee

ting

on p

roje

ct e

valu

ation

Mee

ting

on p

roje

ct m

onito

ring

Mee

ting

to e

valu

ate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

reha

bilit

ation

and

reco

nstr

uctio

n of

NA

DM

eetin

g to

revi

ew A

DB

mis

sion

orga

niza

tiona

l str

uctu

re o

f wor

king

gro

up o

n re

habi

litati

on a

nd re

cons

truc

tion

of N

AD

Regu

lar

mee

ting

of P

MO

Spati

al p

lan

for

coas

tal

and

smal

l-isl

ands

Soft

war

e m

anag

emen

t (sa

telli

te im

ager

ies)

- G

IS

Low

(Pos

itive

?)D

evel

opm

ent a

nd

man

agem

ent o

f coa

stal

sm

all-i

slan

d re

sour

ces

Dev

elop

men

t of c

oast

al v

illag

e in

Dis

tric

t Gia

nyar

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f coa

stal

vill

ages

at 7

site

sIm

plem

enta

tion

of th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

oast

al v

illag

es in

dis

tric

t Pon

tiana

k

Mon

itori

ng th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e de

velo

pmen

t of c

oast

al v

illag

es

54

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

55

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Posi

tive

Cons

erva

tion

of M

arin

e N

ation

al P

ark

Tech

nica

l gui

danc

e on

met

hods

for

mon

itori

ng o

f cor

al re

efs

eval

uatio

nD

emon

stra

tion

plot

of c

oral

tran

spla

ntati

on a

nd te

chni

cal t

rain

ing

in 4

loca

tions

Dev

elop

dra

ft M

inis

teri

al D

ecre

e on

pro

tecti

on o

f fish

spe

cies

Dev

elop

gui

delin

e bo

ok fo

r co

ral i

denti

ficati

on (3

rd e

ditio

n)D

evel

op g

uide

line

on s

usta

inab

le u

se o

f mar

ine

biot

a in

side

MPA

sD

evel

op in

form

ation

mat

eria

ls a

nd p

rom

otion

to M

PAs

Dev

elop

men

t and

man

agem

ent o

f Wak

atob

i.D

evel

opm

ent o

f dra

ft g

over

nmen

t reg

ulati

on o

n co

nser

vatio

n of

fish

ery

reso

urce

sD

evel

opm

ent o

f man

agem

ent p

lan

for

loca

l MPA

s (K

KLD

)D

evel

opm

ent o

f MPA

s in

Bat

ek Is

land

, Saw

u an

d th

e su

rrou

ndin

g ar

eas

Dis

sem

inati

on o

f MPA

gaz

ettem

ent

Doc

umen

tatio

n an

d pu

blic

ation

of M

PAs

in c

oast

al a

nd s

mal

l isl

and

area

sFa

cilit

ate

actio

n pl

an fo

r SS

ME

and

natio

nal c

omm

ittee

on

mar

ine

cons

erva

tion

Insti

tutio

nal e

stab

lishm

ent f

or n

ew M

PAs

and

faci

litat

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of a

ction

pla

nIn

vent

ory

and

sele

ction

of c

andi

date

MPA

s at

4 s

ites

(Sab

ang-

NA

D, S

imeu

leu-

NA

D, P

aloh

-Kal

bar,

P. E

ngga

no-

Beng

kulu

)In

vent

ory

of M

PAs

Mon

itori

ng a

nd fa

cilit

ation

of c

oral

tran

spla

ntati

onFa

cilit

ation

and

mon

itori

ng o

f buff

er z

ones

for

mar

ine

cons

erva

tion

Stre

ngth

enin

g th

e co

mm

unity

aro

und

buffe

r zo

nes

of m

arin

e na

tiona

l par

ksG

iant

cla

m re

stoc

king

in d

istr

ict L

ombo

k Ti

mur

, Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

raCo

ral R

ehab

ilita

tion

in K

awas

an L

oka

Budi

daya

Lau

t Lom

bok.

Sync

hron

ize

the

MPA

s m

anag

emen

t

54

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

55

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Dev

elop

men

t an

d m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al

smal

l-isl

and

reso

urce

s

Coor

dina

tion,

faci

litat

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of p

lan

for

coas

t lin

e m

anag

emen

tCo

ral r

eef t

rans

plan

tatio

nsD

evel

op m

itiga

tion

stra

tegy

for

coas

tal e

cosy

stem

Dev

elop

men

t of c

ompr

ehen

sive

regu

latio

ns (c

entr

al-p

rovi

nce-

dist

rict

s) th

at u

sed

as g

uide

line

for

gove

rnm

ents

an

d st

akeh

olde

rsD

evel

opm

ent o

f com

pute

rize

d da

ta s

yste

m fo

r m

angr

ove

Dev

elop

men

t of g

ener

al g

uide

line

on m

anag

emen

t of b

ays

Dev

elop

men

t of g

ener

al g

uide

line

on m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

line

Dev

elop

men

t of g

ener

al g

uide

line

on m

anag

emen

t of e

stua

rine

are

asD

evel

opm

ent o

f gen

eral

gui

delin

e on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f coa

stal

vill

ages

Exte

nsio

n an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of B

each

Cle

anin

g (G

BPL)

.Ex

tens

ion,

coo

rdin

ation

and

mon

itori

ng th

e ac

tivity

on

miti

gatio

n to

coa

stal

eco

syst

emEx

tens

ion,

sup

ervi

sion

and

faci

litati

on o

n m

onito

ring

of m

arin

e po

llutio

nFo

rmul

ation

of n

ation

al s

trat

egy

and

actio

n pl

an to

con

trol

mar

ine

pollu

tion

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

cle

an c

oast

al v

illag

es in

Sem

aran

gIm

plem

enta

tion

of G

BPL

at 5

diff

eren

t site

sM

itiga

tion

to c

oral

reef

des

truc

tions

in B

iak

Papu

a.M

itiga

tion

to d

egra

datio

n of

coa

stal

env

ironm

ent a

t Dis

tric

t Dem

akm

onito

ring

on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n to

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f coa

stal

are

as a

nd m

angr

ove

reha

bilit

ation

Nati

onal

wor

ksho

p on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f str

ateg

ic p

lann

ing

of W

est S

umat

era

Pilo

t Pro

ject

on

cont

rol o

f mar

ine

pollu

tion

caus

ed b

y fis

herm

en b

oats

Prep

are

gove

rnm

ent r

egul

ation

s on

the

man

agem

ent o

f coa

stal

and

mar

ine

area

sPu

blic

con

sulta

tion

for

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f str

ateg

ic p

lan

of m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al a

rea

in W

est S

umat

era

Wor

ksho

p to

dev

elop

gen

eral

gui

delin

e on

reha

bilit

ation

and

opti

mal

use

of c

oast

al a

reas

Dev

elop

men

t of

fish

erie

s re

sour

ces

Revi

taliz

ation

of s

ocia

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

in m

arin

e an

d co

asta

l res

ourc

es u

tiliz

ation

and

man

agem

ent

56

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

57

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Man

agem

ent

and

utiliz

ation

of s

mal

l isl

ands

Dat

a m

anag

emen

t on

smal

l isl

and

usin

g G

IS b

ase

date

Dev

elop

pro

file

of s

mal

l isl

and

in In

done

sia

Dev

elop

men

t Ind

ex o

f sm

all i

slan

ds, e

cono

mic

val

uatio

n of

sm

all i

slan

dsEc

osys

tem

impr

ovem

ent o

f coa

stal

and

sm

all i

slan

ds a

reas

Ecos

yste

m re

habi

litati

on a

nd o

ptim

al u

se o

f coa

stal

and

sm

all i

slan

dsFa

cilit

y an

d ca

pita

l aid

and

eco

syst

em re

habi

litati

on o

f coa

stal

and

sm

all i

slan

dsIn

vent

ory

of is

land

s in

Indo

nesi

aM

onito

ring

on

cora

l ree

f tra

nspl

anta

tion

Surv

ey o

n sm

all i

slan

ds in

Indo

nesi

am

arin

e re

sour

ces

man

agem

ent

Coas

tal a

nd m

arin

e cl

ean

up (G

BPL)

at t

wo

loca

tions

Com

mun

ity a

war

enes

s on

miti

gatio

n fr

om d

isas

ter

and

pollu

tion

coor

dina

tion,

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nt &

ext

ensi

on o

f the

mar

ine

polic

ies

data

man

agem

ent o

n po

tenti

al re

sour

ces

of c

oast

al v

illag

esde

velo

p co

ncep

t on

man

grov

e co

nver

sion

mec

hani

smD

evel

op g

uide

line

to m

easu

re In

dica

tor

Perf

orm

ance

of I

nteg

rate

d Co

asta

l Man

agem

ent (

ICM

)de

velo

p te

chni

cal g

uide

line

on p

lann

ing

docu

men

t of c

oast

al v

illag

e m

anag

emen

tEx

tens

ion,

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nt &

mon

itori

ng o

n th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of m

itiga

tion

of c

oast

al e

nviro

nmen

tfie

ld e

xten

sion

on

natio

nal s

trat

egy

of m

angr

ove

man

agem

ent

field

ext

ensi

on, t

echn

ical

ass

ista

nt &

mon

itori

ng o

f the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

man

grov

e re

habi

litati

onFo

rmul

ate

draft

Min

iste

rial

Dec

ree

on s

tand

ardi

zed

inte

grat

ed m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al a

reas

form

ulat

e dr

aft o

f Pre

side

ntial

regu

latio

n on

coa

stal

eco

syst

em m

anag

emen

tFo

rmul

ate

draft

of P

resi

denti

al R

egul

ation

on

recl

amati

onFo

rmul

ate

draft

on

zoni

ng p

lan

for

coas

tal a

rea

in L

ampu

ng B

ayFo

rmul

ate

draft

on

zoni

ng p

lan

for

coas

tal a

reas

(thr

ee s

ites)

form

ulati

on o

f str

ateg

ic p

lan

on m

itiga

tion

of p

ollu

tion

in th

e Ja

kart

a Ba

yH

ouse

Aid

(res

ista

nt to

dis

aste

r an

d po

llutio

n) in

5 lo

catio

nsId

entifi

catio

n an

d in

vent

ory

of m

arin

e re

sour

ces

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

of n

ation

al c

omm

ittee

of m

angr

ove

in In

done

sia

Info

rmati

on s

yste

m o

n m

itiga

tion

from

Tsu

nam

i in

fishe

ry fa

cilit

y ar

eas

56

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

57

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

inte

grat

ed p

lann

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent o

f Pal

u Ba

y, C

entr

al S

ulaw

esi

inte

grat

ed p

lann

ing

and

man

agem

ent o

f coa

stal

vill

age

at 4

loca

tions

(Lak

udo,

Ban

yuas

in, T

ojo

Una

-Una

, Lom

bok

Teng

ah)

Lam

pung

, Jep

ara,

Sid

oarj

o, B

ali,

Nun

ukan

)M

itiga

ting

pollu

tion

thro

ugh

vege

tatio

nM

itiga

tion

to b

each

ero

sion

in T

egal

Miti

gatio

n to

cor

al re

ef d

egra

datio

nsM

itiga

tion

to p

ollu

tion

in D

emaK

Opti

mal

use

of D

elta

Mah

akam

Proj

ect m

onito

ring

and

eva

luati

onSt

rate

gic

plan

ning

on

inte

grat

ed m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al a

reas

Tech

nica

l coa

chin

g on

inte

grat

ed m

anag

emen

t of c

oast

al a

reas

trai

ning

on

Scie

ntific

Div

ing

Upd

ating

Dat

a on

man

grov

e ec

osys

tem

(8 lo

catio

n)W

orks

hop

and

TOT

on m

itiga

tion

to d

isas

ter

and

pollu

tion

58

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

59

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

MCR

MP

- mar

ine

and

coas

tal r

esou

rces

m

anag

emen

t pro

gram

acco

mpl

ishm

ent o

f qua

rter

ly M

CRM

Pac

com

plis

hmen

t of y

earl

y re

port

sA

ppre

ciati

on o

n un

it w

ork

man

agem

ent (

Peng

elol

a Sa

tuan

Ker

ja)

Cons

ulta

nt s

ervi

ce o

n pr

olon

ged

MCR

MD

iscu

ssio

n on

loca

l reg

ulati

ons

(pro

vinc

ial a

nd d

istr

ict l

evel

) reg

ardi

ng c

oast

al a

rea

man

agem

ent (

PWP)

Exhi

bitio

n an

d di

ssem

inati

on o

f MCR

MP

resu

ltsH

R de

velo

pmen

t on

adva

nce

GIS

and

rem

ote

sens

ing

HR

deve

lopm

ent o

n co

asta

l pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

tH

R de

velo

pmen

t on

proj

ect p

lann

ing

and

man

agem

ent

HR

deve

lopm

ent o

n sp

atial

dat

a up

dat

e an

d m

anag

emen

tIn

tern

ation

al P

racti

cal o

n Att

achm

ent I

CZPM

Mee

ting

disc

ussi

on o

n th

e de

velo

pmen

t of p

rovi

ncia

l lev

el s

patia

l inf

orm

ation

cen

ter

Mee

ting

to d

iscu

ss re

port

s an

d re

sults

of M

CRM

pro

ject

sN

ation

al w

orks

hop

on c

onsu

ltatio

n of

coa

stal

and

mar

ine

regu

latio

nsPr

ojec

t Man

agem

ent O

ffice

(PM

O)

Regi

onal

mee

ting

- Kal

iman

tan

& N

usa

Teng

gara

Regi

onal

mee

ting

- Sul

awes

iRe

gion

al m

eetin

g - S

umat

era

Shor

t Cou

rse

on IC

ZPM

and

Mar

ine

Polic

yW

orks

hop

on d

isse

min

ation

of M

CRM

P re

sults

Wor

ksho

p on

ext

ensi

on o

f the

ope

ratio

naliz

ation

of s

patia

l inf

orm

ation

cen

ter

at p

rovi

ncia

l lev

elW

orks

hop

to s

ocia

lize

ICM

at p

rovi

ncia

l lev

els

of n

on M

CRM

P re

cipi

ent

58

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

59

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Spati

al p

lan

for

coas

tal a

nd

smal

l-isl

ands

Cond

uct c

oord

inati

on, M

onito

ring

-Eva

luati

on (M

onEv

) of t

he im

plem

enta

tion

of L

P3K

spati

al p

lann

ing

Cond

uct e

valu

ation

and

form

ulat

e po

licy

reco

mm

enda

tions

on

spati

al p

lan

of L

P3K.

Cond

uct i

denti

ficati

on, a

naly

ses

and

form

ulat

e sp

atial

pla

n fo

r so

me

stra

tegi

c/pr

iori

ty a

reas

Cond

uct i

denti

ficati

on, a

naly

ses

and

form

ulat

e sp

atial

pla

nnin

g fo

r st

rate

gic

or p

rior

ity a

reas

Dat

abas

e M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

on

mar

ine

spati

al p

lan

Dev

elop

doc

umen

tary

film

s an

d pu

blic

ation

on

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

spa

tial p

lan

of m

arin

e, c

oast

al a

nd s

mal

l is

land

s (L

P3K)

Dev

elop

gui

delin

e da

ta id

entifi

catio

n fo

r sp

atial

pla

nnin

g of

mar

ine,

coa

stal

and

sm

all i

slan

dD

evel

op g

uide

line

for

the

utiliz

ation

of s

mal

l-isl

and

area

s (c

lust

er)

Dev

elop

gui

delin

e in

Mon

itori

ng-E

valu

ation

(Mon

Ev) o

f spa

tial p

lann

ing

for

mar

ine,

coa

stal

and

sm

all i

slan

dD

evel

op s

patia

l pla

nnin

g fo

r Ba

likpa

pan

Bay

Dev

elop

men

t of s

patia

l pla

nnin

g of

12

Dis

tric

ts/C

ities

Fiel

d ex

tens

ion

and

insti

tutio

nal s

tren

gthe

ning

in s

patia

l pla

nnin

g fo

r m

arin

e, c

oast

al a

nd s

mal

l isl

ands

Form

ulat

e gu

idel

ine

for

spati

al p

lann

ing

of c

oast

al c

ityFo

rmul

ate

guid

elin

e to

esti

mat

e ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity o

f sm

all i

slan

dsFo

rmul

ate

impl

emen

tatio

n gu

idel

ine

for

Kepm

en K

P N

o. 3

4/ 2

002

on s

patia

l pla

nnin

gM

anag

emen

t of T

RLP3

K ne

twor

k sy

stem

Prov

inci

al c

oord

inati

on m

eetin

g fo

r ar

rang

emen

t of b

etw

een

prov

ince

MPA

Spati

al a

naly

ses

on c

oast

al a

nd m

arin

e re

sour

ces

Spati

al p

lann

ing

for

Riau

and

Sul

sel

60

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

61

App

endi

x Ta

ble

7 —

Acti

viti

es b

y Ri

sk (M

MA

F D

G-P

rodu

ct P

roce

ssin

g &

Mar

keti

ng)

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

tyVe

ry H

igh

Busi

ness

dev

elop

men

t on

proc

essi

ng a

nd

mar

ketin

g of

fish

ery

prod

ucts

Impr

ovem

ent o

f pub

lic s

ervi

ce, H

R de

velo

pmen

t and

goo

d go

vern

ance

Follo

w u

p ac

tions

to th

e fis

hery

revi

taliz

ation

pla

nD

evel

opm

ent p

lann

ing

Hig

hBu

sine

ss d

evel

opm

ent o

n pr

oces

sing

and

m

arke

ting

of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsD

evel

op in

form

ation

sys

tem

on

Busi

ness

and

inve

stm

ent

Dev

elop

patt

ern

for

dom

estic

and

fore

ign

capi

tal a

nd in

vest

men

tEn

gage

men

t of fi

nanc

ial c

onsu

ltant

to e

mpo

wer

UM

KM p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith

bank

Soci

aliz

ation

and

faci

litati

ng b

ank

SKIM

cre

dit f

or fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsM

oder

ate

Busi

ness

dev

elop

men

t on

proc

essi

ng a

nd

mar

keti

ng o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Dev

elop

bus

ines

s pa

rtne

rshi

pD

evel

op fo

rmat

dat

a st

atisti

cs o

n pr

oces

sing

and

mar

ketin

g of

fish

ery

prod

ucts

Dev

elop

Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

pFa

cilit

ate

part

ners

hip

in p

roce

ssin

g an

d m

arke

ting

Impr

ove

serv

ice

on re

gion

al b

usin

ess

and

inve

stm

ent c

oope

ratio

n in

fish

erie

sIn

stitu

tiona

l em

pow

erm

ent t

o se

a w

eed

indu

stri

esIn

vent

ory

of la

bors

em

ploy

ed in

fish

pro

cess

ing

and

mar

ketin

g in

dust

ries

part

ners

hip

patt

ern

in p

roce

ssin

g an

d m

arke

ting

Prom

otion

for

natio

nal,

regi

onal

and

inte

rnati

onal

inve

stm

ents

Prom

otion

on

mar

ketin

g, in

dust

ries

and

inve

stm

ents

Impr

ove

qual

ity

and

deve

lopm

ent o

f pr

oces

sing

for

fishe

ry p

rodu

ctH

arm

oniz

ation

and

coo

pera

tion

in s

tand

ardi

zing

Impr

ove

natio

nal p

rogr

am o

n m

onito

ring

of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsO

pera

tiona

l of t

echn

ical

com

mitt

eePr

e-co

nsen

sus

and

cons

ensu

spr

epar

e m

ater

ials

and

pro

duce

boo

k on

SN

I and

SN

I rev

isio

nPr

oble

m id

entifi

catio

n fo

r fis

h pr

oces

sing

indu

stri

esSo

cial

izati

on o

f nati

onal

sta

ndar

d in

dex

(SN

I) fo

r fis

hery

pro

duct

sSt

akeh

olde

r co

ordi

natio

n fo

rum

on

fishe

ry in

dust

ries

60

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

61

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Impr

ovem

ent o

f pub

lic s

ervi

ce, H

R de

velo

pmen

t and

goo

d go

vern

ance

Dev

elop

dat

a-ba

se o

n pr

oces

sing

of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsD

evel

op in

form

ation

sys

tem

on

proc

essi

ng a

nd m

arke

ting

of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsD

evel

opm

ent o

f ext

erna

l affa

irsD

evel

opm

ent o

f pro

gram

and

tech

nica

l wor

k pl

anD

evel

opm

ent o

f sta

tistic

s on

fish

ery

proc

essi

ng a

nd m

arke

ting

Faci

litat

e co

mm

issi

ons,

ass

ocia

tions

and

oth

er in

stitu

tions

on

proc

essi

ng a

nd

mar

ketin

g of

fish

ery

prod

uct

HR

deve

lopm

ent

Iden

tifica

tion

of n

ation

al tu

na in

dust

ries

and

soc

ializ

ation

of t

he e

stab

lishm

ent o

f In

done

sian

Com

mitt

ee o

n Tu

na (K

TI)

Impr

ovem

ent o

f wor

king

eth

ics

Insti

tutio

nal d

evel

opm

ent a

nd p

ublic

rela

tion

Mon

itori

ng a

nd e

valu

ation

Ope

ratio

nal f

or g

ener

al a

dmin

istr

ation

ser

vice

Org

aniz

ation

dev

elop

men

tO

utre

achi

ng th

e fis

hery

pro

duct

sPr

ocur

emen

t of f

urni

ture

Proc

urem

ent o

f offi

cial

uni

form

Proc

urem

ent o

f too

l and

dat

a pr

oces

sors

Publ

ic re

latio

n an

d pr

otoc

olRe

sear

ch a

nd D

evel

opm

ent o

n Le

gal A

spec

ts

62

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

63

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Mar

keti

ng d

evel

opm

ent a

nd im

prov

emen

t of

fishe

ry p

rodu

cts

Arr

ange

pro

file

of m

arke

t for

exp

ort

Aud

it th

e ne

ed fo

r im

port

sCa

mpa

ign

on e

ating

fish

Dev

elop

mis

sion

and

dip

lom

acy

for

over

seas

mar

ketin

gD

evel

op p

atter

n an

d di

stri

butio

n of

mar

ketin

g sy

stem

for

fishe

ry p

rodu

cts

Dev

elop

pro

moti

on a

nd e

xpor

t mar

ket f

or n

on tr

aditi

onal

fish

ery

prod

ucts

Dev

elop

men

t of i

mpo

rt m

anag

emen

t for

fish

ery

prod

ucts

Dev

elop

men

t of i

nfor

mati

on a

naly

sis

on o

vers

eas

mar

ketin

gD

evel

opm

ent o

f mar

ket i

nfor

mati

on s

yste

mD

evel

opm

ent o

f mar

ketin

g in

stitu

tions

Dev

elop

men

t of n

on-t

radi

tiona

l mar

ket

Empo

wer

men

t of d

omes

tic m

arke

ting

info

rmati

on s

yste

mEm

pow

erm

ent o

f exp

orte

rs a

nd d

istr

ibuti

on n

etw

ork

Exhi

bitio

n of

IMFS

200

5Fa

cilit

ate

esta

blis

hmen

t and

dev

elop

men

t of d

omes

tic m

arke

ting

faci

lities

Impa

ct a

naly

ses

for

impo

rtIm

prov

e do

mes

tic m

arke

ting

dist

ribu

tion

and

netw

ork

Impr

ove

expo

rt o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Incr

ease

fish

con

sum

ption

thro

ugh

natio

nal p

rogr

am o

f GEM

ARI

KAN

and

pr

omoti

on o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Insti

tutio

nal s

tren

gthe

ning

of d

omes

tic m

arke

ting

syst

emm

arke

t ana

lyse

s fo

r ex

port

Ope

ratio

nal o

f fis

h ra

iser

Ove

rsea

s m

arke

ting

dipl

omac

ies

Prom

otion

and

mis

sion

of o

vers

eas

mar

ketin

g

Prom

otion

to fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsSi

mul

ation

on

Bila

tera

l-Reg

iona

l-Mul

tilat

eral

fish

trad

ing

Tech

nica

l con

sulta

tion

on c

onst

rain

ts fo

r ex

port

62

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

63

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Low

(Pos

itive

?)Im

prov

e qu

alit

y an

d de

velo

pmen

t of

proc

essi

ng fo

r fis

hery

pro

duct

Acc

ompa

nyin

g th

e EU

insp

ectio

n vi

sit

App

reci

ation

on

fish

hand

ling

in fi

sh la

ndin

g si

tes

(TPI

/PPI

) for

go

vern

men

t offi

cial

sA

ppre

ciati

on o

n ha

ndlin

g te

chni

que

for

smal

l and

med

ium

sca

le fi

sh

proc

essi

ng u

nits

App

reci

ation

on

onbo

ard

fish

hand

ling

tech

niqu

es fo

r tr

aditi

onal

fis

herm

enA

ppre

ciati

on o

n va

lue

adde

d pr

oces

sing

tech

nolo

gies

Busi

ness

mee

ting

in re

latio

n to

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f val

ue a

dded

pro

duct

sCo

achi

ng fo

r th

e de

velo

pmen

t of v

alue

add

ed fi

sh p

rodu

cts

Dev

elop

mec

hani

sm to

har

mon

ize

betw

een

stoc

k of

sal

ts a

nd s

alt h

arve

st

seas

on a

t fiel

d le

vel

Dev

elop

qua

lity

stan

dard

Dev

elop

sta

ndar

d po

licy

on e

mpo

wer

men

t of s

alt i

ndus

trie

sde

velo

p st

anda

rd p

olic

y on

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f fish

pro

cess

ing

indu

stri

esD

evel

opm

ent o

f Coo

l-Cha

in S

yste

m (C

CS)

Dev

elop

men

t of h

igh-

adde

d va

lue

prod

ucts

Eval

uatio

n to

labo

rato

ry fa

ciliti

esEv

alua

tion

to L

PPM

HP

as a

genc

y to

pro

vide

cer

tifica

tion

Eval

uatio

n to

san

itatio

n m

onito

ring

pro

gram

field

revi

ew o

n op

port

uniti

es to

dev

elop

sal

t pro

cess

ing

indu

stry

for

smal

l-sca

le fi

sher

men

Har

mon

ize

with

inte

rnati

onal

sta

ndar

d on

qua

lity

Iden

tifica

tion

of fi

sh p

roce

ssin

g un

it ba

sed

on b

usin

ess-

scal

eId

entifi

catio

n of

fish

ery

prod

ucts

to h

amon

ize

qual

ity s

tand

ard

Iden

tifica

tion

on fi

sh p

roce

ssin

g fa

ciliti

esId

entif

y fa

ciliti

es n

eede

d fo

r th

e la

bora

tory

qua

lity-

cont

rol o

n fis

hery

pr

oduc

ts (L

PPM

HP)

and

fish

pro

cess

ing

units

(UPI

)Im

prov

e co

mpe

tenc

e of

cer

tifica

tion

agen

cies

Impr

ove

com

pete

ncy

of q

ualit

y-co

ntro

l lab

orat

orie

sim

prov

e qu

ality

of r

efer

ence

labo

rato

ries

64

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

65

Risk

Rati

ngPr

ogra

mA

ctivi

ty

Insp

ectio

n an

d co

ntro

l to

the

use

of c

hem

ical

sub

stan

ces

in s

mal

l- an

d m

ediu

m s

cale

fish

pro

cess

ing

units

(UPI

/UKM

)M

onito

ring

-Eva

luati

on (M

onEv

) of l

osse

s of

fish

ery

prod

ucts

and

type

s an

d vo

lum

e of

val

ue a

dded

pro

duct

sD

evel

opm

ent o

f fish

erie

s pr

oduc

t pro

cess

ing

cent

ers

Pre-

accr

edita

tion

prep

are

mat

eria

ls fo

r go

vern

men

t reg

ulati

on o

n sa

fety

and

qua

lity

guar

ante

e of

fish

ery

prod

ucts

qual

ity a

nd s

afet

y co

ntro

l of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tsRe

stru

ctur

ing

and

revi

taliz

ation

of fi

sh p

roce

ssin

g in

dust

ries

Soci

aliz

ation

of C

OD

EX a

nd S

PSSo

cial

izati

on o

n po

licy

rega

rdin

g th

e em

pow

erm

ent o

f sla

t pro

cess

ing

indu

stri

esso

cial

izati

on o

n th

e de

velo

pmen

t of v

alue

add

ed p

rodu

cts

Surv

eilla

nce

to L

abor

ator

y of

qua

lity

testi

ng fo

r fis

hery

pro

duct

s (L

PPM

HP)

tech

nica

l coa

chin

g on

onb

oard

fish

han

dlin

gTe

chni

cal m

eetin

g fo

r qu

ality

insp

ecto

r in

Indo

nesi

aTe

chni

cal m

eetin

g of

LPP

MH

P in

Indo

nesi

ate

chno

logy

man

ipul

ation

in p

roce

ssin

g an

d qu

ality

con

trol

of fi

sher

y pr

oduc

tstr

aini

ng e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip

for

smal

l and

med

ium

sca

le p

roce

ssin

g un

itsTr

aini

ng o

n in

tern

al v

erifi

catio

n an

d au

dit

Trai

ning

on

qual

ity c

ontr

ol o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Trai

ning

PPC

and

qua

lity

syst

emVe

rific

ation

on

the

use

of P

MM

T in

UPI

, cas

e ha

ndlin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

to

‘App

rova

l Num

ber’

Mar

keti

ng d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

impr

ovem

ent o

f fish

ery

prod

ucts

Empo

wer

men

t of h

ygie

nic

fish

mar

ket a

nd o

rnam

enta

l fish

mar

ket

Posi

tive

Impr

ovem

ent o

f pub

lic s

ervi

ce, H

R de

velo

pmen

t and

goo

d go

vern

ance

Dev

elop

men

t of m

anag

emen

t of i

nfor

mati

on s

yste

mFo

rmul

ation

, im

prov

emen

t and

soc

ializ

ation

of fi

sher

y re

gula

tions

64

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

65

App

endi

x Ta

ble

8 —

Sur

vey

Resu

lts

(Bal

i Str

ait F

ishe

rs)

Bali

Stra

itBa

nyuw

angi

Jem

bran

a

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

%

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

“Yes

” Re

plie

s%

“Ye

s”

BBM

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e

186

62.0

%18

610

0.0%

Incr

easi

ng T

rip

dura

tion/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity h

ad in

crea

sed

catc

h18

662

.0%

186

100.

0%Re

duce

d fu

el p

rice

had

incr

ease

d tr

ip d

urati

on/fi

shin

g in

tens

ity18

662

.0%

186

100.

0%

Boat

/Gea

r

Boat

aid

had

incr

ease

d nu

mbe

rs o

f cre

w26

8.7%

623

.1%

8227

.3%

8097

.6%

Fish

ing

gear

aid

had

incr

ease

d fis

hing

acti

vity

268.

7%6

23.1

%82

27.3

%82

100.

0%In

crea

sed

in c

rew

num

bers

had

incr

ease

d ca

tch

268.

7%6

23.1

%82

27.3

%80

97.6

%

Fish

Box

Fish

box

aid

had

impr

oved

the

qual

ity o

f cat

ch

144.

7%13

92.9

%In

crea

se in

fish

pri

ce h

ad in

crea

sed

inco

me

144.

7%14

100.

0%In

crea

se in

fish

qua

lity

had

incr

ease

d fis

h pr

ice

144.

7%14

100.

0%

Han

dlin

g Tr

aini

ng

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

had

decr

ease

cat

ch d

amag

e

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity (F

resh

fish

be

bett

er)

Trai

ning

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

skill

had

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh

hand

ling

Mac

hine

Car

e &

Equ

ipm

ent

Trai

ning

Add

age

of s

hip

and

fishi

ng e

quip

men

t

Add

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

abo

ut m

achi

ne c

are

and

fishi

ng

equi

pmen

tSh

are

info

rmati

on a

bout

shi

p, m

achi

ne a

nd fi

shin

g eq

uipm

ent

care

Port

infr

astr

uctu

re

Auc

tion

activ

ities

had

incr

ease

d fis

h pr

ice

300

100.

0%20

769

.0%

300

100.

0%27

190

.3%

Impr

oved

fish

ing

activ

ities

had

incr

ease

d fis

hing

inte

nsity

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%29

999

.7%

Incr

ease

in fi

sh p

rice

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e30

010

0.0%

245

81.7

%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%Im

prov

ed h

arbo

r/la

ndin

g pl

ace

impr

oved

fish

mar

ketin

g (a

uctio

n)30

010

0.0%

298

99.3

%30

010

0.0%

297

99.0

%Im

prov

ed h

arbo

r/la

ndin

g pl

ace

impr

oved

fish

ing

activ

ities

and

pr

oces

sing

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%29

999

.7%

66

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

67

Bali

Stra

itBa

nyuw

angi

Jem

bran

a

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

%

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

“Yes

” Re

plie

s%

“Ye

s”

Qua

lity

&

Proc

essi

ng

Trai

ning

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh q

ualit

y an

d pr

oces

sing

had

dec

reas

e ca

tch

dam

age

8929

.7%

8910

0.0%

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity (F

resh

fish

be

bett

er)

8929

.7%

8910

0.0%

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of fi

sh q

ualit

y sk

ill a

nd p

roce

ssin

g ha

d in

crea

sed

capa

bilit

y in

fish

qua

lity

and

proc

essi

ng89

29.7

%84

94.4

%

Revo

lvin

g Fu

nd

Capi

tal s

uppo

rt (r

evol

ving

fund

) had

incr

ease

d tr

ip d

urati

on/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity

4414

.7%

4410

0.0%

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e44

14.7

%44

100.

0%In

crea

sing

Tri

p du

ratio

n/fis

hing

inte

nsity

had

incr

ease

d ca

tch

4414

.7%

4410

0.0%

Sani

tatio

n &

So

cial

izati

on

Impr

ovem

ent i

n sa

nita

tion

and

soci

aliz

ation

of fi

sh h

andl

ing

8428

.0%

7184

.5%

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

had

decr

ease

cat

ch d

amag

e84

28.0

%84

100.

0%In

crea

sed

catc

h qu

ality

(Fre

sh fi

sh b

e be

tter

)84

28.0

%84

100.

0%

Tech

nolo

gy

Trai

ning

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad in

crea

sed

catc

h4

1.3%

375

.0%

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad in

crea

sed

catc

h qu

ality

41.

3%4

100.

0%Tr

aini

ng in

fish

ing

tech

nolo

gy s

kill

had

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in

fishi

ng o

pera

tion

41.

3%3

75.0

%

66

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

67

App

endi

x Ta

ble

9 —

Sur

vey

Resu

lt (J

ava

Sea

Fish

ers)

Java

Sea

Bata

ngPa

tiPe

kalo

ngan

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

BBM

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e21

672

.0%

216

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%26

488

.0%

263

99.6

%

Incr

easi

ng T

rip

dura

tion/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

216

72.0

%21

499

.1%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

264

88.0

%24

693

.2%

Redu

ced

fuel

pri

ce h

ad

incr

ease

d tr

ip d

urati

on/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity21

672

.0%

216

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%26

488

.0%

261

98.9

%

Boat

/Gea

r

Boat

aid

had

incr

ease

d nu

mbe

rs o

f cre

w94

31.3

%63

67.0

%46

15.3

%40

87.0

%2

0.7%

150

.0%

Fish

ing

gear

aid

had

in

crea

sed

fishi

ng a

ctivi

ty94

31.3

%85

90.4

%46

15.3

%46

100.

0%2

0.7%

210

0.0%

Incr

ease

d in

cre

w n

umbe

rs

had

incr

ease

d ca

tch

9431

.3%

6063

.8%

4615

.3%

4291

.3%

20.

7%1

50.0

%

Fish

Box

Fish

box

aid

had

impr

oved

th

e qu

ality

of c

atch

Incr

ease

in fi

sh p

rice

had

in

crea

sed

inco

me

Incr

ease

in fi

sh q

ualit

y ha

d in

crea

sed

fish

pric

e

68

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

69

Java

Sea

Bata

ngPa

tiPe

kalo

ngan

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Han

dlin

g Tr

aini

ng

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh

hand

ling

had

decr

ease

cat

ch

dam

age

6722

.3%

6710

0.0%

141

47.0

%36

25.5

%

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity

(Fre

sh fi

sh b

e be

tter

)67

22.3

%67

100.

0%14

147

.0%

1913

.5%

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of

fish

han

dlin

g sk

ill h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh

hand

ling

6722

.3%

6710

0.0%

141

47.0

%14

110

0.0%

Mac

hine

Car

e &

Equ

ipm

ent

Trai

ning

Add

age

of s

hip

and

fishi

ng

equi

pmen

t46

15.3

%39

84.8

%

Add

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

ab

out m

achi

ne c

are

and

fishi

ng e

quip

men

t46

15.3

%46

100.

0%

Shar

e in

form

ation

abo

ut

ship

, mac

hine

and

fish

ing

equi

pmen

t car

e46

15.3

%46

100.

0%

68

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

69

Java

Sea

Bata

ngPa

tiPe

kalo

ngan

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Port

in

fras

truc

ture

Auc

tion

activ

ities

had

in

crea

sed

fish

pric

e30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

250

83.3

%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%

Impr

oved

fish

ing

activ

ities

ha

d in

crea

sed

fishi

ng

inte

nsity

300

100.

0%29

899

.3%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%29

297

.3%

Incr

ease

in fi

sh p

rice

had

in

crea

sed

inco

me

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

The

exis

tenc

e of

fish

ing

harb

or/l

andi

ng p

lace

had

im

prov

ed fi

sh m

arke

ting

(auc

tion)

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%29

799

.0%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

The

exis

tenc

e of

fish

ing

harb

or/l

andi

ng p

lace

had

im

prov

ed fi

shin

g ac

tiviti

es

(logi

stic

serv

ice,

pro

cess

ing)

300

100.

0%29

899

.3%

300

100.

0%29

999

.7%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

Qua

lity

&

Proc

essi

ng

Trai

ning

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh

qual

ity a

nd p

roce

ssin

g ha

d de

crea

se c

atch

dam

age

4314

.3%

4310

0.0%

258.

3%25

100.

0%

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity

(Fre

sh fi

sh b

e be

tter

)43

14.3

%30

69.8

%25

8.3%

2392

.0%

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of

fish

qua

lity

skill

and

pr

oces

sing

had

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh q

ualit

y an

d pr

oces

sing

4314

.3%

3888

.4%

258.

3%25

100.

0%

70

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

71

Java

Sea

Bata

ngPa

tiPe

kalo

ngan

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

(300

Rec

ipie

nts)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Revo

lvin

g Fu

nd

Capi

tal s

uppo

rt (p

rovi

sion

of

revo

lvin

g fu

nd) h

ad

incr

ease

d tr

ip d

urati

on/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity

In

crea

sed

catc

h ha

d in

crea

sed

inco

me

Incr

easi

ng T

rip

dura

tion/

fishi

ng in

tens

ity h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

Sani

tatio

n &

So

cial

izati

on

Impr

ovem

ent i

n sa

nita

tion

and

soci

aliz

ation

of fi

sh

hand

ling

In

crea

sed

capa

bilit

y in

fish

ha

ndlin

g ha

d de

crea

se c

atch

da

mag

e

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity

(Fre

sh fi

sh b

e be

tter

)

Tech

nolo

gy

Trai

ning

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

299.

7%29

100.

0%73

24.3

%66

90.4

%27

9.0%

2385

.2%

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity29

9.7%

2379

.3%

7324

.3%

6183

.6%

279.

0%19

70.4

%

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of

fish

ing

tech

nolo

gy s

kill

had

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in

fishi

ng o

pera

tion

299.

7%21

72.4

%73

24.3

%52

71.2

%27

9.0%

2074

.1%

70

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

71

App

endi

x Ta

ble

10 —

Sur

vey

Resu

lts

(Nus

a Te

ngga

ra F

ishe

rs)

Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

raKu

pang

*Lo

mbo

k Ti

mur

(2

68 R

ecip

ient

s)(3

00 R

ecip

ient

s)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

BBM

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e21

178

.7%

211

100.

0%13

244

.0%

132

100.

0%

Incr

easi

ng T

rip

dura

tion/

fishi

ng

inte

nsity

had

incr

ease

d ca

tch

211

78.7

%21

110

0.0%

132

44.0

%13

210

0.0%

Redu

ced

fuel

pri

ce h

ad in

crea

sed

trip

dur

ation

/fish

ing

inte

nsity

211

78.7

%21

110

0.0%

132

44.0

%10

277

.3%

Boat

/Gea

r

Boat

aid

had

incr

ease

d nu

mbe

rs

of c

rew

3613

.4%

616

.7%

148

49.3

%14

698

.6%

Fish

ing

gear

aid

had

incr

ease

d fis

hing

acti

vity

3613

.4%

3610

0.0%

148

49.3

%14

810

0.0%

Incr

ease

d in

cre

w n

umbe

rs h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

3613

.4%

411

.1%

148

49.3

%14

810

0.0%

Fish

Box

Fish

box

aid

had

impr

oved

the

qual

ity o

f cat

ch90

33.6

%83

92.2

%

Incr

ease

in fi

sh p

rice

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e90

33.6

%90

100.

0%

Incr

ease

in fi

sh q

ualit

y ha

d in

crea

sed

fish

pric

e90

33.6

%90

100.

0%

* In

clud

es in

terv

iew

s co

nduc

ted

in th

e ne

ighb

orin

g lo

caliti

es o

f Oeb

aba,

Oes

apa,

and

Kab

upat

en K

upan

g. S

ee T

able

5 a

nd E

ndno

te 2

1.

72

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

73

Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

raKu

pang

*Lo

mbo

k Ti

mur

(2

68 R

ecip

ient

s)(3

00 R

ecip

ient

s)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Han

dlin

g Tr

aini

ng

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

had

decr

ease

cat

ch d

amag

e

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity (F

resh

fish

be

bett

er)

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of fi

sh

hand

ling

skill

had

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

Mac

hine

Car

e &

Eq

uipm

ent T

rain

ing

Add

age

of s

hip

and

fishi

ng

equi

pmen

t

Add

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

abo

ut

mac

hine

car

e an

d fis

hing

eq

uipm

ent

Shar

e in

form

ation

abo

ut s

hip,

m

achi

ne a

nd fi

shin

g eq

uipm

ent

care

72

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

73

Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

raKu

pang

*Lo

mbo

k Ti

mur

(2

68 R

ecip

ient

s)(3

00 R

ecip

ient

s)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Port

infr

astr

uctu

re

Auc

tion

activ

ities

had

incr

ease

d fis

h pr

ice

253

94.4

%21

083

.0%

300

100.

0%29

698

.7%

Impr

oved

fish

ing

activ

ities

had

in

crea

sed

fishi

ng in

tens

ity25

394

.4%

253

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

292

97.3

%

Incr

ease

in fi

sh p

rice

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e25

394

.4%

253

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

286

95.3

%

The

exis

tenc

e of

fish

ing

harb

or/

land

ing

plac

e ha

d im

prov

ed fi

sh

mar

ketin

g (a

uctio

n)25

394

.4%

252

99.6

%30

010

0.0%

300

100.

0%

The

exis

tenc

e of

fish

ing

harb

or/

land

ing

plac

e ha

d im

prov

ed

fishi

ng a

ctivi

ties

(logi

stic

serv

ice,

pr

oces

sing

)

253

94.4

%25

310

0.0%

300

100.

0%30

010

0.0%

Qua

lity

&

Proc

essi

ng T

rain

ing

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh q

ualit

y an

d pr

oces

sing

had

dec

reas

e ca

tch

dam

age

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity (F

resh

fish

be

bett

er)

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of fi

sh

qual

ity s

kill

and

proc

essi

ng h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh q

ualit

y an

d pr

oces

sing

74

Sele

cted

Indo

nesi

an F

ishe

ries

Subs

idie

s: Q

uanti

tativ

e an

d Q

ualit

ative

Ass

essm

ent o

f Pol

icy

Cohe

renc

e an

d Eff

ectiv

enes

s

Ea

st N

usa

Teng

gara

Wes

t Nus

a Te

ngga

raKu

pang

*Lo

mbo

k Ti

mur

(2

68 R

ecip

ient

s)(3

00 R

ecip

ient

s)

Subs

idy

Type

Perc

eive

d Im

pact

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Num

ber

Getti

ng

Subs

idy

% G

etting

Su

bsid

y“Y

es”

Repl

ies

% “

Yes”

Revo

lvin

g Fu

nd

Capi

tal s

uppo

rt (p

rovi

sion

of

revo

lvin

g fu

nd) h

ad in

crea

sed

trip

du

ratio

n/fis

hing

inte

nsity

227.

3%22

100.

0%

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

had

incr

ease

d in

com

e

22

7.3%

2210

0.0%

Incr

easi

ng T

rip

dura

tion/

fishi

ng

inte

nsity

had

incr

ease

d ca

tch

227.

3%22

100.

0%

Sani

tatio

n &

So

cial

izati

on

Impr

ovem

ent i

n sa

nita

tion

and

soci

aliz

ation

of fi

sh h

andl

ing

Incr

ease

d ca

pabi

lity

in fi

sh h

andl

ing

had

decr

ease

cat

ch d

amag

e

Incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity (F

resh

fish

be

bett

er)

Tech

nolo

gy T

rain

ing

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

31.

0%3

100.

0%

Skill

ed fi

shin

g op

erati

on h

ad

incr

ease

d ca

tch

qual

ity

3

1.0%

310

0.0%

Trai

ning

in im

prov

emen

t of fi

shin

g te

chno

logy

ski

ll ha

d in

crea

sed

capa

bilit

y in

fish

ing

oper

ation

31.

0%3

100.

0%

74 75


Literature Cited

Antara News (2006a). “Govt provides subsidized fuel supply for fishermen”, Antara News (Jakarta), 20 April 2006. (http://www.antara.co.id)

Antara News, (2006b) “Marine and Fishery Ministry to build 300 ships in 2006”, Antara News (Jakarata), 24 May 2006. (http://www.antara.co.id).

Antara News (2007). “Govt may use cards system to distribution of subsidized oils: observer” Antara News (Jakarta), 8 January 2007), (http://www.antara.co.id)

Asian Development Bank (2004). Technical Assistance to the Republic of Indonesia for the Marine and Fisheries Sector Strategy Study, ADB Doc. No. TAR:INO 37762 (December 2004)

FAO (2002). State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 2002 (Rome, FAO 2002) (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7300e/y7300e00.htm)

FAO (2003). Report of the Expert Consultation on Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry. Rome, 3-6 December 2002. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 698. Rome, FAO. 2003.

FAO (2008). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profile: Indonesia / Fishery Production Statistics (online publication, accessed 19 November 2008). (http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_ID/3/en)

FAO FishStat Database. (Note: FAO continually updates FishStat, including retrospectively, so that data results can vary over time. FishStat is available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat).

Komnas Kajiskan (2007). Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan, Rekomendasi No: 012/Komnaskajiskan/X/2007, 21 Oktober 2007 kepada Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia. (“The National Commission for Fish Resources Assessment Recommendation No. 012/Komnaskajiskan/X/2007, 21 October 2007 to the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries”) 9pp. (original available only in Bahasa Indonesia; translated here by A. Ghofar)

Komnas Kajiskan (2007a). “Exploitation levels of major fish resources in each Indonesian fisheries management zone” (original available only in Bahasa Indonesia; translated here by A. Ghofar)

Mercapesca (2008). “Indonesian Govt urged to subsidize fishermen`s fuel oil” (editorial and news article), Mercapesca (an international online service for the fishing industry) 28 April 2008. (www.mercapesca.net)

Milazzo (1998). Subsidies in world fisheries: A reexamination. World Bank Technical Paper No. 406 (World Bank 1998)

76


MMAF (2005), Management Plan of the Java Sea Small Pelagic Fishery, (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2005) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)

MMAF (2006). Strategi pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan tahun 2007 (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2006) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)

MMAF (2006a). Estimasi kebutuhan BBM per ukuran kapal secara nasional, (Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, DG-Capture Fisheries, 2006) (available only in Bahasa Indonesia)

MMAF (2008). Pembangunan Kelautan dan Perikanan – refleksi capaian tahun 2007 dan sasaran sampai dengan tahun 2009 (“Marine and Fisheries Development – a reflection of 2007 achievement and direction/targets towards 2009”), paper presented at MMAF National Coordination Meeting (“Rakornas”) 26-28 March 2008.19pp.

MMAF (2008a). Pencapaian kinerja 2007, perkiraan pencapaian 2008 dan prioritas kegiatan tahun 2009 (“Performance achievement 2007, achievement estimate 2008, and forecast of priority activities 2009”), paper presented by MMAF Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DJPT) at MMAF National Coordination Meeting (“Rakornas”) 26-28 March 2008. 21pp.

MMAF (2008b). Rangkuman hasil rapat koordinasi nasional tahun 2008 (“Summary of the 2008 National Coordination Meeting”). 7pp.

Porter (2002). Fisheries subsidies and overfishing: Towards a structured discussion. (UNEP 2002) (http://www.unep.ch/etu/etp/acts/capbld/rdtwo/FE_vol_1.pdf)

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000), Study Into the Nature and Extent of Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector of APEC Members Economies (report prepared for the Fisheries Working Group of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation) (APEC 2000). (http://www.apec.org/apec/publications/all_publications/fisheries_working.html)

Purwanto (2003), “Status and Management of the Java Sea Fisheries”, in G. Silvestre, et al., Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceeding 67 (WorldFish Center 2003)

Reuters (2008). “Indonesia to cut fuel subsidies”, Reuters (Jakarta), 23 May 2008. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/23/business/23indofuel.php)

Schorr (2004), Healthy Fisheries, Sustainable Trade, (WWF 2004) (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/healthyfisheriessustainabletradefinal.pdf)

Schorr & Caddy (2007). Sustainability Criteria for Fisheries Subsidies: Options for the WTO and Beyond (UNEP & WWF, 2007)

(http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/fishierSubsidiesEnvironment/UNEPWWF_FinalRevi09102007.pdf)

Squires, et al, (2003). “Excess capacity and sustainable development in Java Sea fisheries”, in Environment and Development Economics Vol. 8, pp. 105–127 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

77


Sutijastoto (2006). “Energy Efficiency Policy of Indonesia”, slides of presentation at International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer Training Course for Asian Countries on Energy Efficiency (Japan, 31 July – 4 August 2006) (http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/O105UF1947.pdf)

Sumaila & Pauly (2006). Catching More Bait: a bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies, Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6) (Univ. British Columbia Fisheries Centre, 2006)

UNEP (2008). Fisheries Subsidies: A Critical Issue for Trade and Sustainable Development at the WTO — An Introductory Guide (UNEP, 2008) ( http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/pdf/UNEP-ETB%20Brochure%20on%20Fisheries%20Subsidies_May2008.pdf)

WWF (2001). Fishing in the dark: A symposium on access to environmental information and government accountability in fishing subsidy programs (WWF 2001) (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fishinginthedarkproceedings.pdf)

78


Endnotes

1 Komnas Kajiskan (2007).

2 See especially Law No. 31/2004, Arts. 2 & 6; The text of Law No. 31/2004 in English is available on the FAO website at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins51065.pdf.

3 Komnas Kajiskan (2007). The use of FMPs is also explicitly required by Law 31/2004 Art. 7(1)(a).

4 MMAF (2006). In oral statements, MMAF officials have subsequently indicated that production increases should be in value rather than quantity of landings. Such a focus on value and quality is clearly consistent with policies to increase fisheries revenues without further depleting resources.

5 MMAF (2008).

6 MMAF (2008a).

7 For a good overview of the fisheries subsidies negotiations at the WTO, see UNEP (2008).

8 See, e.g.,Law 31/2004, Art. 3.

9 Asian Development Bank (2004), ¶ 6.

10 The field work was conducted from July to November, 2007. At each site, the field teams spent several days conducting interviews with between 250 and 350 local fishermen, fish processors, and fish traders. Each interview required an average of 180 minutes to administer. In all, the field teams conducted more than 1800 interviews, spending a total of more than 220 person-days in the field.

11 This figure was calculated by assuming that the data made available to us was representative of an average year or set of years for each locality. Thus, where we had data for one year, this was assumed to be the amount for the other two years in the 2005-07 period. Where we had data for two out of three years, the third year was filled in using their average.

12 PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000).

13 Sumaila & Pauly (2006).

14 The three methods used were:

1. Looking only at all available data for all years combined;

2. Looking at available data, interpolating missing years of MMAF data by adding a third year of data for each of DG-P2HP and DG-K3PK, using the average for each activity type of the two years for which data was available from those two DGs; and

3. Adding to the last method data for years missing from provincial and district level budgets, which was done by adding one or two years of data (as needed), using the average for each activity type of the years for which data was available from those sub-national authorities.

15 MMAF (2006a). MMAF estimated total fuel consumption by the Indonesian fishery sector in 2005 and 2006 to be 2,092,680 kilolitres and 2,131,605 kilolitres, respectively. It also estimated a subsidy level of Rp1,700 per liter, based on the difference in price between fuel generally available on the Indonesian market and the more heavily subsidized price made available to fishers. Note that if the baseline for calculating the subsidy had been the world price for similar fuel, the subsidy would likely have been much higher, since fuel consumption is subsidized in Indonesia generally.

16 Antara News (2006a).

17 Antara News (2007).

18 Reuters (2008).

19 See Sutijastoto (2006). Mr. Sutijastoto apparently was at the time an official in the Data and Information Centre of the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. His 22nd slide, titled “POLICY ON PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE SUBSIDY” set out a table that appears to set out the phases by which various sectors of the Indonesian economy will lose fuel subsidies. “Traditional fish catching boats” fell into one of the last categories to be liberalized (along private cars, public transport, and maritime transport). Only subsidies for poor households were to be phased out later.

79


20 See, e.g., Mercapesca (2008).

21 See, e.g., Schorr (2004); Porter (2002); Milazzo (1998) .

22 Porter (2002).

23 See generally, Schorr & Caddy (2007).

24 The four sites visited in East Nusa Tenggara were all quite small, and included one (Oebaba) which is more properly a landing site than a village. A total of approximately 300 interviews were conducted in these four localities, and are reported together in Appendix Table 10 under the heading “Kupang”.

25 Antara News (2006b).

26 Purwanto (2003).

27 Squires, et al,(2003).

28 See, e.g., MMAF (2005) (reporting that almost all of the major Java Sea fish stocks are overexploited, in some cases exceeding sustainable utilization levels by as much as 37%)

29 MMAF (2008b).

30 Regarding declines in CPUE in the Java Sea fisheries, see Squires et al., (2003)

31 See, e.g., WWF (2001).

32 Asian Development Bank (2004), ¶ 3, (citing MMAF’s annual report for 2002).

33 See Id. (reporting without citation USD $1.75 billion in exports in 2002); see also FAO FishStat database, which reports total annual fisheries exports from Indonesia as ranging from USD $1.5-2.0 billion from 2002 to 2006.

34 See Schorr (2004), § I.D & fn. 54 (citing 1992 FAO State of World Agriculture and Fisheries Special Chapter).

35 The only reference to fisheries subsidies in an international instrument approved by FAO members appears to be in ¶¶ 25-26 of the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, which calls on FAO members to eliminate subsidies and other incentives that contribute to overcapacity. The term “subsidy” is not defined in that text.

36 See generally, FAO (2003) (hereafter, “FAO Expert Consultation Report”).

37 FAO (2002), p. 92.

38 FAO (2003), at pp. 27-28.

39 NB—The FAO presents these categories as a nested set, such that each category includes the subsidies of preceding categories. Thus, read literally, FAO Category 4 includes all of the subsidies covered by Categories 1-3, as well as “regulatory benefits” etc. For purposes of clarity, the categories are presented here as containing only those subsidies unique to each of them, so that speaking of “Category 4” subsidies means only the “regulatory benefits” etc. added by Category 4.

40 For an “overview and gap analysis” of how current WTO rules cover fisheries subsidies, see Schorr (2004), Part IV.

41 Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 14 November 2001 (“Doha Declaration”), WTO Doc. No. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (20 November 2001), ¶ 28.

42 Doha Work Programme — Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 18 December 2005, (“Hong Kong Declaration”), WTO Doc. No. WT/MIN(05)/DEC (22 December 2005), Annex D, ¶ I.9.

43 Draft Consolidated Chair Texts Of The AD and SCM Agreements, WTO Doc. No. TN/RL/W/213 (30 November 2007), Annex VII (pp. 87 ff.).

44 Id., Art. I.1(g).

45 Sumaila & Pauly, (2006)

46 Id. at pp. 11 ff.

selected indonesian fisheries subsidies - nature.or.id · i selected indonesian fisheries...

Documents