Scholarly article on topic 'Of exploited reefs and fishers – A holistic view on participatory coastal and marine management in an Indonesian archipelago'

Of exploited reefs and fishers – A holistic view on participatory coastal and marine management in an Indonesian archipelago Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Ocean & Coastal Management
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Indonesia / Spermonde / "MPA management" / Participation / Livelihoods / "Social hierarchies"}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Marion Glaser, Annette Breckwoldt, Rio Deswandi, Irendra Radjawali, Wasistini Baitoningsih, et al.

Abstract This paper arises from a four-year Indonesian-German research cooperation on the governance and management of Indonesian coastal and marine ecosystems. Project objectives were to investigate coastal and marine social-ecological dynamics and feedbacks and to analyse socio-political and institutional structures and processes in order to support adaptive coastal governance. Participating researchers worked in the Spermonde Archipelago, off South Sulawesi, Indonesia, between 2007 and 2010. Methods included ship-based research excursions, several classical surveys, anthropological participant observation, and participatory research methods applied by an interdisciplinary social-natural science team. This paper summarises our findings and draws policy conclusions. First, we discuss Marine Protected Areas and participation focussing on local “rules-in-use”. In addition, reef exploitation and local livelihoods, in particular fisheries and mariculture, and the existing social networks and hierarchies in fisheries are explored to understand social vulnerability, resilience and marine resource governance in the context of the Spermonde Archipelago. An outline of major policy recommendations concludes this article.

Academic research paper on topic "Of exploited reefs and fishers – A holistic view on participatory coastal and marine management in an Indonesian archipelago"

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Of exploited reefs and fishers - A holistic view on participatory coastal and marine management in an Indonesian archipelago

Marion Glaser a, Annette Breckwoldta' *, Rio Deswandi b, Irendra Radjawali c, Wasistini Baitoningsih a, Sebastian C.A. Ferse a

a Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology, Fahrenheitstrasse 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany b The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Jakarta, Indonesia c Institute of Oriental and Asian Studies, Bonn University, Germany

CrossMark

ARTICLE INFO

Article history: Received 12 March 2015 Received in revised form 22 July 2015 Accepted 23 July 2015 Available online xxx

Keywords:

Indonesia

Spermonde

MPA management

Participation

Livelihoods

Social hierarchies

ABSTRACT

This paper arises from a four-year Indonesian-German research cooperation on the governance and management of Indonesian coastal and marine ecosystems. Project objectives were to investigate coastal and marine social-ecological dynamics and feedbacks and to analyse socio-political and institutional structures and processes in order to support adaptive coastal governance. Participating researchers worked in the Spermonde Archipelago, off South Sulawesi, Indonesia, between 2007 and 2010. Methods included ship-based research excursions, several classical surveys, anthropological participant observation, and participatory research methods applied by an interdisciplinary social-natural science team. This paper summarises our findings and draws policy conclusions. First, we discuss Marine Protected Areas and participation focussing on local "rules-in-use". In addition, reef exploitation and local livelihoods, in particular fisheries and mariculture, and the existing social networks and hierarchies in fisheries are explored to understand social vulnerability, resilience and marine resource governance in the context of the Spermonde Archipelago. An outline of major policy recommendations concludes this article.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Indonesia is located in the South-East Asian Coral Triangle region and its coral reefs support the livelihoods of several hundred million people (Whittingham et al., 2003; Foale et al., 2013). Globally, this is the area with the highest marine biodiversity and the highest proportion of reefs threatened by anthropogenic impacts (Roberts et al., 2002; CTI Secretariat 2009; Burke et al., 2011; Fidelman et al., 2014). There are a number of good, contextual analyses of regional coral reef and fisheries management (Alder et al., 1994; Christie et al., 1994; Zerner, 1994; Alder and Christanty, 1998; Hidayat, 2005; McClanahan et al., 2006; Dahuri and Dutton, 2000; Dutton, 2005; Sievanen et al., 2005; Crawford et al., 2006; Siry, 2011; Cohen and Steenbergen 2015; Cinner and McClanahan, 2015). The most recent published comparative work provides some first indications about which features of marine and coastal systems enhance sustainability

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: marion.glaser@zmt-bremen.de (M. Glaser), annette. breckwoldt@zmt-bremen.de (A. Breckwoldt), r.deswandi@unido.org (R. Deswandi), irendra@uni-bonn.de (I. Radjawali), wasistini.baitoningsih@zmt-bremen.de (W. Baitoningsih), sebastian.ferse@zmt-bremen.de (S.C.A. Ferse).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.022 0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

prospects (Cinner et al., 2012; Pollnac et al., 2010; Ferse et al., 2014) with Ostrom's common framework for comparative analysis (Ostrom, 2009a) assuming paradigmatic status. However, there is little work which links micro-level, site-specific anthropological and institutional research with primary data on the ecological/physical state of marine ecosystems.

The implementation of fisheries and conservation management regimes has direct implications for fisheries production. For example, strict no-take marine reserves can generate spill-over effects that increase yields in fishing grounds adjacent to these reserves, thus enhancing the economic prospects of fishing populations (Russ and Alcala, 1996; Roberts et al., 2001). On the other hand, no-take-areas (NTAs) can also inflict heavy economic and cultural burdens on local fishing populations by reducing the access to their central livelihood resource (Christie, 2004; Jones, 2009). Similar outcomes have been observed with respect to the social costs of effectively implemented community-based Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Philippines (Gjertsen, 2005). Depending on specific local situations, customary management regimes differ in their impact on fisheries production (Cinner et al., 2012). Often, more centralized regimes are grounded in laws devised by legal experts and introduced through formal mechanisms

(McClanahan et al., 1997, 2006), while decentralized regimes with rule-making rights in subnational governance units (ranging from districts to villages or village groups) tend to be more associated with ecosystem user involvement (Beaumont, 1997; Cinner and Huchery, 2014; see Wever et al., 2012 for an exception from Brazil). Both the direct and indirect impacts of NTAs on various types of commercial and subsistence fisheries need to be considered to draw valid conclusions regarding fishers' income. In addition, time scales matter: while destructive fishing may be highly profitable for the participating fishers in the short term, the long-term impacts of habitat degradation and resulting decreases in fish production can be substantial. It has been estimated that over a period of 20 years, blast fishing can result in net losses to society of over 300,000 USD km~2 of reef (Pet-Soede et al., 1999).

The increasingly accepted argument for the design of polycentric resource governance regimes (Ostrom, 2009b) brings the need for spatially networked, effective marine area protection to the fore. This need for spatially more extensive marine management approaches is becoming increasingly obvious and pressing, not only because the reproductive patterns and needs of a growing number of key species call for it, but also in the light of global sustainability threats (Perry et al., 2011; Rockstrom et al., 2009a,b). At the same time, voices from the MPA field convincingly argue against top-down approaches which ignore local dynamics and constraints (Christie et al., 2009; Ferse et al., 2010). From an anthropological perspective, Adhuri (2009) shows for Indonesia that social networks can be a good basis for wider, self-administered governance in marine area management. Meereboer (1998) describes the development over time of multi-stranded asymmetrical patronclient (punggawa-sawi) relationships in South Sulawesi reef fisheries. It is this type of social network with its range of potentially negative effects on the sustainability of human-nature relations in the Indonesian coastal and marine realm (Glaser et al., 2010a) that is also likely to possess the most promising potentials to serve as the basis for more sustainable marine governance and management on a larger spatial scale (Ferse et al., 2012).

The importance of focussing on multiple institutional scales and their connectivity in natural resource management (NRM) as well as their social capital potential is emphasized by Brondízio et al. (2009). Over recent years, social network analysis has gained some prominence in NRM governance. Thus Adger et al. (2005) relate the structure of cross-scale interplays in coastal resource management, in terms of relative winners and losers, to its contribution to the resilience of social-ecological systems. Bodin and Crona (2008) quantify the structural characteristics of social networks and link them to features such as learning, leadership, and trust, which are identified as important for the success of NRM. Cinner and Bodin (2010) quantify network features such as centrality, density and centralization to describe and map occupations and their interrelationships as 'livelihood landscapes' at multiple scales.

Although the conceptual and theoretical literature on mismatching scales has developed in recent years (Cash et al., 2006; Galaz et al., 2008; Glaser and Glaeser, 2014; Crona et al., 2015), innovative institutional solutions which address the problematic issues that arise from spatial mismatches of institutional and ecological units and from cross-scale interactions in coastal and marine management have not yet reached the policy recommendation level.

Baitoningsih (2009) and Glaser et al. (2010b) examined the recent establishment of NTAs throughout the Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi by the World Bank-funded Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) as part of a planned larger regional MPA. This work analyzes the participation of local communities in the establishment of NTAs and the distributional implications and community perceptions of the official MPA program. In a review article, Ferse et al. (2010) argue for the wider formal framing

of marine area protection rules around an adaptive core of community-designed institutions. With regards to the Spermonde reefs in South Sulawesi, Glaser et al. (2010a) identify five major ways that are at least partially effective in managing marine areas and fisheries. The contrasts between a public authority-driven "one serves all" Indonesia-wide MPA management approach and a number of new institutions which are emerging in marine and fisheries management at the local scale are elaborated on in the context of technological and ecological change (Glaser et al., 2010b). Radjawali (2011) identified the types and functions of social networks surrounding Life Reef Food Fisheries, Adrianto et al. (2010) examined the (mis)matches between fish species, fisheries and fisheries governance, and Martens and Schnegg (2008) developed an anthropological approach to identifying ecosystem knowledge as organized in cognitive ecological networks. Schwerdtner Mánez and Ferse (2010) examined the important historical development of a fishery strongly driven by prevailing patron-client networks. Ferse et al. (2012a) examined these social networks and their importance as drivers with regards to ornamental reef fisheries, and Ferse et al. (2014) and Ferrol-Schulte et al. (2014) subsequently identified patron-client networks as key drivers, but also institutions related to management, of reef fisheries in Spermonde.

Like other parts of Indonesia, the Spermonde Islands are threatened by sea level rise and storm surges. Seasons are clearly seen to be shifting and the weather is becoming more unpredictable. Spermonde islanders suffer from the increased burdens and dangers associated with the shifting weather patterns and eroding shores (Glaeser and Glaser, 2010), but they do not relate these problems to global environmental changes. So far, data on the physical and social vulnerability of the islands to these changes are largely missing (Bundy et al., 2015). Economic and physical risks for fishermen are aggravated by hazardous fishing methods such as blast and cyanide fishing, collapsing coral ecosystems and depleted fish stocks. Livelihood insecurity and other social vulnerabilities are generated and reinforced within the wider political economy of resource access and use. Thus, poorer islanders have less access to materials and social support, and also fewer adaptation options. Resettlement, for instance, is an option only for those with land and/or some financial means.

The research reported here investigates how the state and quality of the marine environment and the problems of residents in a coral reef archipelago affect each other. The identification and analysis of local coping strategies and a clear understanding of the central factors which affect local social sustainability and resilience are needed to guide the development of concrete policy interventions which can capacitate ecosystem users in developing feasible and sustainable solutions for the Spermonde Archipelago.

2. Study area and methodological approach

The Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia (Fig. 1), where this research was carried out, consists of approximately 70 islands (around 50 of which are inhabited) strewn across a shallow shelf and reaching up to 60 km offshore from mainland Sulawesi. It is home to approximately 50,000 inhabitants. This study forms part of the SPICE programme (Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal Ecosystems), a cooperation between Indonesian and German governmental and research institutions (Ferse et al., 2012b). The research objectives were to generate knowledge on human-nature feedbacks in the reef-based social-ecological system of the Spermonde region in order to enable decision-makers to work for more sustainable future human-nature trajectories. The research phase reported on here took place between 2007 and 2010.

Our research included three ten-day ship based research excursions to the Spermonde Islands (March and May 2009 and May

Fig. 1. Location of Spermonde Archipelago within Indonesia, and islands visited by 3 research excursions between 2009 and 2010 (land areas in black, reef areas in grey, marine areas in white).

2010, as indicated in Fig. 1). In each excursion, over 20 scientists and students participated from a range of natural and social sciences including reef ecology, environmental sociology, anthropology, philosophy, law, and geography. Our expeditions used classical survey and anthropological methods as well as participatory research techniques, such as key stakeholder interviews and focus groups (Glaser et al., 2010a). Each time a new island was visited, we began by introducing our research to local leaders (village heads or their representatives) and asked for permission to work on the island. The background and objectives of our research was explained to all respondents beforehand, and their consent on participating in our study was sought. Results from the MSc and PhD theses completed in our research group during the time of this study (Baitoningsih, 2009; Deswandi, 2012) in 171 of the about 54 inhabited islands of Spermonde Reef Archipelago were integrated in this analysis. Details on the research methods are provided in Appendices A and B. A report to decision-makers was drafted in late 2009, discussed in May 2010 with 123 residents of the islands studied, finalised in late 2010 to include the feedback we obtained from island residents and then introduced and discussed in a regional workshop, which included ministerial and government representatives and island residents in December 2010.

Major themes of relevance to human-nature interactions in our study area and in the wider field or reef-based social-ecological dynamics revolve around questions of MPAs and stakeholder participation in their establishment and management. Our findings converge around identifying emergent local 'rules-in-use', patterns

of reef exploitation and local livelihood strategies (including fisheries and mariculture), as well as social networks and hierarchies in fisheries.

3. Results

A main official vehicle for marine management and conservation in the Spermonde Island archipelago at the time of research was the COREMAP II project (now followed by the COREMAP-CTI project; www.worldbank.org), at least for the majority of islands which are located in Pangkep district. The program was administered by the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, KKP). The COREMAP II approach to marine management was to establish a series of island-specific no-take areas (NTAs), named community-based MPAs (CB-MPAs) by the project. In the Spermonde region, there is a strong emphasis on the participation by residents of nearby islands in the siting of NTAs, and a sophisticated institutional set-up to ensure social acceptance and participation characterized the design of the COREMAP approach (Baitoningsih, 2009; Glaser et al., 2010b). Following an official request from the regional Fisheries Department in 2008, which was responsible for the COREMAP programme, our research group assessed the level of community participation in the COREMAP and in CB-MPA/NTAs siting in particular.

3.1. Community-based Marine Protected Areas and local participation

1 The islands of Bonetambung, Saugi, Karanrang, Barrang Caddi, Badi, Polewali, Sagara, Sabangko, Barrang Lompo, Kapoposang, Gondongbali, Sabutung, Salemo, Sarappo Lompo, Kodingareng Lompo, Langkai, Lanyukan, which are permanently settled, and the uninhabited island of Jangang-Jangangang on which fishing camps regularly take place.

Local knowledge and acceptance of COREMAPs no-take CB-MPA concept was mixed. Only 47% of interviewed islanders were aware of the existence of a local CB-MPA, and all of these were actually involved to some degree in the COREMAP programme. Among the remaining 53% of interviewees who did not know about the existence of a local NTA, 57% stated their support for the concept after it

was explained to them (Fig. 2). The main reason for supporting a NTA, even among some of the fishermen who used destructive methods such as blast and cyanide fishing, was that spawning and nursery grounds are needed to ensure sustainable catches. Other reasons cited were local food security and fisherfolk needs for resource sustainability.

The remaining 43% did not support the idea of a local non-extractive marine area mainly because they neither considered it relevant to their work nor saw any other justification for it. The rapid disappearance (within one year) of the marker buoys of the local no-take MPAs in the studied islands reflected this situation (Glaser et al., 2010b) as well as a lack of understanding of the actual function of the CB-MPA as a NTA.

A main reason for the mixed success of the CB-MPA/NTAs was the local perception of lacking information and inequitable access to the community projects and associated benefits (e.g. lacking public announcements about loan availability). COREMAP programme resources such as village grants and seed funds for local livelihood alternatives were thus seen by the majority of those who knew about the NTAs to not be community-based but a public authority programme benefitting mainly an influential minority. Access to seed funds was seen to be obtained via private contacts to the Coral Reef Resource Management Institution (Lembaga Penge-lolaan Sumberdaya Terumbu Karang, LPSTK) and Microfinance Institution (Lembaga Keuangan Mikro, LKM; both of these were established under COREMAP). The use of village grants also did not match the stated priorities (e.g. pier rehabilitation) of most residents, and patrol boats were sometimes utilized for private transport or fishing in accordance with the village officers' needs — rather than for community welfare or conservation purposes (Baitoningsih, 2009; Radjawali, 2012). A revolving loan fund for fish attracting devices (rumpons), on the other hand, was reported to have provided benefits to all fisherfolk, and due to the fact that in most islands no collateral was required for revolving loans this measure had at least the potential to increase access to COREMAP funds.

Fig. 2. Interviewees who did not know about the existence of a local NTA and their support for the concept after they had received relevant information on it.

3.1.1. On local rules-in-use and self-defined 'island exclusion zones' (IEZ)

An initially contradictory phenomenon was that islanders, who explicitly did not support the formal conservation approach of the COREMAP program, were nonetheless defending the waters surrounding their islands viz-a-viz outsiders. There was a vigorous defence of the idea that the sea belongs to all, while at the same time conceding that islanders have the right to establish who fishes how in island waters. This occurred in the informal framework of self-defined 'island exclusion zones' (IEZ). IEZ rules related to 'island reefs' and were developed by the island inhabitants themselves, outside any official legal framework. IEZ are locally defined, informally managed marine (not necessarily protected) areas. They surround all the inhabited islands of the archipelago and restrict fishing access by other fishers than the islanders themselves. The restriction is applied to varying degrees — while some islands tend to restrict access to island waters for all outside fishers, on other islands this only relates to destructive fishing methods (see below). Their management has socially emerged, and they are institutionally outside the formally declared MPA rule framework.

Extending the IEZ phenomenon, common to all inhabited islands in the archipelago in some form, we encountered a number of local "rules-in-use" in Spermonde which regulate the interactions between the different fisheries in fishing grounds beyond the island-near IEZ. Some of the locally constructed rules-in-use in Spermonde fisheries are:

1. It is forbidden to use bigger explosives ('bombs') near inhabited islands.

2. It is forbidden to fish with cyanide in the waters surrounding some inhabited islands.

3. Fishermen who use potentially disruptive fishing techniques (such as bombing or trawling) may not fish where other fishermen are fishing (if health or catch can be endangered for the latter).

However, the most prominent locally emergent rules were the 'Island Exclusion Zones' (IEZ) (Glaser et al., 2010b), also called Island Restriction Zones (IRZ) by Deswandi (2012).

The rules that protect IEZ have been formulated in the local context and vary between islands:

• Karanrang: Bomb and poison fishing are not allowed in island waters.

• Barrang Caddi: The elders prohibit throwing of any garbage into the sea. Line fishing is allowed for anyone. No bomb and cyanide fishing. Outsiders can only fish for 10 days, then are asked to move on.

• Saugi: No trawls, bombs and cyanide fishing. Seaweed farming for women is encouraged. Zones that only allow the use of rak'kang (crab traps), lanra (gillnets) and renreng (mini-trawls) are respected.

• Langkai: Blast fishing is allowed around the island, but not cyanide fishing.

• Bonetambung: Island waters are used by islanders for long line fishing; they protect the coral reef because it protects the island. For important ceremonies like weddings, the village head may give permission for bomb fishing.

The IEZ are generally respected and locally enforced in Sper-monde. We found that what is allowed and not allowed in any particular IEZ depends on:

a) The fishing techniques and gears used locally,

b) The fishing techniques and gears used by outsiders wishing to

fish around the island,

c) Prevailing local values and perceptions (e.g. on the dangers

associated with different fishing techniques).

3.2. Reef exploitation and livelihoods

A technologically diverse, multi-species reef fishery characterizes the Spermonde Island economy. The Archipelago is Indonesia's main supplier of live reef food fish. Grouper (mainly Epinephelus spp.) and Humphead Wrasse, also known as Napoleon Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), are sent to Hong Kong, Singapore and Bali. Rising demand from ever more global markets have led to the introduction of more effective and often destructive fishing techniques, to over-harvesting, and to fishing for an increasing range of new target species. For instance, the sea cucumber (teripang) sector evolved from artisanal into a major commercial fishery in Spermonde over the last decades (Schwerdtner Manez and Ferse, 2010). Trade in ornamental marine species also gained strong momentum over past decades. Five years ago, the region had developed into a major supplier of mushroom coral (Heliofungia actiniformis) to the global aquarium trade (Knittweis and Wolff, 2010). Most recently, the bamboo coral (¡sis hippuris) has found an international market and has been exploited to the point of economic extinction in the region within less than a year (Ferse et al., 2014). Local livelihood needs are the immediate drivers of these clearly unsustainable reef exploitation strategies. Among the supplementary income potentials for those fishers who employ destructive fishing techniques in the Spermonde Archipelago, mariculture appears to have the greatest potential (Ferse et al., 2012a; Williams et al., 2014). While maricul-ture is unlikely to replace destructive fishing (Pomeroy and Balboa, 2004; Sievanen et al., 2005), it could help reduce the pressure and play a role in a holistic management strategy (Ferse et al., 2012a; Williams et al., 2014). Our investigations have therefore addressed the dynamics surrounding fisheries and mariculture.

3.2.1. The dynamics surrounding fisheries and mariculture

Major Spermonde reef fisheries are the Life Reef Food Fishery (LRFF), ornamental fisheries for a range of products, and the harvest of sea cucumbers (several species locally termed teripang; Schwerdtner-Manez and Ferse, 2010). In addition, markets appear to emerge for a growing range of additional marine products as time progresses, including most recently moray eels (Schwerdtner Manez and Husain, 2013).

In LRFF, the catch is kept alive until cooking to preserve its freshness. Hong Kong is the biggest market for LRFF in Asia and worldwide (Lau and Parry Jones, 1999). This market emerged in the 1960s with the rise of the "rich" Hong Kong Chinese. There are 12 species of live reef fish that have high economic value (Table 1). At least five of these fish species (underlined) are caught in the Spermonde Archipelago, and all of these are on the IUCN/CITES Red List as near threatened, vulnerable or (critically) endangered (www.iucnredlist.org, marked with *). The trade of Napoleon Wrasse is nationally and globally prohibited, as it is vulnerable to extinction. Nevertheless, Napoleon Wrasse and grouper fishery still goes on, mostly employing cyanide. A "trade network" transports the live product along a chain of well-connected traders who manage bureaucratic and legal obstacles, to its distant markets (Radjawali, 2011, 2012).

The LRFF trade from Spermonde Archipelago started in the mid-1980s in response to the market demand from Hong Kong. It follows the logic of "roving bandits" (Berkes et al., 2006), having started in the Hong Kong waters in the 1960s and, after the fish was commercially depleted there, moving the fishing grounds to Philippine waters in the 1970s. In the mid-1980s, after a new round of local depletion, LRFF fishery relocated to Indonesian waters, where

trade volumes have been declining since the mid-1990s (Johannes and Riepen, 1995). The specialized ships arriving from Hong Kong in the 1980s employed Spermonde residents as divers to catch reef fish alive, and then transported the live fish directly to Hong Kong in on-board salt water. Initially, the Spermonde LRFF fishery was dominated by the Hong Kong boats. This fishery worked with the local social structure known as punggawa-sawi (patron-client), where credit from patrons (punggawas) help the fishermen (clients/ sawis) cope with the variability of the monsoon climate at the cost of accepting lower prices for their catch from 'their' patrons who, in turn, assume central positions to fulfil market demands for their benefit and that of those higher up in the trade chain (Glaser et al., 2010a; Radjawali, 2012).

With the decrease of LRFF since the 1990s, the ornamental trade, which had been ongoing for 30 years with Bali and Jakarta as the main Indonesian trade ports, became more important in the Spermonde Archipelago. The ornamental trade also operates within the pungawa-sawi (patron-client) system, but with different social network structures and communication and trade mechanisms (e.g., Radjawali, 2012; Ferse et al., 2012a; Madduppa et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014; Nurdin and Grydehoj, 2015).

With its proximity to Makassar airport, Spermonde became one of four major ornamental collection sites in Indonesia. Although exact figures are difficult to obtain, the amounts of fish and corals passing through Makassar airport are significant. According to the Global Marine Aquarium Database (GMAD), 26% of ornamental fish traded worldwide 1997—2002 originated in Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2002). Moreover, according to the CITES trade database, Indonesia plays by far the most important role in the global coral trade (www.cites.org). In 2001 71% of live corals in the aquarium trade came from Indonesia, in 2008 this increased to a staggering 91% (Jones, 2008). The major importers of live ornamentals are the United States and the European Union, and to a lesser extent Japan, Singapore, Canada and Hong Kong (www.cites.org).

The most important species of ornamental fish collected in Spermonde are listed in Table 1. Overharvesting also threatens the long-term sustainability of the ornamental trade. Moreover, most fish for the ornamental trade are caught with cyanide. This has important negative repercussions for reef health as it results in widespread coral and fish mortality, with negative impacts on fish diversity and biomass (Halim, 2002).

Ornamental fishermen in Spermonde do not only target fish but also colourful genera of coral and a variety of other invertebrate species. Interviews on the two islands where the ornamental trade is centred, Barrang Lompo and Karanrang, revealed that species with large polyps dominate the ornamental coral trade in Spermonde. The most popular species are listed in Table 1. Permits have to be held by all ornamental fishermen. Usually, the patron has a permit for a certain number of specimens, and his fishermen fish under this permit (Ferse et al., 2012a).

The sustainability of the coral trade is questionable: large amounts of collected corals are deemed unsuitable for export by middlemen and are discarded. Severe over-harvesting of several target organisms such as Catalaphylliajardinei and Euphyllia cristata also occurs (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). The reefs and fish stocks which are the basis of the trade in both ornamental and live food fish thus appear under threat. The islanders interviewed in this study confirmed this, stating that for the past 20 years, Sper-monde fishermen had been moving on to ever more remote fishing grounds every year, because species suitable for the aquarium, the LRFF and the teripang trade were getting ever scarcer near the islands. We also obtained reports of reduced Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) for some fishing technologies such as mono-line, and fish traps (bubu). In order to cope with the fall in catch, affected fishermen reduced crew size, or shifted to more productive methods

Overview of reef fish with highest economic value on the Hong Kong market, and most targeted ornamental fish and ornamental coral from Spermonde Archipelago.

LRFF (of high economic value in Hong Kong) Ornamental fish (Spermonde) Ornamental coral (Spermonde)

Ephinephelus polyphekadion* Amphiprion ocellaris Trachyphyllia spp.

E. areolatus Amphiprion percula Euphyllia spp.

E. fuscoguttatus* Paracanthurus hepatus Goniopora spp.

E. bleekeri* Dascyllus spp. Acropora spp.

E. malabaricus* Plerogyra spp.

E. lanceolatus* Catalaphyllia jardinei

E. akaara* Favia spp.

Cromileptes altivelis* Lobophyllia spp.

Plectropomus leopardus* Porites spp.

P. areolatus* Turbinaria spp.

Cheilinus undulatus* Montipora spp.

Lutjanus argentimaculatus Heliofungia actiniformis Isis hippuris

including illegal bomb and cyanide fishing and trawling.

Illegal destructive fishing methods were prevalent but unevenly distributed between the Spermonde Islands. In some islands, even 5-year old children knew how to make explosives for fishing. This study found that in particular on those islands, young boys also tended to (dis)miss school as useless diversion. In at least three of the islands studied, fishermen saw a clear connection between the introduction of bomb and cyanide fishing and their need to travel ever further out to sea to find fish.

On the whole, islander's interests, priorities, and experience in fishing led them to hold a range of different views on fish availability and fishing practices. Some islanders expressed the opinion that present illegal fishing practices, if unchanged, will result in reef degradation and reduce fish availability. Others, whose opinions often seemed to depend on their own fishing activities and benefits, disagreed. A number of punggawas (patrons, i.e. boat owners, traders, financiers) dismissed the importance of conservation and NTAs with statements such as "Surrounding the island, fish is depleted but outside it can never run out. Fish reproduces, it cannot finish" (statement by a haji (respected pilgrim to Mecca) from Karanrang in May 2010). Many fishermen (sawis) who directly worked with the marine resources and were thus exposed to scarcity stated to follow their social superiors in these views. However, while punggawas mostly failed to recognize any need for conservation, some sawis agreed with NTAs, emphasizing the contribution of such measures to their own longer-term livelihood needs. Since sawis need to follow their punggawas' wishes in order to secure their daily needs, behavioural changes in fishing rarely accompany these views though. Fishing has become more dangerous with shifting weather patterns, and also as fishermen move further out to sea and divers move deeper down. As fishermen shift into more productive (and destructive) fishing techniques, more accidents occur (701 consultations on dive-related diseases in 2007 and about 10 deaths from dive accidents recorded by the health clinic on the island of Barrang Lompo). Deaths and serious injuries also occur in accidents with blast fishing (see our film Sangkarang: People by the Sea 2009, on http://www.zmt-bremen.de (Mediathek); Nurdin and Grydehoj 2015).

3.2.2. On mariculture development in the Spermonde Archipelago

Seaweed cultivation was normally undertaken as a group-based enterprise but mariculture entrepreneurs included also larger companies and individual small enterprises. Community mariculture projects in Spermonde have sometimes failed due to local corruption and power differentials. One grouper culture project used to be a community enterprise, but a powerful village leader took control away from the community group. After about two harvest cycles, he claimed the project was not running well and obtained official permission to take over the floating cage, which he then moved to

waters at the back of his own house. In two other islands, an originally business-based seaweed mariculture was taken over by community groups. One of these went out of operation since (Box 1).

Mariculture initiatives are diverse in Spermonde, and so are the related challenges (Table 2). The types of organisms cultured during the time of this study were:

• Seaweed — this has been grown in the archipelago for about 20 years by community groups. The biggest example existed between the islands of Salemo and Sabutung.

• Sea cucumber (teripang) — the biggest system was a tidally inundated, walled pond (tambak) located on Sabangko, close to Salemo. Previous small-scale caging projects failed because of theft.

• Corals — On Badi there were several ocean-based outgrowth enterprises. One was owned by a private company. Another was run by a company but was supposed to develop into a community-run project, which has not materialized to our knowledge. F2-generation culture (second generation in captivity) was close to completion. Other ocean-based grow-out took place on Barrang Lompo, run by a private company.

• Microalgae — on Saugi microalgae production was being facilitated by the local NGO Enlightening Indonesia and UNDP in a one-year pilot project beginning in 2009 with 6 women

A sawi bomb fisherman's view on fishing and mariculture

"I want to stop bomb fishing. My wife is also telling me to stop because of the bad effects on my health. I am already suffering with my lungs. I would like to get into legal mariculture because I am so tired of the police coming every day to take 50.000 Rupiah from me. Every time different people come to take the money. They do not arrest me, they just take my money. I am no longer making any profit from bombing because so many people take money off me. For mariculture I need starting capital. I used to work as a seaweed mariculture guard in Langkai. This failed while I was there so I need better technical knowledge. I will need short production cycles because of immediate money needs. My punggawa does not help me in emergencies. But even so, without my punggawa I would not survive: I rent a boat from him, I do not have my own. Therefore I have to sell my fish at a lower price to him."

(Interview, May 2009) I. Radjawali with fisherman (sawi), 31 yrs, 5 children, one died, two daughters in school, two sons (16 & 13) go bomb fishing with him.

Challenges in Spermonde mariculture initiatives, and factors conducive to it.

Challenges

Supportive factors

Theft (depending on location of cultivation site and social coherence in local community)

Environmental conditions (e.g. water quality, waves, salinity)

Perceived negative conditions (reduced readiness to invest time and energy)

Elite capture of benefits (reduces incentives to engage)

Lack of external assistance for a sufficient piloting period

Lack of (access to) positive examples, training and education

Long-term production cycles are perceived to be financially problematic

Shortage of fishing labour

Access to people with positive experience

Effective initiation

Market access

Access to capital (own savings and credit)

producers who were producing Spirulina with simple local technology.

3.3. Social networks and hierarchies

Social structures and relations need to be understood in order to analyse human-nature relations. In the following, we collate elements of general social hierarchies emerging from this study and examine the special cases of fisheries hierarchies and the role of women in the Spermonde fishing communities.

Since 1998, the decentralisation of marine and coastal management in Indonesia has allocated greater powers at the local level (Wever et al., 2012). Conserving marine resources, however, involves conflicts of interest between village elders, village government (kelurahan) and different types of Non-Government-Organisations. Some village leaders also have no interest in banning destructive fishing, and official authorities (navy, water police, KKP) often do not follow up even major (proven) infringements of environmental legislation. Environmental destruction in the marine areas of the Spermonde Archipelago continues as a result. One island (colloquially labelled as "pirate island") is an example of this. The new autonomy (reformasi) legislation (Autonomy Act, Law 22/ 1999, revised and amended by Laws 32/2004, 33/2004 and 23/ 2014), provided for the decentralization of administration to the provincial, district and municipal governments; the authority to enforce the bans on destructive fishing methods (e.g. cyanide and blast) was delegated to the village leader (kepala desa/lurah). However, local leaders did not always enforce such bans. One reason for this is the all-pervasive influence of the punggawas. Authorities are often not willing or able to enforce marine and fisheries regulations and to also provide services in the islands. Where several islands belong to the same desa/kelurahan, the geographical distance and isolation between islands obstructs administrative and development work in those islands governed by a leader resident on another island. Where administrative boundaries subsume Spermonde islands within mainland urban areas under the same administration (e.g. Makassar municipality), administration and public services in the islands are neglected or non-existent.

3.3.1. On social hierarchies and influential leaders in island communities

Influential men (tokohs) influence island development including how islanders behave towards their surrounding marine environment. In general, people become influential in the Spermonde island communities because of:

1. Economic wealth and economic activities (wealthier men are more influential)

2. Family history and standing (men from higher classes or from

ruling families)

3. Descent from nobles and kinship

4. Current position in local village government

5. Age (elders are respected)

6. Pilgrimage (Hajj to Mecca)

"My father was a punggawa even if I am not' said one sawi to explain his own higher social status. Men's social reputation is also based on how hard they work and how brave (berani) they are/how big the risks are that they take. Fishermen who use illegal techniques have a "hero reputation" locally, enforced by the often uneven police prosecution and law implementation.

Religious leadership is mostly important for marriages and divorces. Formal education was not particularly respected in many of the islands and seemed to have little influence on social status. However, people did proudly compare their children's education as a status symbol. This was, however, more the case for girls than for boys (An exception was Barrang Lompo island, where many boys attended school). Many boys left school aged 10—12 to take up fishing. The quality of schooling was perceived as not good on the islands. Punggawas put higher value on schooling than sawi. Shortage of fishing labour put high pressure on young boys and their parents to choose fishing over schooling. Secondary costs of schooling (uniform, books) prevented many poorer children from attending school, despite their parents' wishes to send them to school.

3.3.2. On patron-client (punggawa-sawi) relations in fisheries

In South Sulawesi, multi-faceted, asymmetrical relations of dependence between workers/debtors and capital owners/traders, locally termed punggawa-sawi (the generic term being patronclient), exist in agriculture and in marine fisheries (Acciaioli 2000; Pelras, 2000; Yusran, 2002; Nurdin and Grydehoj, 2015).

In Spermonde Archipelago fisheries, a sawi does not possess any means of production, only his own labour. The sawi who goes fishing does not have rights to the marine product, except for his own consumption and for species his punggawa is not interested in. He gets paid by his punggawa (fish trader/boss). There is some permeability to the system: a sawi can become a punggawa by learning about the trade and business management from his punggawa. Fishermen who are indebted to their punggawas accept lower prices for their catch than they could achieve in the market.2 Fishermen without debts choose whom to sell their catch to and are thus better able to exploit market potentials for themselves.

2 Prices paid are also said to depend on the fisherman's attitude: if he is diligent, he will receive a higher price (even though he is in debt) than a lazy fisherman. A diligent or experienced fisherman is locally called lucu (funny), a boat captain pintar memasak (knows how to cook).

Commitment and loyalty of sawis to "their" punggawa is related to economic interests but also characterized by personal loyalty, often strengthened by a kinship relation. A good social reputation and generosity of a punggawa is said to strengthen a punggawa's influence on "his" sawis. Client loyalties are maintained as a patron helps his sawi to meet daily family and emergency needs, participates in life cycle ceremonies in his clients' households and helps with the hajj pilgrimage. Punggawas also assist their clients in social and legal conflicts. A punggawa pays for releasing his clients from jail if they have been caught for instance in cyanide or blast fishing — but the related expenses are counted as a debt of the client to the punggawa. In some cases, sawis who are not satisfied with the benefits provided by their punggawas choose to associate themselves with a different patron, who then has to take over any debt owed to the former punggawa.

Such multi-stranded patron-client relations are one end of a continuum of producer/trader relations in Spermonde fisheries. At the other end there are exclusively business-oriented relations between fishermen and traders who are locally called bos. A bos enters into an economic exchange with a fisherman but assumes no wider responsibilities in this. While a bos ensures his access to marine produce by paying suppliers indebted to him, a punggawa seeks also to provide subsistence and security for his followers. The need to ensure local livelihoods under uncertain conditions including the monsoon climate, shifting markets for marine species and deficient or lacking social insurance is the basis for the continued strength of the patron-client system in Spermonde fisheries. The punggawas protect their sawis from a range of grave risks such as disease without income, penury, jail and unemployment, and they also ensure market access for their clients' catch. While fishery boses maintain purely economic relations, punggawas provide currently otherwise unobtainable financial and social security to their clients. The social security function of punggawas towards their sawis is becoming more essential. Overfishing, the increasing capitalization of fisheries and environmental change diving deeper, going out to fish in (ever stronger) storms all imply increasing risk exposure for those working in Spermonde fishing.

In LRFF, there are three different sub-systems of the punggawa-sawi relations. These can be understood as social networks:

(1) The fishing network. While fish labourers directly work for their punggawa, for the majority of remaining fishermen, fishing gear is only accessible via a punggawa. In marine areas not immediately surrounding inhabited islands, pung-gawas may influence the gear choice, target species and choice of fishing location (Ferse et al., 2012a).

(2) The trade network between boat captains (punggawa laut) to importers located overseas. A hierarchical chain of pungga-was, connected through debt and marine product relations, are the major agents in the trade network (Radjawali, 2011;Ferse et al., 2014).

(3) The illegality insurance network in which punggawas influence the water police, territorial police, the navy, the public prosecutor and the customs official(s) to ignore illegal fishing behaviour or release apprehended fishermen (Radjawali, 2011).

The social networks in ornamental fishing are less complex than those for the LRRF fishery. The key link between the island pung-gawas with their labourers (sawis) and a total of nine ornamental trade companies in Makassar is the bos. He is often academically trained, identifies marketable species and channels these to regional and global markets. The ornamental fishery's illegality insurance network involves a range of different actors, including governmental organizations and (surprisingly) many academics.

Generally, punggawa-sawi relationships are perceived locally as a mutually beneficial institution which provides social security within a hierarchical system. In Spermonde, a growing number of migrant fishing labourers from Eastern Indonesia have become entangled in even more unequal and exploitative relations as the example of dive-based fishing in Box 2 shows.

In our interviews, the local sawis explicitly did not consider themselves compelled by their punggawa to adopt illegal fishing methods. The punggawas, however, effectively turned illegal fishing into the main locally viable option: they provide fishing gear, open up markets for illegally fished species and ensure, through their connections to the authorities, that illegal fishing is not sanctioned according to the law. The prevalent opinion among punggawas that bomb and cyanide fishing do not harm the marine environment also guides local opinion.

4. Discussion — social vulnerability and social resilience

The concepts of vulnerability and resilience have for some time appeared in convergent research and action agendas. In a generic sense which encompasses both the social and the ecological realm, vulnerability is usually understood as "the degree to which a system is susceptible and unable to cope with the adverse effects of change" (e.g. food insecurity, Cutter et al., 2003; Adger et al., 2005; Adger, 2006: 269; Enarson, 2007). In an equally generic manner, resilience has been defined as "the capacity of a system to continually change and adapt and yet remain within critical thresholds" (Folke et al., 2010,1). The erosion of resilience generates vulnerable individuals and communities in social-ecological systems, as addressed here in relation to the Spermonde marine resource use systems and its governance.

The survival and health of fishermen are intrinsically linked to food security and form the second central trait of social vulnerability in Spermonde. On most islands, local catches of marketed food fish are only rarely consumed. In the stormy "west monsoon" season, both fishing and reaching the mainland are hard for islanders. Therefore during these periods their diet is restricted to noodles and rice while proteins and vegetables are scarce or unavailable. Air compressors are used for diving for sea cucumbers (teripang), ornamental and live reef food fish, and an increasing proportion of island households depend on these fisheries (Ferse et al., 2012a). As mentioned in 3.3.2., compressor diving involves severe risks for the lives and health of the untutored. Data collected

From mutually supportive punggawa-sawi relations to "business" scenarios and "slave labour" by outsiders

On the island of Barrang Caddi, the story of two divers from East Indonesia is told. These two were working for a Barrang Lompo punggawa (and reportedly "owned" by him). Both had symptoms of paralysis (which are known to be caused by deep or excessively long diving) and felt they could no longer dive without lasting danger to their health or even danger to their lives. They therefore escaped to Barrang Caddi, trying to get home to Eastern Indonesia. Islanders collected money to help them in this. On their departure day, "their" punggawa turned up stating that he had invested 30 million Rupiah (>2050 V) to get those divers. Only if islanders paid this money could the divers go home. Barrang Caddi people did not want to get involved in this conflict. The two men returned to diving for the punggawa.

FACTORS

Social networks (for social security, loans, emergency and social support) Social cohesion Institutions for conflict resolution Links to official authorities Access to sufficient health, communication, transportation and sanitation facilities 'Good' level of formal education Ability to tap into public funding Arisans (saving societies) Ecological and technical knowledge Knowledge and use of non-destructive fishing methods 'Good' lifestyle (no gang or debts) Conservation values Diversity of income sources Independence on food imports Strategies to fulfil food needs

Capital and technology investments in fishery Affordable fuels Limits to fishing (no overfishing) and stable market values Affordable water and electricity Slower population growth Proximity of island to town/city on the mainland Coastal erosion protection Availability of space for resettlements / land Availability of freshwater Land fertility ,Good'weather Access to markets and technology

Fig. 3. Factors likely to influence social vulnerability and resilience of Spermonde Islanders, as identified by researchers and participating island residents [top: socio-economic factors, bottom: bio-physical factors].

from several Puskesmas Pembantu (Pustu)3 on islands that are inhabited by air compressor-equipped divers (Barrang Lompo, Barrang Caddi, and Kodingareng) show a high incidence of dive-related diseases (including permanent paralysis) and a high number of deaths. This reflects reports from other Asian marine areas where the LRFF sector emerged earlier (Johannes and Riepen, 1995). In Spermonde, the health dangers of LRFF fishery are compounded by injuries and deaths from accidents in blast fishing (see above). The social resilience and well-being of Spermonde Island communities is clearly undermined as husbands, fathers and brothers are crippled in unsafe fishing (see film Sangkarang, 2009).

Fig. 3 relates to both individual physical and social vulnerabilities and strengths. Despite customs such as local savings societies (arisan), planning or influencing their own future appears a rather alien concept to Spermonde islanders. Instead, the conviction of a God-given destiny is ever present, emphasizing a given uncertainty and unpredictability. In our group discussions, in particular the poorest and least educated participants found it difficult to envision the future for more than a few years ahead. A systematic examination of vulnerability and resilience of island residents (and the social and ecological communities their livelihoods are embedded in) is needed to identify where policy interventions are most needed and likely to succeed. For this, local people's concerns, perceptions and desires for the future have to be investigated and accepted as relevant by management.

For the near future, the local priorities voiced by islanders in our visioning exercises (Glaser et al., 2010a) were as shown in Table 3:

These local priorities differ from the core elements which emerged from our long-term research in the Archipelago: MPAs

3 Puskesmas (Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat) are Centres for Community Health. Pembantu (=assistant) designates a supported unit/institution operated, mostly, at Kelurahan (neighbourhood) level.

and participation, livelihoods, social hierarchies). What a large group of social and natural science researchers from multiple disciplines considered as the core of marine resource use in Sper-monde Archipelago thus only very partially overlaps with the priorities of local ecosystem users. This raises challenges for integrated social-ecological management towards a sustainable future for the islands and their residents. Questions on social vulnerability and resilience, on women's roles on the islands, and on the marine resource-related attitudes and future visions of islanders in this quickly changing environment, emerged as important further themes. Our juxtaposition of islanders' priorities and aggregated research finding shows, however, that feasible solutions to such holistic social-ecological challenges require multi-level approaches which value and integrate both research, practitioner and ecosystem user priorities in ways which are, at the same time, locally grounded, and scientifically informed (Ostrom, 2010).

4.1. Identification of policy needs

For the Spermonde area, our research suggests three major policy directions to support socially and ecologically sustainable development, management and conservation in the Spermonde Archipelago, and offers ways of tackling these:

4.1.1. Improve environmental knowledge among all stakeholders and establish meaningful local participation

Transdisciplinary approaches are needed to link different types of knowledge on coral reef use and to ensure that management and conservation efforts do not generate additional problems for the poorest and most vulnerable island residents. Systematic data collection on the economic, social and physical developments and vulnerabilities of the Spermonde Islands to environmental change and ecosystem degradation is needed. An up-to-date database on fisheries in Spermonde (and wider Indonesia), particularly at

Priorities stated by island residents in visioning exercises (Glaser et al., 2010a).

Prioritized by All islanders Young people Mostly women Mostly men

Priority better education and good jobs better communication through better health services good relations with

for the next generations access to mobile phone networks public authorities

provincial and municipality level, is required for policy makers to be able to support the sustainability of fishery and of fishing families' livelihoods under conditions of change. Efforts in the conservation, coastal management and education sectors need to be linked so that issues surrounding human-nature interactions in the marine environment and solution-oriented thinking can be included into school curricula. The Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (KEM-DIKBUD) and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishery (KKP) would need to cooperate on this, and also establish strong collaborations with the local universities (e.g. UNHAS in Makassar). After-school programmes on the islands could focus on outdoor, environmentally-oriented lifestyle activities, in particular to attract the large percentage of boys who leave school early. Civil society efforts to fill this gap exist. For instance, the NGO Sekolah alam ('Nature School') has had a very positive reception on the island Barrang Caddi. Scholarships for poorer children to join environmental education programmes were offered. An integration of historical investigations and regular monitoring of key environmental and social indicators into school projects would make local change more visible.

Additional educational work on marine ecosystem sustainability withpunggawas (i.e. outside the school system) is essential since this group strongly influences local opinions and behaviours towards the marine environment. Punggawas need to be informed on research results and their interpretations to be able to communicate to 'their' fishers the ecological importance of the targeted species as well as the ecological effects of their own behaviour. Such environmental education should focus on stated local needs (target species, effective and sustainable fishing techniques, markets) and explicitly address the question of economic benefits of a more sustainable use of the marine environment. Due to its increasing availability on the islands, television has been suggested as an appropriate educational medium. Involvement of local religious leaders (Imams) in a joint attempt to help preserve nature which is perceived as Allah's creation (iman kepada alam) may also be possible (e.g., Leisher et al., 2007; Yahya, 2010; Mangunjaya, 2011; Aswani 2011).

Local communities in Spermonde ask for and need feedbacks on research results from large and longer-term projects. Themes of special local interest are: technological options in fisheries and local energy production, suitable species for mariculture, land reclamation and effective fishing techniques, and options for establishing 24 h access to electricity on the islands. To establish meaningful participation of local communities is therefore a (so far often only theoretical) keystone of Indonesian reformasi and autonomy laws. The active participation of islanders on the basis of established rights and responsibilities in the design, implementation and data analysis of environmental and social monitoring programmes has the potential to spread relevant knowledge locally and support the development of locally appropriate solutions. For this, consensus between (different types of) islanders and outsiders on the objectives of coastal management and conservation is needed. Criteria need to be established and suitable indicators agreed so that locally desirable and sustainable future(s) can be co-defined, and trends in conservation and island development locally understood, monitored and analysed. Official support for the participation of local stakeholders (e.g. funded meetings, trainings, workshops) in this is important to

generate such new local capacities.

A meaningful participation of socially more marginal islanders in this requires non-threatening social spaces for these groups (including sawis and other labourers, young people, and most women). In-depth face-to-face methods, games or interactive scenarios of possible futures are methods that can be used even in more hierarchical societies (Glaser et al., 2010a). At the same time, existing social structures and institutions need to be identified and their strengths supported rather than undermined by parallel structures. An important element of meaningful local participation is to build on continuously integrating the existing locally defined island exclusion zones (IEZ) into MPA zoning and conservation legislation. This type of official recognition has so far, to our knowledge, been given only in one island.

To ensure effective implementation, local ecosystem users need to be involved in deciding on the rules of using their environment and the future for the marine areas surrounding their islands of residence. Unless they contradict other legislation, locally agreed rules should be codified as village regulations (Peraturan Desa, PerDes; the lowest level of official government regulations). Networking and communication between islands on marine resources use and management rules should be supported.

4.1.2. Improve the distribution of conservation-related benefits as part of the official approach to community-based marine management

Clear benefits are needed for those who are expected to bear the costs of conservation. Compensation for foregone fishing incomes and alternative livelihood solutions for those displaced by MPAs are central in this. In Spermonde, compensation for foregone benefits could be made accessible to fishermen in exchange for effectively protected no-take zones or other well-managed local parts of MPAs. These benefits may be on an advantageous revolving loan basis but do not necessarily have to be in the form of money.

Access to training, loans and other benefits that arise in the course of developing alternative livelihood options for islanders needs to be more clearly targeted towards those whose current ecosystem use undermines sustainability (e.g. fishermen using destructive techniques). Clear links need to be made to behavioural changes without generating perverse incentives (e.g. taking up destructive fishing in the hope of being compensated for giving it up again).

In the initiation period of mariculture programmes, strategies are needed to ensure access for all sections of the community. Mariculture projects are likely to be more successful and sustained over longer periods when a larger number of local community members are involved on an equal footing (e.g. Guenette et al., 2000; Pérez-Sánchez and Muir, 2003; Pomeroy et al., 2006; Primavera, 2006), while reliance on particular groups or individuals can generate local resistance. A programme of exchange visits between those who are interested in mariculture and those who have already implemented successful projects would be highly valuable. There is much demand in Spermonde Archipelago for grouper mariculture; future options also include seaweed and ornamental mariculture. Given a carefully targeted design of support to mariculture, sustainability-enhancing co-evolutionary

trajectories of change of fisheries and mariculture development appear possible. Punggawas are potential pioneers for mariculture as they are better able to take financial risks. However, the current situation where only the wealthier punggawas benefit from ongoing pilot programmes (without passing on their new knowledge) needs to be changed.

Attempts at community empowerment and livelihood enhancement have had limited success in the large CB conservation programmes which operates in the Spermonde region (Baitoningsih, 2009; Radjawali, 2012). To address local livelihood aspects more effectively in such programmes, and enable more effective management, would include establishing clear local rights and responsibilities in all procedural steps from MPA planning through to implementation: systematically inviting islanders across all societal (and power) levels to take part in site selection, allowing more time for site selection, making marker buoy placement and maintenance a local responsibility with compensation for time and materials used, and integrating local rules and conventions into official rules (instead of assuming "one-rule serves all").

An option for immediate action in this respect is the National Marine Tourism Park around the island of Kapoposang. This was established in a centralized, top-down manner under the Natural Resources Conservation Board (BKDSA). A Regional Marine Conservation Area (Kawasan Konservasi Laut Daerah) is now being established in Pangkep district, which covers the northern part of Spermonde, to be expanded and joined with the COREMAP-facilitated district-level MPA. Participatory zoning by KKP is needed, and zoning procedures with several meetings per island should be revised to ensure a longer and more inclusive process. The concept of zonation needs to be given more time and it needs to include community use zones (not only NTAs) from the outset. The rights of local communities to local marine and coastal resources should be prioritized.

Community workers spearhead any officially supported CB project. Building their capacity is necessary and requires various trainings. An incentive scheme to motivate community workers and members is needed which prioritizes non-destructive methods like they are already used by the vast majority of fishermen on islands like Bonetambung and Kapoposang. Support for their achievements should be given to motivate them and others, e.g. for pier rehabilitation, additional electricity services, or more individual incentives. The challenge of keeping policy development sufficiently flexible to also accommodate local priorities is omnipresent. Some islands (like Salemo and Sabutung), for instance, strongly depend on a single species or fishing technology. The introduction here of a locally oriented science component could also improve community participation in MPA development.

To protect the marine areas from further locally-caused damage, resources, materials and outreach activities provided through public funds, and information relating to them, therefore need to be more evenly distributed among island residents, and more in agreement with conservation and local development priorities. In this way, the reduction of social vulnerability of local residents towards environmental change (Glaeser and Glaser, 2011) could then be better targeted, especially towards the issues on how to improve: women's options, better (and meaningful) provision of information, creation of income alternatives, physical protection infrastructures, and the approach to islanders' nutrition status. Related to these issues are the options to support the eventual relocation of islanders, which also need to be actively developed among government authorities, as provisions for this are still lacking locally as well as in national policy (Ferse et al., 2012a; Ferrol-Schulte et al., 2015). Elements to prepare relocation might include: preparation for mainland jobs, provision of land on mainland and loans for house construction.

4.1.3. Integrate coastal management planning and implementation more effectively

The fisheries and conservation authorities at the district (keca-matan) level in Spermonde Archipelago need to address social and ecological priorities jointly. Cross-sectoral integration is particularly important, and collaborative arrangements between different government departments and sectors are required: The education authorities are needed to develop curricula and teacher training courses on coastal environment issues; the Social Service and Economic Development authorities to improve poverty alleviation and income generation options in the coastal zone. Collaborative programmes on social and ecological sustainability in the Archipelago between KKP (the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries), the Ministry of Human Development and Culture (Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Pemban-gunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan - KEMENKOPMK) and the Ministry of Education and Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, KEMDIKBUD) are an ideal scenario.

Ocean and coastal policy needs to include national, regional, and local stakeholders. At present, although authority has been devolved to the province/regency level in Indonesia, there is little communication on coastal management between government and stakeholders below the kecamatan level, and among those local stakeholders themselves. Local authority needs to be further devolved to the island level, and the respective local institutions need to be strengthened to decrease the vulnerability of islanders towards external and internal constraints and to increase their capabilities of dealing with local opportunities. For this, the village heads (kepala desa/lurah) of islands that are administratively clustered but physically isolated from each other (on different islands or the mainland) need to be given more attention.

Islands with 'sustainability potential', such as the remote and relatively untouched Kapoposang, should be promoted as sustainable ecotourism destinations at the national level. The combination of a beautiful panorama, non-destructive fishing, and effective enforcement of conservation laws could become selling points. Collaboration with the existing resort and PHKA (Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam — Directorate General for Environmental Conservation and Forest Protection, under the Ministry of Forestry) is envisaged to design a strategy for tourism that is sensitive to the local culture and environment.

Finally, zonation is a precondition for successful coastal management, especially in the context of expanding mariculture. Clear spatial allocations must be made to avoid territorial conflicts between sectors, especially local capture fisheries and mariculture. In the implementation of the Coastal Zone and Small Islands Management Act 27 of the year 2007 priority should be given to CB mariculture. The revision of the Act (Law 01/2014) contains important steps in this direction, but further attention is required to ensure that island communities are adequately protected against the social implications and habitat degradation in the coastal zone (Ferrol-Schulte et al., 2015). Rules for capture fisheries are needed to regulate the utilization of the areas adjacent to mariculture activities to account for possible spillover-effects.

To avoid elite capture of extension services and access to marine areas, pilot assistance in mariculture should only be given where it is ensured that information and inputs will be more widely accessible once approaches have successfully passed the pilot phase.

4.2. Conclusions

This paper highlights findings from an intensive four-year field period in an Indonesian archipelago by focussing on the conditions which mitigate social vulnerability and enhance social resilience of the island population living from and within this marine

environment. It shows to which extent the state and quality of the marine environment and the problems of residents in a coral reef archipelago affect each other. Tight links exist between resource exploitation, fishers' livelihood dependencies and their present and future health. At the time of this study, a number of local coping strategies exist for the highly resource-dependent island residents and their families who live in this fast changing archipelago environment (such as IEZs and NTAs). Community participation in marine management is, however, still too often hampered by missing information pathways and domination of the CB management process by a few influential individuals.

Concrete suggestions for national policy adaptations are given, targeted towards feasible local efforts to reduce social vulnerability by reinforcing the balanced distribution of conservation-related benefits within the official CB approach to marine area management in Spermonde Archipelago. To develop policy support for these efforts, such as clear spatial allocations for the zonation process related to CB mariculture, means ultimately targeting the social and ecological sustainability of these islands.

Authors' contributions

Glaser: Was the project leader, fieldwork planner, and the scientific brain behind questionnaire + survey development and data generation; she drafted the idea and the design of the manuscript and wrote substantial parts of the text.

Breckwoldt: Wrote and edited a substantial part of the text and prepared and designed the article structure and layout, figures and tables. She participated in the design of the paper and finalized its submission.

Deswandi, Radjawali and Baitoningsih generated large parts of the data in the field during the surveys in Spermonde and wrote parts of the text.

Ferse: Generated substantial parts of the data, co-developed the questionnaire and survey design for the paper and participated in its scientific design; he also wrote substantial parts of the text. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Table 1

Islands visited in the frame of the research for the present study

Acknowledgements

We thank Jamaluddin Jompa for his comments; the authors of this paper were part of a large interdisciplinary research team which he supported in various leading capacities. Other members of our research team who contributed to the conclusions of this paper were Abdul Hafeez Assad, Wasistini Baitoningsih, Andi Baso, Nurliah Buhari, Deborah Cleland, Bernhard Glaeser, Gunardi Ham-dani Hakim, Zainab Hussain, Leyla Knittweis, Gesche Krause, Sofie Martens, Neil Mohammad, Hauke Reuter, Soenarto, Andi Rinto, Ika Pratiwi Sriwulandari, Umar, Ucha, and Dewi Yanuarita. Joint knowledge generation in our research also centrally included the men, women and youth of the Spermonde Islands: We thank them for the time and energy spent on deliberating jointly with us on the past and on possible futures for their region and its people. The Research Cluster 6 entitled "Governance and Management of Coastal Social-Ecological Systems" of the SPICE programme (Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal Ecosystems) was a cooperation between the then Center for Coral Reef Research (PPTK) [now Centre for Marine, Coastal and Small Islands Research and Development (RDC-MaCSI)] ofHasanuddin University (UNHAS, Makassar) and Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) on the Indonesian side, and the Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT, Bremen) on the German side. This research was made possible with a grant [BMBF grant 03F0643A] from the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). Finally, we thank the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive and valuable input, which hugely improved this paper.

Appendix A. Detailed methodology

The present analysis draws on a number of different individual and joint field visits to 18 islands of the Spermonde Archipelago (Table 1) and Makassar undertaken between 2007 and 2010 in the frame of the collaborative German-Indonesian research programme SPICE (Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal Marine Ecosystems) by researchers and students from Germany and Indonesia.

Island Year(s) visited Methods employed Topics addressed References

Badi 2007-2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews Mariculture introduction, local Deswandi, 2012;

livelihoods, LRFF, resource use Ferse et al., 2012, 2014;

rules, social networks Glaser et al., 2010a,b;

Radjawali, 2012

Barrang Caddi 2008-2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews Resource use rules Deswandi, 2012; Glaser et al., 2010a,b

Barrang Lompo 2007-2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews Resource use rules, social networks, Deswandi, 2012; Ferse et al., 2012;

ornamental fishery, LRFF Glaser et al., 2010b; Radjawali, 2012

Bonetambung 2008-2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews Resource use rules Deswandi, 2012; Glaser et al., 2010a,b

Gondongbali 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews MPA implementation Baitoningsih, 2009; Glaser et al., 2010b

Jangang-Janganganga 2009 Key informant interviews, observations, Social networks, resource use rules unpublished

role-playing game

Kapoposang 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews MPA implementation Baitoningsih, 2009; Glaser et al., 2010b

Karanrang 2008-2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews MPA implementation, resource use Baitoningsih, 2009; Ferse et al., 2012;

rules, ornamental fishery Glaser et al., 2010a,b

Kodingareng Lompo 2007-2009 Survey, key informant interviews Resource use rules Deswandi, 2012; Glaser et al., 2010b

Langkai 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews Resource use rules Deswandi, 2012; Glaser et al., 2010b

Lanyukan 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews Resource use rules Deswandi, 2012; Glaser et al., 2010b

Polewali 2009 Unstructured interviews, observation Artisanal fisheries, resource use rules unpublished

Sabangko 2009 Unstructured interviews, observation Mariculture introduction unpublished

Sabutung 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews MPA implementation Baitoningsih, 2009; Glaser et al., 2010b

Sagara 2009 Unstructured interviews, observation Mariculture introduction unpublished

Salemo 2008, 2009 Survey, key informant interviews MPA implementation Baitoningsih, 2009; Glaser et al., 2010b

Sarappo Lompo 2010 Participant observation, in-depth interviews, LRFF, social networks Radjawali, 2012

role-playing game

Saugi 2009, 2010 Survey, focus groups, key informant interviews Resource use rules Glaser et al., 2010a,b

a Uninhabited.

Individual field work on participatory practice in MPA design and management (modified after Glaser et al., 2010b: 1216—1217)

Initial field research on this aspect was carried out during a two-week period in August 2008 by S. Ferse. Interviews were conducted in English and, if necessary, in Bahasa Indonesia with COREMAP personnel, community leaders, NGO and business representatives and scientists from Hasanuddin University regarding mariculture introduction and the role of COREMAP on Badi Island.

This visit was followed by a more thorough field research period by W. Baitoningsih (conducting research in the frame of her MSc dissertation at the University of Bremen/Germany), which lasted six months from September 2008 until February 2009 and covered five islands, i.e. Salemo, Sabutung, Karanrang, Gondongbali, and Kapoposang (Baitoningsih, 2009). 238 people from the villages were interviewed regarding the implementation of CB-MPA at the village level. Villagers were interviewed with a semi-structured questionnaire, which started with "Do you know about the No-Take Area in your village?" Follow-up questions were then based on the answer to the first question. The interviews were conducted with individuals and in groups, and were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia.

Longer-term, in-depth field research was carried out by R. Deswandi (ZMT Bremen) on Barrang Lompo, Barrang Caddi, Kodingareng Lompo, Bonetambung, Langkai and Lanyukang Islands on the local institutional aspects of fisheries. During a six-month period, in-depth interviews, participant observation and focus group discussions were used to collect and validate data. Guidelines used in the interviews can be found in Deswandi (2012), available at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:46-00102669-13.

Individual field work on the ornamental trade (modified after Ferse et al., 2012a:528—530)

Initial information on the ornamental coral fishery in Sper-monde was gathered during a two-year field study by L. Knitt-weis (ZMT Bremen) between 2005 and 2007 (Knittweis, 2008) as part of the first, natural science-focused phase of SPICE. In March 2008, additional key informant interviews with 12 persons directly involved in the ornamental coral trade (trade company owners and middlemen) and 14 further local stakeholders (village elders, NGO personnel and researchers at Hasanuddin University (UNHAS) in Makassar) were conducted by L. Knittweis to collect background information on the ornamentals trade in Spermonde. Questionnaire-based interviews combining semi-structured and closed survey questions designed to generate detailed information on island-based actors involved in the Spermonde ornamental coral trade (see Appendix 2) were then conducted in Bahasa Indonesia during a series of visits to Karanrang and Barrang Lompo by A. Maddusila (UNHAS) in June and July 2008. These interviews investigated:

- The respondents' background and current role in the ornamental coral and other fisheries

- Respondents' involvement and status in the local patron-client system

- The livelihood assets of respondents and their households.

General housing conditions, household items necessary for the ornamental fishery (e.g., boats and compressors), and household items indicating material wealth (e.g., TV sets, refrigerators and motorcycles) were assessed. For each person interviewed, additional data was collected on age, the year in which they began collecting ornamental corals, estimated average weekly income from the trade in ornamental corals in the previous year, seasonality in the fishery, income sources besides ornamentals, number, age and education of household members, as well as attitudes towards mariculture. As with all types of fishing in Spermonde (except reef gleaning), the ornamental coral fishery is an exclusively male activity. All of the interviewed coral collectors were therefore men. Respondents (n = 34 and n = 20 for Karanrang and Barrang Lompo, respectively) were randomly selected and interviewed based on consent and availability, for instance by their presence at sorting sites for ornamental coral species. The majority of those involved in the fishery on the two islands was interviewed in that study.

Further observations and non-formal interviews were done in the frame of three subsequent ship-based excursions to the area between February 2009 and March 2010 (see below). During these visits, semi-structured interviews with various islanders, selected by purposive sampling, were conducted on a number of islands in Spermonde to obtain more detailed information on trade and fishing networks, patron-client relationships, and management options. In order to arrive at locally more meaningful conclusions, some of the findings and implications of the questionnaire interviews were discussed with local stakeholders. All interviews were conducted in Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), either by S. Ferse (ZMT Bremen), or by staff of the Centre for Coral Reef Research (CCRR) at UNHAS.

Individual field work on mariculture introduction (modified after Ferse et al., 2014:2055)

In the second half of 2008, a questionnaire-based survey of every second household (n = 180) was conducted on Badi island by S. Husain (UNHAS) in relation to the introduction of mariculture activities on the island. The head of each household was interviewed. Where the (male) household head was absent, a surrogate was interviewed (usually the wife). Each respondent's main occupation was recorded. The guidelines for the focus groups and interviews as well as the questionnaires used have been published as Electronic Supplementary Material in Ferse et al. (2014).

Individual field work on social networks in the Live Reef Food Fish (LRFF) trade (modified after Radjawali, 2012:547)

Data collection on LRFF fishing and trade was carried out by I. Radjawali (ZMT Bremen) between November and December 2007 and between February and May 2008 through observations on two islands: Barrang Lompo and Badi. In the first stage of fieldwork of 47 days, a reconnaissance study was carried out through series of discussions with various researchers and experts from Centre for Coral Reef Research (CCRR) of UNHAS and

visits to two islands where qualitative data were collected. The second stage of fieldwork lasted 68 days and began with an orientation workshop at the Hasanuddin University in March 2008, which included some researchers and experts from the CCRR as well as some undergraduate and post-graduate students from the Faculty of Marine and Fisheries, and the Department of Anthropology. Following the workshop, 15 students participated in fieldwork on Barrang Lompo for a total of 14 days, where a questionnaire was administered to 300 fishing households. A two days boat trip was also undertaken to reefs in Spermonde described by local fishermen as part of their fishing grounds.

During the first two ship-based excursions (see below), in-depth interviews on socio-economic, socio-political, and historical aspects of each island and social networks were carried out by I. Radjawali and assistants with 20 interviewees. A separate visit for 5 days fieldwork to the island of Sarappo Lompo was undertaken by I. Radjawali in 2010 with a focus on the commodification of the LRFF fishery. Four students were involved in undertaking participant observation, in-depth interviews and role-playing games with various LRFF middlemen and fishermen.

Particular focus was placed on the understanding of the role of human-agents (fishermen, patrons, middlemen) in LRFF commodification throughout the LRFF networks up to Hong Kong. However, due to time and financial constraints, middlemen and other actors beyond the Spermonde Archipelago and Makassar were not included in this study. Data on LRFF fishing and trade were collected through the use of five role-playing games with fishermen and punggawas; participatory mapping with fishermen and punggawas; and eight in-depth interviews with punggawas. Data collection methods on LRFF fishing and trade during various fieldwork trips included ethnographic observations and interviews with three Makassar-based fish traders, two government officials, seven university-based researchers, and representatives of a nongovernmental organization (Konsorsium Mitra Bahari/Marine Partnership Consortium), all of whom are involved in LRFF fishing and trade issues.

Ship-based excursions (modified from Glaser et al., 2010a:398—404)

The present assessment draws largely on three 10-day research excursions to the Spermonde islands in March and May 2009 and May 2010. Over 20 members from natural and social science disciplines participated during the first two, and 15 during the last excursion.

The first of these ten-day excursions took place in March 2009. Four islands (Barrang Caddi, Badi, Karanrang and Saugi) were selected on the basis of the different fishing techniques used by residents of the selected islands (i.e., handlines, set bamboo traps, cyanide fishing and bomb fishing). We aimed to generate scientifically sound and societally relevant information. The more marginal groups of islanders in particular were to be informed and 'envoiced' in the coastal conservation and management debate. Our research objectives were to explore seasonal and spatial human-nature dynamics, livelihood and resource use strategies, social networks, incentives affecting resource use behaviour and coping strategies in the face of crises, to reconstruct local visions of past human-nature dynamics and to explore local visions for the future. The

exploration of the conditions under which mariculture might become a viable option for conservation-enhancing livelihood support to local fishermen was a specific focus. These objectives were to be achieved through participatory research, using the methods described below.

Our second research excursion in May 2009 addressed a range of further related themes. We returned to two of the islands visited previously (Karanrang and Saugi) and included an additional one (Bonetambung), of interest because of the particularly sustainable fishing technology (fish traps) that was employed there. Furthermore, an uninhabited island used as base by fishermen and their patrons on several-day-long fishing excursions (Jangang-Jangangang) was visited. Additional, short visits by individual team members were made to the islands Polewali, where unstructured interviews were held with a local leader and community members on fishing methods and rules of marine resource use, and Sabangko, Sagara and Salemo, were observations and unstructured interviews were held on the topic of mariculture. For the second excursion, we undertook in-depth face-to-face interviews, which were complemented by daily team meetings where findings were recorded and discussed. We also tested a participatory board game, designed to inform and ground-truth an agent-based model of live reef food fishery (LRFF) dynamics.

The third excursion in May 2010 aimed at presenting our previous findings to island communities and discussing our conclusions with them in order to validate our findings and enable co-learning. All inhabited islands visited during the previous two excursions were re-visited (Barrang Caddi, Bonetambung, Badi, Kar-anrang, Saugi). We began with the screening of the documentary film produced during the first excursion. Following the screening, various interviewees representing the different types of respondents interviewed during the first two visits were selected in a convenience sampling approach and the findings from the previous excursions, which we collated in table format beforehand, were discussed with the respondents. This led to the qualification of points that previously had remained unclear or were misunderstood.

All three research excursions were pre-arranged with male and female village leaders by an Indonesian senior student team. The intentions and timing of our visits were agreed upon and confirmed in writing. Invitations to all islanders were displayed in public places. Each island was visited by the entire research team for three days on the first two excursions, and two days on the last excursion.

Table 2 lists the participatory methods used during the first two excursions in chronological order. For an evaluation of the different methods employed and their local effectiveness, see Glaser et al. (2010a). Local social groups which participated in the different elements of the research are listed in column 1: For the initial 'ice-breaking event', all island residents were invited; for the board game, those who took part were islanders who in real life had the roles assumed in the game, plus student excursion members. All other participatory tools (seasonal calendar, historical timeline and future visioning) were implemented in focus groups (FG), differentiated in terms of social status, sex and age. Participating islanders (column 3) were assisted by a support team who facilitated discussions, kept records, translated and fulfilled various other functions (column 4).

Participatory methods used in Spermonde research excursions March / May 2009

Method Objectives Participating local social group Research team functions

1. Ice-breaking event3 Familiarise the islanders with the cultural Leaders and other islanders — invited by Coordination

Introductions background of the foreign researchers, find a contacted village leaders, posters Translation

Film screening common ground and decrease reluctance for and letters and by word-of-mouth from Record keeping

Distribution of information discussion. FG participants. Focus group

materials Facilitation identification of FG members

Debate on local issues Explanation of material and film contents

2. Focus Groupsb Enable different social groups to voice Male and female groups of leaders FG support team (Facilitation,

Seasonal calendar opinions, priorities and views. Poorer less influential people Youth. translations, record keeping in English

Historical timeline and Indonesian)

Future visioning

3. Board game on fishing Assess the rationales behind decisions on Bosses/patrons of fishing expeditions Game facilitation

decisions fishing investments and location of fishing. Fishermen. Filmmaking

Provision of background information

Assumption of roles in game

a Once per island. b In March only. c In May only.

Ice-breaking event

Soon after our research team arrived, an open meeting was held in a public place (school, community meeting hall). We introduced ourselves, our background and the aims of our research. We also asked islanders to explain and debate their problems. An open discussion on the major topics of our research followed, accompanied by food and drink. Calendars and leaflets describing our project were distributed to participants of the meeting. Films about marine conservation and livelihood in Indonesia and elsewhere were screened at the initial meeting and various other times in publicly accessible spaces such as the village football field or a public meeting hall.

Focus groups

After the "ice-breaking" event, participants "broke up" into focus groups joined by other islanders who were invited by the FG support team. Focus groups were the mainstay of our approach during the first excursion. Our focus groups were to reveal the diversity of viewpoints between social classes, occupational groups, men and women and age groups.

Six focus groups were organized on the first island: male and female groups of a) leaders, b) less influential/wealthy people and c) young people. Male and female youth groups were later merged with adult groups since "adult" working fishermen or married women could be as young as 13. Each focus group was supported by a facilitator, two record keepers (Indonesian and English language) and a translator.

Seasonal calendar

Social-ecological dynamics in Spermonde Archipelago are influenced by the monsoon seasons. One of our research goals was to understand the variety of local perceptions of seasonally recurring social-ecological dynamics from the male and female and from different occupational points of view in order to obtain a better understanding of complex interrelated and annually recurrent ecosystem and livelihood dynamics.

Our seasonal calendar exercise employed a flipchart which marked the two main seasons (East and West monsoon). The group facilitator prompted inputs on seasonal patterns from focus group members which were then recorded on the flipchart.

Historical timeline

The historical timeline was used to identify key events and changes and their impacts within living memory, i.e. over the past two generations. The adaptation and coping strategies of different individuals and households in the face of identified crises and opportunities over this period were also to be assessed.

A flip chart with a timeline was prepared. Focus group participants debated and noted major events, changes and innovations

(e.g. political changes, natural disasters, local events, crimes or fires) over the past 50 years. They discussed how the impacts of identified changes were distributed within the local community and which strategies the community, different groups within it, as well as local households and individuals had developed to cope with, benefit from, or adapt to past changes.

Future visioning

This exercise was employed to understand the concerns, priorities, hopes and strategies for the future of different local social groups in order to guide our research agenda and to render findings relevant to decision-makers. Focus groups were asked to identify future risks and opportunities for them, their families and communities, and to deliberate on their hopes for their children and grandchildren.

Board game on fishing decisions

A spatially-explicit participatory modelling game was designed by I. Radjawali (ZMT Bremen) in the frame of his PhD research. It aimed to increase our understanding and to derive (i.e. "ground-truth") some of the rules which underlie the human decision-making that drives the catch volumes and spatial locations of live reef fishery in our social-ecological study system.

We used an official map of the regional marine territory as the 'board' for a game with 5—8 players. The game requires players to decide on fishing investments and on locations to fish. The use of game money, unequally distributed among players at the start of the game, simulates real life conditions and is meant to stimulate decisions 'as if they were real'. At the outset, we asked leaders (pung-gawas) to start with the sum of money which they usually spend for a fishing trip, and to distribute money to 'their' fishermen (sawis) as required. Researchers provided relevant information on conditions such as fuel availability and fish abundance from other sources, and a range of possible price fluctuations was used. Prices and conditions in the game, such as on markets and on the costs of 'keeping the official wheels oiled' were maintained close to real conditions by the information players provided during the game. Apunggawa usually started the game by choosing a target resource (i.e. grouper) for a fishing expedition. Fishermen were then asked to allocate their money and to decide where to go fishing for the resource. The support team observed, noted and sometimes filmed the game rounds, paying particular attention to the decision-making of punggawas including their approaches to dealing with risks and uncertainty.

Through the generated virtual reality, the game was to reveal the complex rationales behind traders' and boat owners' investment decisions and fishermen's choice of fishing grounds. The revealed rationales and information would either be confirmed or challenged by the players.

Appendix B

SPICE II Cluster 6, Makassar Ornamental Trade Livelihoods: Draft Questionnaire Survey

Island Name: Date: Interviewer:

I. Personal / Household Data

1. Name...............................................................................

2. Sex..................................................................................

3. Age.................................................................................

4. Birth place.........................................................................

5. Number of children..............................................................

(complete table at back of this page)

6. How long and how often do any children under age of 14 work?............

7. Teaching your children to fish?............................................................................yes / no

8. Do you have other relatives in the village?..........................................................yes / no

9. Do you have relatives outside the village?...........................................................yes / no

10. If yes, how far away do they live?....................................................................................

11. Do you help each other with fishing / other work?..............................................yes / no

12. Do you give or receive food to/from these relatives?................................yes / no

13. Do you give or receive cash to/from these relatives.................................yes / no

14. Has this forms of family aid increased, decreased or stayed the same the last 10 yrs?

Household Details

Name Age Relationship Sex Eduction Income source H/hold importance

l 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

M. Glaser et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 193-213 II. Household possessions

15. Who owns your home: self or family member pungawa

h/hold member other non-relative

16. Type of housing: concrete / cement wood vinyl

18. Water: piped private well public well other

19. Electricity: private generator public generator none

20. Type of sanitary services: septic tank latrine none

21. Does the household possess any of the following items / how many?

Item No Item No Item No Item No

Mobile phone TV Cart Dive fins

Chair Radio Boat Dive suits

Bed Lantern Compressor Mouthpieces

Table Flashlight Fishing nets Buckets

Fridge Motorcycle Dive mask

22. Have your possessions increased, decreased or stayed the same the last 10 years? III. Ornamental Trade Activity Data

23. Year started collecting ornamentals..............................................................

24. Reason started collecting ornamentals...........................................................

25. Employed by a company?..............................................................yes / no

26. Are materials needed for work supplied by: self boss pungawa

27. If yes, which materials?....................................................................................................

28. Primary income or supplement...................................................................

29. If supplement, why?..........................................................................................................

30. Who taught you fishing / taking care of coral / fish?........................................................

31. Participated in NGO course (MAC? / COREMAP?)?.........................................yes / no

32. Does demand for ornamentals / time spent fishing change with seasons? 1: high, 2: medium high, 3: medium low, 4: low

Dry Transition Rainy Transition

33. Part of a co-operative?....................................................................yes / no

34. Name of organisation..............................................................................

35. Do you meet informally with other fishermen after work?..................................yes / no

36. If so, what for?................

37. How often do you meet:

weekly

monthly

M. Glaser et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 193-213 38. Why do others in community not harvest ornamentals?........................

39. Do you now: focus on fish or coral or both?....................................................

40. Why focus on fish or coral?.......................................................................

41. Did focus change in last 10 yrs..........................................................yes / no

42. If yes, why?.......................................................................................................................

43. Do you collect this coral (Heliofungia)......................................................yes / no

44. Has there been a change in size / colour / amount of this coral harvested?.....................

45. If so, why?........................................................................................................................

46. Location where you are collecting?...................................................

47. Has the location always been the same or is it changing? same

48. If changing where to?........................................................................

changing

49. If changing, why?..

50. Where do you keep coral / fish and for how long?

(1) At sea: coral / invertebrates..................

(2) Island: coral / invertebrates..................

51. Sickness ever posed problem?................................

.fish., .fish..

..yes / no

52. Decompression sickness?.......... ........yes/ no

53. Can you afford: midwife doctor hospital medicine

Income

54. Your total daily income from ornamentals this year?................................

highest..................................lowest..................................usually..............

55. Your total daily income from ornamentals last year?................................

highest..................................lowest..................................usually..............

56. Does your income from ornamentals change with seasons, how / why?

Dry Transition Rainy Transition

57. Has your ornamentals income changed over the past 10 years?..

58. Do you also collect fish for food?................................................

(ask respondents to rank responses in order of priority) 68. What would you need?............................................................................

69. Why would you prefer this?.

70. Do you know people that are farming the reef?...................................................yes / no

71. What are they farming?.

68. Would you start farming?.....................................................................................yes / no

72. Why/why not?.

73. Which organisms would you farm?

74. Why?.

75. What would you need?

For interviewer:

How long did interview last?......................................................................

Open questions?..........................................................................................

Questionnaire processing:

Checked by:........................................................................

Data entered: yes no

References

Acciaioli, G., 2000. Kinship and debt. The social organization of Bugis migration and fish marketing at Lake Lindu, Central Sulawesi. Bijdr. Taal Land Volkenkd. 156, 588-617.

Adger, N.W., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16, 268-281.

Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10 (2) art. 9.

Adhuri, D.S., 2009. Social identity and access to natural resources: ethnicity and regionalism from a maritime perspective. In: Sakai, M., Banks, G., Walker, J.H. (Eds.), The Politics of the Periphery in Indonesia: Social and Geographical Perspectives. The University of Hawaii Press, pp. 134-152.

Adrianto, L., Dina, R., Azizi, A., Supriyadi, R., Rangkuti, A., Samiaji, J., Tarumun, V., Tarumun, S., 2010. Linking social-ecological adaptability in the context of integrated river basin, coastal and ocean management in Siak Riau basin, Riau province, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the East Asian Seas (EAS) Congress, Manila, Philippines.

Alder, J., Christanty, L., 1998. Taka bone rate: developing a strategy for community-based management of marine resources. In: Robinson, K.M. (Ed.), Living through Histories: Culture, History and Social Life in South Sulawesi. Dept. of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Alder, J., Sloan, N., Uktolseya, H., 1994. Advances in marine protected area management in Indonesia: 1988-1993. Ocean Coast. Manag. 25 (1), 63-75.

Aswani, S., 2011. Hybrid customary and ecosystem-based management for marine conservation in the Coral Triangle. SPC Trad. Mar. Res. Man. Know. Inf. Bull. 28, 14-36.

Baitoningsih, W., 2009. Community Participation in Designing Marine Protected Area in Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. M.Sc. Thesis.

Beaumont, J., 1997. Community participation in the establishment and management of marine protected areas: a review of selected international experience. South Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 18 (1), 333-340.

Berkes, F., et al., 2006. Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science 311 (5767), 1557-1558.

Bodin, O., Crona, B.I., 2008. Management of natural resources at the community level: exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community. World Dev. 36 (12), 2763-2779.

Brondizio, E.S., Ostrom, E., Young, O.R., 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the roles of social capital. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34 (1), 253-278.

Bruckner, A.W., Borneman, E.H., 2006. Developing a sustainable harvest regime for Indonesia's stony coral fishery with application to other coral exporting countries. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium; June 28-July 2, 2004; Okinawa, pp. 1692-1697.

Bundy, A., et al., 2015. A decision support tool for response to global change in marine systems: the IMBER-ADApT framework. Fish Fish. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/faf.12110.

Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A., 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, USA, p. 114.

Cash, D.W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11 art. 8.

Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in southeast asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155-164.

Christie, P., White, A.T., Buhat, D., 1994. Community-based resource management on San Salvador island, the Philippines. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 103-117.

Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., Oracion, E.G., Sabonsolin, A., Diaz, R., Pietri, D., 2009. Back to basics: an empirical study demonstrating the importance of local-level dynamics for the Success of tropical marine ecosystem-based management. Coast. Manag. 37, 349-373.

Cinner, J., Huchery, C., 2014. A comparison of social outcomes associated with different fisheries co-management institutions. Conserv. Lett. 7 (3), 224-232.

Cinner, J.E., Bodin, O., 2010. Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communities: a network-based approach to analyzing 'livelihood landscapes'. PLoS ONE 5 (8), e11999.

Cinner, J.E., et al., 2012. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (14), 5219-5222.

Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., 2015. A sea change on the African coast? Preliminary social and ecological outcomes of a governance transformation in Kenyan fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 30 (0), 133-139.

Cohen, P.J., Steenbergen, D.J., 2015. Social dimensions of local fisheries co-management in the Coral Triangle. Environ. Conserv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892914000423.

Crawford, B., Kasmidi, M., Korompis, F., Pollnac, R.B., 2006. Factors influencing progress in establishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coast. Manag. 34 (1), 39-64.

Crona, B.I., et al., 2015. Masked, diluted and drowned out: how global seafood trade weakens signals from marine ecosystems. Fish Fish. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ faf.12109.

CTI Secretariat, Coral Triangle Initiative Regional Plan of Action, 2009. Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs. Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) Secretariat, Jakarta, Indonesia, p. 42.

Cutter, S.L., et al., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (2), 242-261.

Dahuri, R.I., Dutton, I.M., 2000. Integrated coastal and marine management enters a new era in Indonesia. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 1,11-16.

Deswandi, R., 2012. Understanding Institutional Dynamics: the Emergence, Persistence, and Change of Institutions in Capture Fisheries in Makassar, Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany], p. 207. Ph.D. Thesis.

Dutton, I.M., 2005. If only fish could vote: the enduring challenges of coastal and marine resources management in post-reformasi Indonesia. In: Resosudarmo, B. (Ed.), The Politics and Economics of Indonesia's Natural Resources Singapore. Institute of SE Asian Studies, pp. 162-178.

Enarson, E., 2007. Identifying and Addressing Social Vulnerabilities. Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Goverment. W. L. Waugh and K. Tierney. ICMA Press, p. 366.

Ferrol-Schulte, D., Gorris, P., Baitoningsih, W., Adhuri, D.S., Ferse, S.C.A., 2015. Coastal livelihood vulnerability to marine resource degradation: a review of the Indonesian national coastal and marine policy framework. Mar. Policy 52, 163-171.

Ferrol-Schulte, D., Ferse, S., Glaser, M., 2014. Patron-client relationships, livelihoods and natural resource management in tropical coastal communities. Ocean Coast. Manag. 100, 63-73.

Ferse, S.C.A., Knittweis, L., Krause, G., Maddusila, A., Glaser, M., 2012a. Livelihoods of ornamental coral fishermen in south Sulawesi/Indonesia: implications for management. Coast. Manag. 40 (5), 525-555.

Ferse, S.C.A., Manez Costa, M., Schwerdtner Manez, K., Adhuri, D., Glaser, M., 2010. Allies, not aliens - increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation. Environ. Conserv. 37 (1), 23-34.

Ferse, S.C.A., Glaser, M., Neil, M., Schwerdtner Manez, K., 2014. To cope or to sustain? Eroding long-term sustainability in an Indonesian coral reef fishery. Reg. Environ. Change 14 (6), 2053-2065.

Ferse, S.C.A., Glaser, M., Schultz, C., Jompa, J., 2012b. Linking research to Indonesia's CTI action plan: the SPICE program. In: 12th International Coral Reef Symposium; 9-13 July 2012; Cairns, Australia, 17A-1.

Fidelman, P., et al., 2014. Coalition cohesion for regional marine governance: a stakeholder analysis of the coral triangle initiative. Ocean Coast. Manag. 95 (0), 117-128.

Foale, S., et al., 2013. Food security and the coral triangle initiative. Mar. Policy 38, 174-183.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockstrom, J., 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4), 43.

Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., Svedin, U., 2008. The problem of fit among

biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young, O., King, L.A., Schroeder, H. (Eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 147-186.

Gjertsen, H., 2005. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? Evidence from marine protected areas in the Philippines. World Dev. 33 (2), 199-217.

Glaeser, B., Glaser, M., 2010. Global change and coastal threats: the Indonesian case. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 17 (2), 135-147.

Glaeser, B., Glaser, M., 2011. People, fish and coral reefs in Indonesia. A contribution to social-ecological research. GAIA 20 (2), 139-141.

Glaser, M., Baitoningsih, W., Ferse, S.C.A., Neil, M., Deswandi, R., 2010b. Whose sustainability? Top-down participation and emergent rules in protected area manage-ment in Indonesia. Mar. Policy 34,1215-1225.

Glaser, M., Glaeser, B., 2014. Towards a framework for cross-scale and multi-level analysis of coastal and marine social-ecological systems dynamics. Reg. Environ. Change 14 (6), 2039-2052.

Glaser, M., Radjawali, I., Ferse, S.C.A., Glaeser, B., 2010a. 'Nested' participation in hierarchical societies? Lessons for social- ecological research and management. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 2 (4), 390-414.

Guenette, S., et al., 2000. Marine Protected Areas With an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a Review. F. C. R. Reports. 8, p. 51.

Halim, A., 2002. Adoption of cyanide fishing practice in Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45, 313-323.

Hidayat, A., 2005. Institutional Analysis of Coral Reef Management. A Case Study of Gili Indah Village, West Lombok, Indonesia. Humboldt University Berlin. PhD Thesis.

Johannes, R.E., Riepen, M., 1995. Environmental, Economic, and Social Implications of the Live Reef Fish Trade in Asia and the Western Pacific. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA, p. 83.

Jones, R., 2008. CITES, corals and customs: the international trade in wild coral. In: Leewis, R.J., Janse, M. (Eds.), Advances in Coral Husbandry in Public Aquariums. Burgers' Zoo, Arnhem, The Netherlands, pp. 351-361.

Jones, P.J.S., 2009. Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals. Mar. Policy 33, 759-765.

Knittweis, L., Wolff, M., 2010. Live coral trade impacts on the mushroom coral Heliofungia actiniformis in Indonesia: potential future management approaches. Biol. Conserv. 143 (11), 2722-2729.

Lau, P., Parry Jones, R., December 1999. The Hong Kong Trade in Live Reef Fish for Food. TRAFFIC East Asia and World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong, 1999. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #6 -, Hong Kong, pp. 27-30.

Leisher, C., et al., 2007. Nature's Investment Bank. How Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction (P. P. R. o. MPAs).

Madduppa, H.H., et al., 2014. Socio-economy of marine ornamental fishery and its impact on the population structure of the clown anemonefish Amphiprion ocellaris and its host anemones in Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 100 (0), 41-50.

Mangunjaya, F.M., 2011. Developing environmental awareness and conservation through Islamic teaching. J. Islamic Stud. 22 (1), 36-49.

Martens, S., Schnegg, M., 2008. Kognitive ökologische Netzwerke: eine neue Methode der kognitiven Ethnologie. In: Methoden in Der Ethnologie. Ethno-Scripts, 10. Institut für Ethnologie der Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 43-54, 2.

McClanahan, T.R., Glaesel, H., Rubens, J., Kiambo, R., 1997. The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yields and the coral-reef ecosystems of southern Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 24 (02), 105-120.

McClanahan, T.R., Marnane, M.J., Cinner, J.E., Kiene, W.E., 2006. A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Curr. Biol. 16 (14), 1408-1413.

Meereboer, M.-T., 1998. Fishing for credit: patronage and debt relations in the Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. In: Robinson, K., Paeni, M. (Eds.), Living through Histories. Culture, History and Social Life in South-sulawesi. Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, pp. 249-276.

Nurdin, N., Grydehoj, A., 2015. Informal governance through patron-client relationships and destructive fishing in Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 3 (2), 54-59.

Ostrom, E., 2010. A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions 1 (2), 27-36.

Ostrom, E., 2009a. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419-422.

Ostrom, E., 2009b. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report. Policy Research Working Paper 5095. World Bank, Washington.

Pelras, C., 2000. Patron-client ties among the Bugis and Makassarese of South Sulawesi. Bijdr. Tot. De. Taal. Land. En. Volkenkd. 156, 393—432.

Perez-Sanchez, E., Muir, J.F., 2003. Fishermen perception on resources management and aquaculture development in the Mecoacan estuary, Tabasco, Mexico. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46 (6—7), 681—700.

Perry, R.I., Ommer, R.E., Barange, M., Jentoft, S., Neis, B., Sumaila, U.R., 2011. Marine social—ecological responses to environmental change and the impacts of globalization. Fish Fish. 12 (4), 427—450.

Pet-Soede, C., Cesar, H.S.J., Pet, J.S., 1999. An economic analysis of blast fishing on Indonesian coral reefs. Environ. Conserv. 26 (2), 83—93.

Pollnac, R., et al., 2010. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (43), 18262—18265.

Pomeroy, R.S., et al., 2006. Coping with disaster: rehabilitating coastal livelihoods and communities. Mar. Policy 30 (6), 786—793.

Pomeroy, R.S., Balboa, C., 2004. The financial feasibility of small-scale marine ornamental aquaculture in the Philippines. Asian Fish. Sci. 17, 365—376.

Primavera, J.H., 2006. Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean Coast. Manag. 49 (9—10), 531—545.

Radjawali, I., 2012. Examining local conservation and development: live reef food fishing in the Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 12 (4), 545—557.

Radjawali, I., 2011. Social networks and the live reef food fish trade: examining sustainability. J. Indonesian Soc. Sci. Humanit. 4, 65—100.

Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J.P., Goodridge, R., 2001. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294 (5548), 1920—1923.

Roberts, C.M., et al., 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295,1280—1284.

Rockstrom, J., et al., 2009a. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472—475.

Rockstrom, J., et al., 2009b. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14. Article 32.

Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., 1996. Do marine reserves export adult biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, Philippines. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 132,1—9.

Sangkarang: People by the Sea — Social-Ecological Systems Analysis of an Indonesian Coral Archipelago, 2009. Film: 20 Mins. Available: http://www.zmt-bremen.de http://www.loicz.org (Mediathek) &.

Schwerdtner Manez, K., Ferse, S.C.A., 2010. The history of Makassan trepang fishing and trade. PLoS ONE 5 (6), e11346.

Schwerdtner Manez, K., Husain, S., 2013. First evidence of targeted moray eel fishing in the Spermonde Archipelago, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Traffic Bull. 25 (1).

Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R., Lowe, C., 2005. Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48 (3—6), 297—313.

Siry, H.Y., 2011. In search of appropriate approaches to coastal zone management in Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (6), 469—477.

UNEP-WCMC, 2002. Global Marine Aquarium Database (GMAD). Online Document by Marine Programme. World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, UK.

Wever, L., Glaser, M., Gorris, P., Ferrol-Schulte, D., 2012. Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 66 (0), 63—72.

Whittingham, E., Campbell, J., Townsley, P., 2003. Poverty and Reefs. DFID-IMM-IOC/UNESCO, Exeter, UK.

Williams, S., et al., 2014. Ornamental marine species culture in the Coral Triangle: seahorse demonstration project in the Spermonde Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environ. Manag. 54 (6), 1342—1355.

www.worldbank.org/projects/P127813/coral-reef-rehabilitation-management-program-phase-iii?lang=en.

Yahya, H.S.A., 2010. Biodiversity Conservation Ethics in Major Religions. Author-House, Bloomington, ID, USA.

Yusran, M., 2002. Punggawa-sawi Relationship in Co-management: an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Coastal Resource Management in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, p. 260 [PhD Thesis].

Zerner, C., 1994. Through a green lens: the construction of customary environmental law and community in Indonesia's Maluku islands. Law Soc. Rev. 28 (5), 1079—1122.

Further reading

Knittweis, L., 2008. Population Demographics and Life History Characteristics of Heliofungia Actiniformis: a Fungiid Coral Species Exploited for the Live Coral Aquarium Trade in the Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, p. 133.