A COMPARISON of LEVEL of Developmel'i't AMONG COASTAL and NON-COASTAL COMMUNITIES in NORTH SULAWESI and SOUTH SUMATERA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pesisir & Lautan Volume 2, No.1, 1999 A COMPARISON OF LEVEL OF DEVELOPMEl'I'T AMONG COASTAL AND NON-COASTAL COMMUNITIES IN NORTH SULAWESI AND SOUTH SUMATERA BRIAN R. CRAWFORD PRICIELLA KUSSOY Coastal Resources Management Project -Indonesia 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 North Sulawesi 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 Manado, 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 South Sulawesi 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