Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1, 1999

A COMPARISON OF LEVEL OF DEVELOPMEl'I'T AMONG COASTAL AND NON-COASTAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTH AND SOUTH SUMATERA

BRIAN R. CRAWFORD PRICIELLA KUSSOY Coastal Resources Management Project - RICHARD B. POLLNAC Coastal Resources Center - University ofRhode Island M. FED! A. SONDITA Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies - Bogor Agricultural University

ABSTRACT

his paper examines the question as to whether coastal communities and fishers in Indonesia are the poorest of the poor. It reviews recent socio-econontic studies on coastal communities in Indonesia, and provides a quantitative T analysis of secondary data on coastal and non-coastal communities in in relation to IDT and Swa development classifications, as well as percent and density offishers and farmers for coastal villages inMinahasa It also provides ananalysis ofsecondary data onincome levels offarmingandfishing communities in South Snmatera. Itconcludes that coastal communities in Minahasa, North Sulawesi tend to be less developed than non-<:oastal communities. The less developed status ofcoastal communities is not related to fisher density, fisher percent, orfarmer density andhas ouly a weak relationship to percent fanners. Isolation appears to be an important factor. In South Sumatera, percent fishers in a commu­ nity was positively correlated with higher average household mcome while percent farmers was negatively correlated with higher income. The paper concludes that the generalized statement that coastal communities are less developed and fishers are the poorest ofthe poor in Indonesia cannot be supported due to the significant diversity among the level ofdevelopment ofcoastal communities and income levels offishers in various localities. Coastal development and resource management planning programs need to take such diversity into account, which suggests a need for more decentralized approaches to governance. Keywords: income, poverty, fishers, coastal villages, level ofdevelopment, decentraIization

ABSTRAK

. Tulisanini menganalisa mengenaipemyataanbahwa masyarakat pesisir dan nelayan Indonesia merupakankelompok terntiskin, dan mencoba mengkaji stodi sosiaI ekononti yang sudah dilaknkan sebeJumnya tentang masyarakat pesisir di Indonesia. Studiini didukung pulaanaIisis kuantitatifdata sekunderkelompokmasyarakat 'pesisir dan nonpesisirdi Sulawesi Utaradalam kaitannya dengank1asifikasi IDTdan swa-pembangunan, maupunpersentase dan kepadatannelayan dan petani di desa-desa pesisir di Minahasa. Data skunder tingkat pendapatan petani dan nelayan di Sumatera Selatan dijadikan perbandingan dasar analisis pula HasiInya menunjukkan bahwa rnasyarakat pesisir Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara cenderung lOOih ntiskindIbandingkan masyarakat non pesisirdi daerah itu. Akan tetapi pemyataantersebut tidakada kaitannya dengan • kepadatan dan persentase nelayan, atan kepadatanpetani dan persentase petanipunsangatkecil sekali. Anggapaninimuncul sebagai faktor penting. Dati hasillaporan di Snmatera Selatan, faktor persentase nelayan dalam suatu kelompokberkorelasi positifdengan tingkat pendapatan rata-rata rumah tanggayang lebih tinggi, sementara tingkat pendapatan petani yang lOOih tinggi berkorelasi negatif terhadap persentase petani di daerah tersebut. Maka1ah ini menyimpulkan bahwa pemyataan 1 A Comparison ofleveL (hal.t-tt)

umum mengenai rnasyarakat pesisirmerupakan kelompoktenniskin tidal<: dapat didukungkarena keragaman diantara tingkat kernajuan dan pendapatan nelayandidaerahyangberbeda. Program -program perencanaan dalam pengelolaanpengembangan wilayah pesisir dan sumberdayanya hendaknya memasukkan keragarnan rnasalah ke dalam program, yang menyarankan suatu pendekatan yang lOOih terdesentralisasi dari pemerintah. Kata-kata kunci: pendapatan, kemiskinan, nelayan, desa-desa pesisir, tingkat perkembangan, desentralisasi

INTRODUCTION no conclusions onthe poverty level offishers orthe A number ofrecent reports and socio-economic coastal communities surveyed are made. A review studies in Indonesia have made statements ofdata in their report however, indicates that coastal concerning poverty and income levels of coastal fishers have incomes lower than brackishwater communities and fishers. A Ministry of farmers. Brackishwater farmers are the highest Environment report stated that fishers with small income group in all the coastal villages sampled. boats generally live below the poverty level and that However, in comparing incomes with rice farmers, I coastal villages generally have a poor quality oflife some villages show higher income from fishing i (MSE, 1996). A North Sulawesi (MREP, 1996a) whereas others show higher income from rice I study reports that fishing in the region is carried farming. ! out by poor fishers and that most ofthe residents in Incontrastto the above mentioned studies which the coastal area studied have low incomes. The tend to highlight the poverty ofcoastal communities I report'also states that many of the poor villages and fishers, a study from South Sumatera (MREP, ! which receive IDT funds (a government program 1995) concludes that in all of the coastal I for poor villages) have residents which are fishers. communities studied, household income levels are I In addition, they conclude that the coastal villages above the poverty leveL They also report that i surveyed are poor due to the fact that they rely on coastal communities have a high level of I, fishing, have poor marketing systems, an absence occupational multiplicity dominated by farming and i of cold storage facilities and because they are fishing, which may be one ofthe factors accounting isolated. The report however, contains no for the high income levels. In addition, they Ii quantitative data backing these conclusions. In conclude that household income levels for fisher another study of 132 households surveyed in four crews are the lowest while levels for fishers who i coastal communities on the east coast ofMinahasa own good gear is the highest. A study of the i (pollnac et at., 1998), fisher households manifest a economic value of fisheries in Bunaken National lower level ofmaterial style oflife as indicated by Marine Park, North Sulawesi (NRMP, 1996) I items such as household structural features, concludes that fishers in the park are not poor and furnishings, and appliances. This suggests that fisher income levels are not low. Income levels for fishing households in these communities tend to be poorer (artisanal and commercial) and seaweed farming I than households where fishing is not one ofthe top households are reported to be two to three times three ranked productive activities. higher than income levels ofunskilled labor singie A study from Irian Jaya reports that fisher income households in , the major urban i incomes are low to medium (MREP, 1996b). No center of North Sulawesi. An earlier study of I reference is made to actual average fisher incomes fishing communities in Bunaken Park (Pontoh, i or what they are compared to for concluding their 1991) concludes that fishing incomes are from 62 incomes are low to medium. A to 75 percent lower than the national per capita I study finds that fishers inthe communities surveyed income. However, no information is provided on . i I have no income from sources other than fishing how non-coastal communities or non-fisher (MREP, 1996c). Ranges ofincomefor respondents households inNorth Sulawesi compare to this leveL \, in the coastal communities surveyed is reported, but None ofthe studies described above have made 2 Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1, 1999

detailed comparisons between coastal and non­ subsistence activities is an optimal adaptation for coastal communities, and only afewhave attempted coastal communities. However, it also makes the to compare fishers to other occupational groups. job ofsocial science research in these communities However, many of the reports make statements more challenging. about the poverty ofcoastal communities and fishers Rather than attempting to look at differences in with little orrio supporting evidence. The literature the income levels ofdifferent occupational groups, review indicates that such statements may be true another strategy is to examine differences in the level for one region orvillage but not for another. Hence, of development or well being ofvarious types of this previous research does not supporta generalized communities. Community-based coastal resources conclusion for Indonesia that coastal villages are management programs typically target the less developed and fishers are the poorest of the community as a whole rather than anyone poor. This can have important implications for occupational group. From a coastal resources coastal resources management, development, management and development planning policy planning, and policy programs. If based on perspective, understanding how coastal inaccurate assumptions or conclusions, these communities fare relative to other non-coastal programs may not achieve the expected results. communities can be an important consideration and Testing assumptions concerning income levels justification for targeting specific prograrns towards of individuals infishing as well as other occupational coastal communities. categories can be problematic. It is often difficult to obtain information on income levels or the METHODOLOGY . standard ofliving offishers as well as individuals in Minahasa and North SnIawesi: Information other rural occupations. In addition, there is often on the development status ofvillages (as defined by , : no clear cut distinction among occupations of government agencies and available from existing .. ,j individuals as being a full-time fisher or farmer. secondary data sources)withinNorth Sulawesi and Often, individuals and households in rural the Minahasa are analyzed to determine communities obtain income from several whether coastal communities are in general, less occupational sources and engage in a multitude of developed or poorer than their non-coastal productive activities. This is particularly evident in counterparts. Two types of Government of coastal communities of Minahasawhere households Indonesia (GOl) classifications for level ofvillage can engage in four or more productive activities, development are used. One is based on a system of which mayor may not be a combination of land classification of villages as IDT (Inpres Desa and sea-based activities (poUnac etat., 1997). It is Tertinggal) ornon-IDT (poor or non-poorvillages, also important to note that not all productive respectively) devised by BAPPENAS (National activities result in income, and it is typical for rural Development Planning Board), BPS (Central coastal households to engage in both income Statistics Bureau) and Depdagri (Department of generating and subsistence activities. By Home Affairs) to provide special development funds concentrating only onincome, wemay exclude many to "poor" villages (BPS, 1995). Criteria for important productive activities which contribute to classifYing villages as IDT or non-IDT includes the quality of life of coastal household members, opinions of local government officials as well as but which can be difficult to place a monetary value summary scores onapproximately 18 variables such on. Additionally, many fishers are also part-time as health, education, communications and farmers and visa versa, so clear cut distinctions transportation facilities, drinking water supply, between fishers and farmers as occupational electrification, occupation of residents, among categories can be meaningless. It can be argued others. The other system ofclassification devised that exploitation of multiple land and sea-based by the Ditjen BANGDA (Directorate General for coastal resources for income generating and Regional Development) and Kantor Pembangunan 3 A Comparison oflevel...... ( hal. 1-11) i : the three-level Swa Masyarakat Desa (Village Community classified as Swadaya, collapsed into a low-swa (swadaya Development Office) divides villages into three classification is and high-swa (swasembada) "Swa" (self-effort) categories: Swadaya (self help and swakarya) this analysis. Another possible community group), Swakarya (self developed classification for the low level of development of community group) and Swasembada (selfsufficient explanation for is that geographic isolation may community group) (PMD,Kepala Bidang coastal communities factor. Thi's hypothesis is tested Pengembangan Desa, personal communication, be a contributing coastal villages as either isolated or 1998). These three categories gradevillages as less­ by scoring all this with the village developed, middle-developed and more-developed non-isolated and comparing Isolated communities are respectively. This classification is based on six development categories. on offshore islands, or with poor criteria including public education and health; safety,. defined as those to and from the village. law and order; level ofvillage economy, community road infrastructure An analysis ofsumniary data participation, understanding ofthe basic principals South Sumatera: from South Sumatera ofthe stateideology ofPancasila, andthe awareness reported on 19 villages conducted to test differences ofIndonesia as a nation-state.. (MREP, 1995) is and farmers with respect A review of statistics (BPS, 1996) for the between percent fishers income levels. A Pearson development classifications are made for North to average household these data. Two ofthe villages Sulawesi Province to determine whether there are correlation is ran on (do not border on the relationships between .percent of coastal villages in this group are non-coastal marine fishers as an occupational within kabupaten withthe percent ofvillages in the coast) but have community. A scatter plot of various development classifications. A more group within the versus percent farmers for the 19 detailed analysis ofvillage level infonnation for the percent fishers is made to determine potential is then conducted to further villages in the study among the villages. The raw .examine the relationships. Information on IDT clustered relationships household income is unavailable (BPS, 1995), and"Swa" (BPS, 1993) classifications data on individual average annual household obtained for all coastal and non-coastal villages in for analysis. Therefore, clusterreported in the results are Minahasa is compared using statistical analyses. incomes for each averages, not average Several hypotheses are tested which might the averages of the village of all respondents surveyed in explain the low level of development of coastal household income are contained within the cluster, communities in Minahasa. Village level data the villages which of averages can be grossly obtained (BPS, 1993) from various Bureau of Since an average sample sizes in each subgroup Statistics documents are analyzed to see ifthere is misleading where orunknown, the raw data for a relationship between the various development (village) are different income of each village can be categories and percent offishers orfarmers, orfisher average household and farmer density in the coastal villages. Percent found in Table 6. fishers and percentfarmers (the largest occupational subcategories in rural Minahasan coastal villages) RESUJl,TS The number and percent of are calculated by dividing the number ofindividuals North Sulawesi: in North Sulawesi for Regencies identified as employed in each category bythe total coastal villages which are predominantly rural village population. Fisher density and farmer density (Kabupaten) units, versus urban (Kotamadya) are determined for each coastal village by dividing administrative units are provided in Table 1. The I the number ofindividuals identified as employed in . administrative of coastal versus non-coastal this category bythe total·land area ofthe village. A overall percentage urban and rural administrations are the t-test is used to examine differences ofthe means villages for they exhibit a wide range of of these variables with the IDT and Swa same. However, I ofvillages variation from one administration to the other. classifications. Due to the low frequency 4 I Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1. 1999

Table 1: Number and percent of coastal and non-coastal villages in North Sulawesi

Source: Statistik Potens; Des. se-Sulawes; Utara, 1996

Table 2: A comparison of percent lOT and percent-coastal villages in North Sulawesi

Source: Statistik Potens; Desa s&Sulawesi utara, 1996

5 -~~._-_._-~.

A Comparison oflevel : ( hal. 1-11)

percent coastal Table 3: A comparison of percent "Swa" category villages and villages in North Sulawesi

"

i '."

f·' I

Source: Statistik Potensi Desa se-Sulawesi Utara, 1996 all villages are classified as one of the three uswa~ categories, so percents I Note: Not do not always sum to 100%.

Table 4: Comparison of fisher and farmer population density and percent of total population across IDT and non-IDT coastal villages in North Sulawesi

Source: Analysis Slatislik P. Besi Desase-Sulawesi Utafa 1996

percent Table 5: Comparison of fisher and farmer population density and of total population across low-swa and high-swa coastal villages in North Sulawesi

Source: Analysis Statistik P.. Besi Desa se-Sulawesi Utara 1996

6 I:I' \ .j '[ Pesisir & Lautan i Volume 2, No.1, 1999 Table 6: Average annual household income in 19 villages I I in South Sumatera in 1994 - 1995. I

\ '

j ,::1

l~l§~fYt;k~Y'> .;:,-':-~~' ""'~r""" ',36 ,,' ;:~~::~::'.,'

';;~[?~f49 " 34 '2,314,911 ",',' ':i '34"',,',>" "j '4,475,580

, ;);'JcL::i;f ',' r~3 ""46 2,514;678 ' " ,,65 ,'_ 00' 35 .9,081,625 }a:{ >, :-Qi):.,. ",19,: -- '<:3;876;003- -" ' ,', r> ~5 -'e :0:0' 15 6,403,941 ":"88 ",.,",00,'$947714

;, "S"":'>'-"':3"<': ,," ";':',""'."""""":""".""',,8,','.9',.,',':',,_,',_, , 01,'",,:, '.'" '09" ',: ',", 8'419'021 '::~·~J~~~~;i;~~~;': :i· ,,-- 91 " at,' _,,8:956:~ Source: MREP, 1995.

Slightly more than one third ofall villages in North (Swasembada) villirges than rural administrations. Sulawesi are coastal. The percentage of coastal The majority ofurban administration villages also ii and IDT villages in the various administrations is fall into the more-developed category. The rural I compared inTable 2. Therural administrations have administrations tend to have slightly more less­ a higher percentage of IDT villages than urban developed (Swadaya) villages than urban administrations. WIthin rural administrations, those administrations. The rural administrations have with a higher percentage of coastal communities substantially more middle-developed (Swakarya) also have a higher percentage of IDTvillages. The and substantially less more-developed urban administrations show no such distinction. (Swasembada) villages. The relationship between A comparison ofpercent coastal and percent of percent coastaland percent "Swa" categories is less categories of"Swa" villages in North Sulawesi is distinct for rural administrations and no relationship presented in Table 3. Urban administrations tend is evident for urban administrations. All urban to have a higher percentage of more-develqped administrations have a higher percentage of 7 ------,,---.--_._---_._--...._.. _-_._------

A Comparison ofleveL. (hal. 1-11) , I; Swasembada villages than the rural administrations. the coastal villages has impeded their development. Minahasa has the lowest percentage ofcoastal Results of the analysis testing the hypotheses and IDT villages among the Kabupaten that percent fisher and farmer, and fisher and farmer administrations. In addition, Minahasa has the density may be related to level ofdevelopment are highest percentage of Swasembada and lowest presented in Tables 4 and 5. Tables 4 & 5 indicate percentage of Swadaya villages for Kabupaten that there is no difference in fisher density or percent administrations. The lOT and "Swa" classifications fishermen in the different development classifications suggest that Minahasa is one ofthe more developed ofcoastal villages. The means in the tables are not Kabupatens within the Province ofNorth Sulawesi. to be considered as representing overall mean fisher Minahasa has a similar percentage of IDT villages density or mean percent fisher since the population (21.9 percent) as the average for Kotamadya ofthe included villages varies. There is no significant

administrations (20.4 percent). However, the "Swa" difference in percent farmers in lOT and non-IDT • ,,,' classifications rank it lower than the urban coastal villages. However, there is a difference in ········.·.·'·.···/·· administrations, but the highest among the rural percent farmer in low-swa (swadaya andswakarya) 1r .'. Kabupatens. and high-swa (swasembada) coastal villages. The relationship between percentage ofcoastal Coastal villages with a higher percent of farmers I villages with lOT and Swa classifications aggregated tend to be classified as low-swa. While this is at the Kabupaten level suggests that there may be a statistically significant, the actual difference is quite I relationship between coastal villages and the Swa small (.296 versus .234) suggesting it may not be a l and lOT classifications. Caution is needed in useful factor in explaining diJferences in level of attempting to draw parallels to urban (Kotamadya) village development, particularly considering there administrations where this relationship does not was no significant difference for this variable in the I.~ appear to hold. lOT classifications. ~,. A more detailed analysis ofvillage level data in One potential explanation for this difference may . the Minahasa Regency may provide additional be that arable land in coastal communities is less information concerning the relationship between available or less fertile, or irrigation and water I coastal residence and level ofdevelopment. Out of resources are not as well developed, resulting in I~. a total of495 villages in Minahasa, III are classified lower productivity and potential income. Therefore, as coastal. (BPS, 1993). Comparing coastal and coastal communities with more farmers may tend I

inland villages in Minahasa on the basis of IDT to be poorer for this reason. Nevertheless, farmer I~?! classification indicates that 47 percent ofthe coastal density is not significantly different in the different villages are classified as lOT in contrast to only 15 development classifications of coastal villages. percent of the inland villages. This difference is Since not all land within a community is arable, statistically significant (X 2 = 51.3 6, df = 2, phi = fa.nTIer density (number offarmers per unit oftotal 0.32, P< 0.001). Similarly, when comparing coastal village land area) may not be a good factor for and inland villages on the basis of the "swa" explaining the level ofdevelopment orpoverty status categories, 75 percent ofthe inland are classified as ofcoastal communities. Calculating farmer density swasembada (the highest level) in contrast to only using total arable land rather than total land may be 45 percent ofthe coastal (X 2 = 35.68, df= 2, phi a better variable to use in future analyses of this = 0.27, P < 0.001). These results indicate that nature. coastal villages tend to have more lOT classified Since fisher percent and fisher density does not villages and more villages classified into lower seem to be a significant factor, other factors may be "Swa" categories. Therefore, coastal communities more important in explaining the difference in the in Minahasa are more likely to be poorer or less level ofdevelopment ofcoastal communities. When developed than their non-coastal counterparts. comparing isolation with IDT classifications, only These findings suggestthat some characteristic of 42 percent ofnon-IDT coastal villages are isolated 8 Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1, 1999

. whereas 80 percent of IDT coastal villages are A scatter plot ofpercent fishers versus percent isolated (X2 = 16.475, df= 1, phi = 0.387, P < farmers for the 19 villages in the study is presented 0.001). This relationship is similar for Swa in Figure L The villages are clustered into four ., classifications where only 34 percent of categories representing different occupational Swasembada (high-swa) coastal villages are isolated groups. The A cluster can be characterized as while 82 percent ofSwadaya and Swakarya (low­ business and service dominated villages with next swa) coastal villages are isolated (X 2 = 25.819, df to the highest average annual household incomes = 1, phi = 0.484, P < 0.001). Hence, geographic (see Table 6). The B cluster are farmer dominated isolation appears to playa role in the development villages with next to the lowest average annual II ofcoastal villages. household incomes. In two-thirds ofthe cluster C i South Sumatera: Percent fishers in the South villages, fishers outnumberfanners, but in one-third :~l Sumatera communities is positively correlated (r = ofthevillages, fishers equals farmers. These villages '. [. 0.568, P < .02) with average household income, and have the lowest average annual household incomes. percent farmers in the community is negatively The cluster D villages are fisher dominated non­ "i correlated (r = -0.543, P < .02) with average farming villages withthe highest average household .: household income. Hence, coastal communities incomes. Average household incomes of fisher with higher percentages of fishers tend to have dominated villages is equal to orgreaterthanfarmer I higher average household incomes, and coastal dominated villages and more on par with the communities with higher percentages of farmers business and service dominated villages. In these ! !i.. J tend to have lower average household incomes. In South Sumatera villages, the presence of fishers l·J ' this case, communities with a high percentage of tends to increase average household incomes in the I', , 1• j t fishers on average are not the poorest ofthe po'or, community and places them as some ofthe better iii I ii and the presence oflarge numbers offishers tends offcommunities. This is contrast to the results of to increase average household incomes in those the village analysis in Minahasa where percent I ': villages. fishers is not related to the level of village .,i ,;­ development, and the four east coast villages analyzed (Pollnac et ai., 1998), where fisher households tend to have lower levels of material style of life items than farming households. The Bunaken Marine Park study (NRMP, 1996), however, produced similar results to the South Sumatera analysis, concluding that fishers are not poor.

DISCUSSION North Sulawesi, and Minahasa: In the Minahasa Regency of North Sulawesi, coastal communities tend to be less developed or poorer than non-coastal villages. This relationship is based on the definition and criteria ofthe Government of Indonesia IDT and "Swa" development classifications. While coastal .villages in Minahasa Data Source: MREP. 1995. tend to be poorer than non-coastal villages, not all Figure 1: Scatter plot of percent fishers and . farmers for 19 Villages in coastal villages are poorer than their non-coastal South Sumatera 1994 - 1995 neighbors. This is a statistical relationship, and one must remember that more than one-halfthe coastal 9 -~-----~-----_.__.._-_..--_....._.. _.

A Comparison ofleveL (hal.1-11)

villages in :M:inahasa are non-IDT. Furthermore, development programs specifically for coastal this information does not provide us with any direct villages. indication of whether fishers as an occupational Since rural coastal communities are heavily group are poorerthan other occupational categories. dependent on the coastal resource base for their The reasons why coastal communities in livelihood, community-based coastal resources :M:inahasa tend to be less developed are not fully management initiatives can be an appropriate understood. Itmay be du~ to ecological differences response to address the lesser developed state of of coastal communities (agricultural soils may be coastal villages in Minahasa. Such programs poorer, freshwater supply less available), or that however need to view coastal communities as infrastructure (for marketing marine or agricultural unique geographic areas where the produptive produce) is less developed in comparison with their activities of many coastal residents are dependent nop-coastal neighbors. There is no indication that on both land and sea-based resources. Hence an percent fishers in a community or the number of integrated approach to their development is needed fishers per unit area ofvillage land is related to level which considers issues concerning the development of development. The percentage oHarmers in the and management of coastal agriculture, fisheries, community may have some influence, but this freshwater resources and transportation relationship is weak and needs further investigation. infrastmcture, among other factors. Geographic isolation, however, is arelatively strong There is no clear indication that fishers are the predictor of coastal community development as poorest of the poor in Minahasa. There are defined here. This suggests that improvements in examples in North Sulawesi where fishers are better transportation infrastructure can be an important offthan other occupational groups, whereas in other strategy to foster the development of coastal cases they tend to be poorer. Such variation is also communities. seen among other provinces in Indonesia including While we have no data to support this assertion, South Sulawesi and South Sumatera. another potential reason why coastal communities South Sumatera: In the case of South tend to be less developed in :M:inahasa may be that Sumatera, fisher dominated communities tend to be government development programs have not" better off or equal to farmer dominated targeted coastal communities as much as perhaps communities. Using income as the criteria for level they should. This suggests that further research is of development indicates that fisher dominate~ necessary. In addition, government programs communities in the South Suinatera are not the designed for all communities regardless of poorest ofthe poor. Some fishers (crew) are among geographic location may not be appropriate for the poorest ofthe poor, but others (gear o~ers) coastal communities and therefore may have less of clearly can be considered as among the better off an impact. Another explanation may be that the It is possible however, that the income of other Swa and IDT classifications tend to overemphasize occupational groups in the communities studied is factors such as physical facilities (schools, healt,h so high that it is their income, not the fishers, that centers, etc.). This might tend to magnify influence the high average household income. The infrastructure differences between communities IDT and Swa village development classifications rely rather than accurately reflect other measures of on factors other than income and it is not known quality of life (infant mortality or income) which how the South Sumatera communities fare with are not used in the IDT and Swa classifications. respect to these classifications, or whether income More research is needed to better understand the is correlated to them. Further research in this area tendency ofcoastal communities in :M:inahasa to be would be useful. lesser developed. Regardless of the reasons, the General Conclusions: Caution must be used fact that coastal communities tend to be poorer in in making generalized statements about fishers being Minahasa provides justification for designing poor without supporting empirical evidence for the 10 .. Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1, 1999

locality concerned. The tendency of coastal MREP. 1996c. Studi sosial ekonomi dan Iingkungan di communities to be poorer in some localities is not kawasan pesisir dan laut (MCMA) Majene - Ujung Pandang, Sulawesi Selatan. PSLH Universitas necessarily related to the presence offishers "'ithin Hasanuddin dan Digen Pembangunan Daerah. 201p. the coastal communities. This may be surprising to some policy makers who often view the most MSE. 1996. Indonesia's MarineEnvironment: Asummary of policies, strategies, actions and issues. Ministry of obvious difference between coastal and non-coastal State for Environment, . 86p. communities as the presence of a fisheries sector. NRIvlP. 1996. Economic value of fisheries to the residents This may lead to the mistaken judgement that the ofBunaken National Marine Park. Natural Resources poor condition of the community is related to Management Project Report No. 62. BAPPENAS­ underdevelopment ofthe fisheries sector or that all Ministry of Forestry, assistedby USAID. Associates in fishing communities must be poor. Rural Development for Office of Rural and The diversity of the level of development Environmental Management, USAID - Jakarta. 76p. between coastal and non-coastal communities, as PMD. 1995. Kantor Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa well as within coastal communities is great. Such (Village Community Development Office), Sulawesi diversity is also evident in the level ofwell being Utara. · ;.. :: PMD, Kepala BidangPengembanganDesa. 1998. Personal ! between and within occupational groups. i Development policies and management programs conununication, , Kantor Pengembangan Masyarakat 'j Desa, Manado. I which are applied across communities and I I ': occupational groups without accounting for such Pollnac, RB., C. Rotinsulu, B.R Cra"ford, P. Kussoy, and A Siahainenia. 1998. An examinationand comparison j i differences are thus unlikely to succeed. Greater of Rumbia and Minanga: Control villages for the ! consideration therefore should be given to I Coastal Resources Management Project Sites at j decentralized and flexible coastal management Bentenan and Tumbak. Coastal Resources Center, policies and programs for Indonesia whichtake into University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA account the diversity ofvillage development levels 23p. and the diversity in the well being ofvarious coastal PoUnac, RB., F. Sondita, B. Crawford, E. Mangoro, C. occupational groups. Rotinsulu, A Siahainenia. 1997. Baseline assessment ofsocioeconomic aspects ofresource use in the coastal zone of Bentenan and Tumbak. Coastal Resources REFERENCES Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, BPS. 1993. Statistik Potensi Desa Tahun 1993. Biro Pusat USA 79p. Statistik, Sulawesi Utara. Pontoh, O. 1991. Keadaan sosial ekonomi masyarakat BPS. 1995. Penentuan Desa Tertinggal 1994. Penjelasan nelayan dan konservasi sumberda}-a perairan di Taman Singkat, 1995. Biro Pusat Statistik, Jakarta. Nasional LantBunakendansekitarnya, SulawesiUtara. BPS. 1996. StatistikPotensi Desa se-Sulawesi Utara. 19%. FakultasPerikananUNSRATManado, World Wide Fund Biro Pusat Statistik. Sulawesi Utara. for Nature, Pelestarian Hutan dan Perlindungan Alam, USAlD-NRMP. 195p. MREP. 1995. Studi sosial ekonomi dan lingkungan di kawasan pesisir dan laut Selat Bangka, Sumatera Selatan. PPLH Universitas Sriwijaya dan Ditjen Pembangunan Daerah. 125 p. MREP. 1996a. Studi sosial ekonomi dan lingkungan di kawasan pesisir laut (MCMA) Manado Karakelang Sulawesi Utara. PSLH Universitas dan Digen Pembangunan Daerah. 118 p. MREP. 1996b. Studi sosialekonomi, budaya danIingkungan Proyek MREP Kawasan MCMA Biak Numfor - Irian Jaya. PSL Universitas Pattimura dan Ditjen Pembangunan Daerah. lIlp.

11