Mapping the Effects of Blast and Chemical Fishing in the Sabalana Archipelago, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, 1991-2006

Director of Thesis: Gene Ammarell The overall purpose of this project was to demonstrate the usefulness and cost effectiveness of Landsat imagery in mapping reef damage resulting from th

South Sulawesi, Indonesia 1991-2006

A thesis presented to the faculty of the Center for International Studies of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Lauri A Hlavacs August 2008

This thesis titled Mapping the Effects of Blast and Chemical Fishing in the Sabalana Archipelago,

South Sulawesi, Indonesia, 1991-2006

by LAURI A HLAVACS

has been approved for the Center for International Studies by

Gene Ammarell Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology

Gene Ammarell Director, Southeast Asian Studies

Daniel Weiner Executive Director, Center for International Studies

ABSTRACT HLAVACS, LAURI A., M.A., August 2008, Southeast Asian Studies

Mapping the Effects of Blast and Chemical Fishing in the Sabalana Archipelago, South

Sulawesi, Indonesia, 1991-2006 (151 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Gene Ammarell

The overall purpose of this project was to demonstrate the usefulness and cost

effectiveness of Landsat imagery in mapping reef damage resulting from the use of two

destructive fishing practices, blast and chemical fishing As a side benefit, the protocol

can be used in educational settings where scientists as well as high school and university

students can map these unsustainable activities over large areas

The living coral reefs of eastern Indonesia are the most diverse in the world, and

they are also among the most threatened by human activity The long illegal destructive

fishing practices of chemical and blast fishing have been so widely used that many of the

reefs have been damaged to the point of habitat-wide collapse This project focuses on

the formerly highly productive reefs surrounding a small chain of islands in the Sabalana

Archipelago, a group of islands located roughly half the distance between the main

Indonesian islands of Sulawesi and Sumbawa

Habitat-scale change was mapped in four change images between 1991 and 2006

using the increase in relative brightness as the habitat shifted from coral-dominated to

algae-dominated and then to dead coral rubble The output images illustrated how the

damage spread throughout the area as fishermen using destructive fishing practices

progressively exhausted the resources The destructive fishing effects were differentiated

from larger bleaching events in the characteristic that they resulted in a patchy increase in

brightness over the entire reef Using this image differencing method, Landsat TM and

ETM+ scanners were shown to be useful and extremely cost effective in mapping the

effects of blast and chemical fishing in the study site

Approved: _

Gene Ammarell Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have been integral in making this project possible First, I would

like to thank the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Ohio University and to the

COTIM program in Manado that provided partial funding for the project Thank you to

the Center for Coral Reef Studies at Hasanuddin University for allowing me to rent the

research equipment I would like to thank my thesis committee for all their advice in the

research and writing: Gene Ammarell and James K Lein from Ohio University and M

Iqbal Djawad from Hasanuddin University in Indonesia Many thanks to Jamaluddin

Jompa of Hasanuddin University and David Palandro of the University of South Florida

who provided additional input A special thank you to Edow Maddusila and Gusti

Hardtiny Kemuning from Hasanuddin University who assisted with the data collection in

the field and interpreting Thank you to Pak Dula and Pak Hamid, the captains of our

intrepid jolor-turned-dive boat and to the family of Pak Supriady for their hospitality and

who continue to run the research station on Balobaloang Island Thank you to my

professors and to my friends who helped me through the hard times, especially

Pichayalak Pichayakul (Pang), Elizabeth Collins, Joan Kraynanski, Mark and Kanokwan

(Mai) Mason, Farid Muttaqin, Sandra Nahdar, and Muhammad Chozin And last but not

least a huge thank you to my family, especially to my parents who patiently supported me

through many setbacks and always believed in me Without you all, this project would

not have been possible

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5

LIST OF TABLES 9

LIST OF FIGURES 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 12

CHAPTER 2 DESTRUCTIVE FISHING: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES 14

2.1 Motivations: Why do Fishermen Use Destructive Fishing Practices? 19

2.2 Chemical Fishing 27

2.3 Blast Fishing 31

2.4 Ecological Effects of Destructive Fishing Practices 36

2.5 Economic Effects of Destructive Fishing Practices 40

2.6 Social Effects of Destructive Fishing Practices 42

CHAPTER 3 BALOBALOANG ISLAND: A VICTIM OF DESTRUCTIVE FISHING 44

3.1 Academic Work on the Island 50

3.2 Getting There 54

3.3 The Island and the People 56

CHAPTER 4 MARINE APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING IN MONITORING REEF DAMAGE FROM BLAST AND CHEMCIAL FISHING 66

4.1 Obstacles to Current Research 67

Problems with Current Coral Reef Status Estimates 67

Problems with Reef Status Monitoring 71

Real and Perceived Cost Effectiveness of Satellite Imagery 72

The Advantage of the Landsat Archive 75

4.2 Problems Specific to Remote Sensing in Marine Environments 76

Spatial Resolution Issues 77

Atmospheric and Water Column Attenuation 78

4.3 Using Landsat to Assist in Coral Reef Management Efforts 79

CHAPTER 5 VISUALIZING THE PROBLEM OF DESTRUCTIVE FISHING IN THE SABALANA ARCHIPELAGO 83

5.1 Digital Change Detection 84

Scale of Investigation of a Highly Complex System 84

Detecting Coral Death from Space 87

5.2 Project Objectives 90

5.3 Methods 92

Image Processing Prior to Field Research 93

Field Data Collection 96

Image Selection 100

Image Differencing 101

Registration 102

Atmospheric and Water Column Corrections 105

Change Detection via Image Differencing of the Blue Band 1 106

End User Image Production 107

5.4 Results and Discussion 110

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 113

6.2 Challenges and Other Things to Take into Account 117

6.3 Suggestions for Future Work 120

6.4 Follow the Supply Chain 123

6.5 Take Advantage of the Free Landsat Archive 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY 125

APPENDIX A RAW DATA USED IN CHAPTER 5 140

Satellite Imagery Profiles 140

Locations of GPS Control Points to Register Images 145

APPENDIX B RAW TRANSECT DATA 146

APPENDIX C REEF BALL INFORMATION 151

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 5.1: Comparison of Landsat TM and ETM+ Scanners 86

Table 5.2: Specifications of Imagery Chosen 100

Table 5.3: Pixel Values for Change Images 107

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1: Patterns of diversity in reef-building scleractinian corals 15

Figure 2.2a: An outcropping of live coral within a large area of rubble 34

Figure 2.2b: Another photo of the same “killing fields” of rubble 34

Figure 3.1: Depth chart of the Sabalana Archipelago 46

Figure 3.2a: Building a lambo on Balobaloang Island, June 2006 49

Figure 3.2b: The lambo we traveled on to the island 49

Figure 3.2c: A smaller fishing boat (jolor) at low tide 49

Figure 3.3: Balobaloang Island is sighted 55

Figure 3.4a: Traditional Bugis style house on Balobaloang Island 58

Figure 3.4b: Modern style house on Balobaloang Island 58

Figure 3.5a: Balobaloang mosque 62

Figure 3.5b: Balobaloang elementary school 62

Figure 3.5a: People walking in the intertidal zone at sunset 65

Figure 3.6b: People walking in the intertidal zone at sunset 65

Figure 3.6c: A sea cucumber (teripang) caught in a tide pool 65

Figure 3.6d: A sea cucumber (teripang) caught in a tide pool 65

Figure 3.6e: A sea urchin caught in a tide pool 65

Figure 3.6f: A puffer fish caught in a tide pool 65

Figure 4.1: Southeast Asian reefs threatened by destructive fishing 70

Figure 4.2: Location of the study area, Landsat bands 3,2,1 in RGB 82

Figure 5.1: Reflectance of live vs dead coral 90

Figure 5.2a: Isodata classified image of the Sabalana Archipelago 95

Figure 5.2b: Subset of potential dive sites 95

Figure 5.2c: The primary field research map 95

Figure 5.3a: Transect locations of observations, natural color, bands 3,2,1 in RGB 98

Figure 5.3b: Transect locations of observations, Isodata classified image 99

Figure 5.4: Change detection map of reef brightness, 1991-2006 109

Figure 6.1: Outline of reef zonation 114

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Use of the two destructive fishing practices of blast and chemical fishing has led

to extreme reef damage in the most biologically diverse coral reefs in the world located in

eastern Indonesia Many areas of the world have developed strategies to protect their

reefs, including national marine parks and marine protected areas These areas are

frequently so large vast that on site monitoring the effects of blast and chemical fishing is

logistically so difficult that it is nearly impossible With such large areas to monitor,

satellite imagery is the most suitable strategy to detect the effects of these activities

Newer satellites that produce imagery with high spectral and spatial resolution are very

expensive, whereas both the Thematic Mapper (TM) scanner aboard the Landsat 5

satellite and the Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) scanner aboard the Landsat 7

satellite produce imagery that is inexpensive and effective for mapping reef loss

To demonstrate the usefulness of Landsat’s TM and ETM+ scanners in mapping

reef loss resulting from blast and chemical fishing, this project used five images from

1991, 1992, 1995, 1999, and 2006 in an image differencing change detection technique

Change images were produced between each of the images and combined in one map

which showed reef loss resulting from blast and chemical fishing Here change was

defined as an increase in brightness between the years which resulted from the death of

symbiotic zooxanthellae (algae) that lives within the corals and gives color to the

animals The death of the corals that results specifically from blast and chemical fishing

is mapped as patchy increases in brightness, rather than broad increases in brightness as

would be seen in large bleaching events as with temperature increases

For the description of the data collection and analysis, the reader should turn

directly to Chapter 5 Chapters 2 to 4 are devoted to providing an in-depth background on

the use of the two destructive fishing practices, the study site, and marine remote sensing

Chapter 2 focuses on the motivations of the fishermen for using destructive fishing

practices in general and the ecological, economic, and social consequences of these

activities It is important to note that destructive fishing has wide ranging effects and does

not only impact the reefs Chapter 3 gives an overview of the study site and other

academic work done by researchers from Ohio University in Athens, Ohio and

Hasanuddin University in Makassar, Indonesia In Chapter 4, the problems with current

reef status estimates and monitoring are covered as well as the usefulness of Landsat in

more accurately mapping coral reefs The final chapter, Chapter 6, gives some

recommendations for future research specific to the research site as well as for Indonesia

in general The relevant literature is reviewed throughout the introductory chapters,

Chapters 2 through 5, as the various topics are discussed

CHAPTER 2 DESTRUCTIVE FISHING: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

Reefs embody the mixture of the minute and grand, ephemeral and permanent, simple and complex that we associate with the natural systems of this planet

(Hatcher, 1997)

Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems, the underwater analogues to

their terrestrial counterparts, the rainforests Because the efficiency of coral reefs is based

on “recycling of nutrients, [the] net production is actually very low” making them

“poorly suited to large-scale extractive exploitation” (Roberts, 1995) Tropical fish

experience much higher mortality rates than those in temperate regions Specialist fish

adapted to specific niches within the reef abundant in the tropics are smaller, requiring

more food, than their temperate counterparts (Pauly, 1994, p 16-19) The coral reef is an

extremely fragile habitat that is too often taken for granted by humans

Hallock (1997, p.13) described the term reef as, to seafarers, any “submerged

hazard to navigation” which can include those produced by natural (biological and

geological) processes or artificial processes Reefs can exist anywhere around the world,

but coral reefs are restricted to within roughly 30 degrees of the equator and are made of

a “rigid skeletal structure in which stony corals are major framework constituents.”

Within this paper, the reefs in question are described in as much detail as possible (e.g

living coral reefs, dead coral reefs, etc)

In the past thirty years there has been much discussion about human activities

impacting the health of these communities Destructive fishing practices (DFPs) defined

by Pet-Soede and Erdmann (1998) include any activity that “results in direct damage to

either the fished habitat or the primary habitat-structuring organisms in the fished habitat

(e.g [reef building] scleractinian corals in a coral reef fishery)”; such activities include

chemical and blast fishing, anchor damage, trawl fishing, fishing with fine mesh gill nets,

and “weighted scare lines” (Roberts, 1995) The research within this paper will focus on

the first two methods as those are most relevant to the specific coral reef habitat in the

study site, whereas trawling is more applicable to deep water fishing and not used much

in Indonesia The reefs around Southeast Asia, and in particular the eastern Indonesian

archipelago, are perhaps the most important areas for DFP research because they have not

only the greatest diversity (an area known as the Coral Triangle) but also the most

destructive of human activities (the darkest purple are in Figure 2.1)

Figure 2.1: Patterns of diversity in reef-building scleractinian corals; the study site is in

the area of highest diversity in the world (adapted from Burke et al., 2002, p 14.)

The seas of eastern Indonesia, east of Bali and Borneo (the most eastern islands

before the Wallace Line), are about 20% more diverse than those in the Java Sea in

general, and rare species are much more prevalent Endemic coral species were found to

make up 25% of the total pool of species sampled However the variability has dropped,

with now 25% fewer coral genera when compared to those of 1980, and human factors

were suggested to be the reason for the loss (Edinger et al., 2000) The illegal destructive

fishing practices in the region endanger 56% of the region’s reefs (Burke et al., 2002, p

29), and chemical and blast fishing are more common in parts of eastern Indonesia

(Edinger et al., 2000) These losses are estimated to add to the total loss of the world’s

coral reefs of about 60% by 2030 (Wilkinson, 2000, cited in Spurgeon, 2002)

The coral reef is the home for a wide variety of fish, crustaceans, non-vertebrates,

sea turtles and many other creatures and “are essentially massive deposits of calcium

carbonate that have been produced by corals” (White, 1987, p 3) Contrary to

misperceptions, corals are not plants A coral formation is a colony of genetically

identical organisms living together This organism, referred to as a coral polyp, is related

to jellyfish and can even be thought of as an “upside down” jellyfish, with the stinging

tentacles facing out toward the ocean while searching for food

What makes the scleractinian (hard, reef-building) corals especially interesting is

that as much as ninety percent of the food it consumes is made from symbiotic

photosynthetic algae called zooxanthellae living within the polyp So even though the

polyp can consume its food, a large portion is made within (Tomascik et al., 1997, p

251) In return, the polyp provides the algae with carbon dioxideas a byproduct of its

respiration This mutually beneficial relationship is the basis for study within this paper;

for without the algae, the polyp cannot live and vice versa The algae and polyps can be

killed by chemical and blast fishing methods, and in shifting from live to dead, a spectral

brightening occurs which can be detected by satellite imagery (This will be explored

more fully in the data analysis in Chapter 5.) Scleractinian corals are the creatures that

secrete the calcium carbonate to build up the reefs over time and have a distinctive color

when living

Anthropogenic (human) activities which cause the death of the zooxanthellae such

as pollution or sedimentation (blocking out the sunlight needed for photosynthesis) are

well known in urban areas (Edinger et al., 1998) However in communities which rely on

the reef ecosystem for their food, there are even more destructive activities killing the

coral during the fishing activities themselves, blast and chemical fishing

To offset such destructive fishing practices and in planning for future

rehabilitation, researchers have pointed to the need for increased monitoring efforts (Tun

et al., 2004) Only a small portion of reefs are protected by marine protected areas

(MPAs), areas where a management group (either governmental, non-governmental, or

co-managed by both) oversee regulation of human activities within the area for the

purposes of conservation and protection of the natural resources through enforcement of

set local policies MPAs currently cover “18.7% of the world’s coral reef habitats.”

Though over 40 new MPAs have been created each year over the past 10 years, few are

well managed and little enforcement is present Only 88 of 980 MPAs (covering 1.6% of

reefs worldwide) are well managed so as to prevent poaching, and “management

performance is particularly low in areas of high coral diversity such as the

Indo-Pacific and Caribbean.” Harvesting outside the boundaries of the MPAs with limitations

on fishing, called “no take zones”, can still have a negative effect Overfishing, pollution,

and sedimentation adjacent to the MPAs can all affect fish populations within the

protected areas (Mora et al., 2006)

In the past, laws against illegal destructive fishing practices in Indonesia were

enforced with the backing of the military under the 40-year Soeharto rule In the 1960s,

trawling was banned after cutting into catches of traditional fishermen The small-scale

fishermen retaliated against the trawlers, the press became involved, and the government

intervened, limiting trawling grounds along with permit constraints When the trawlers

ignored the laws by fishing at night, Soeharto banned them all-out and they disappeared

as he called on his navy to enforce his ruling This “act of intervention” was not

unwelcome by the fishing communities (Berrill, 1997, p 60-61) Though trawling is not

covered in this study nor were the laws applied in the area, the strong Indonesian

government enforcement of maritime laws in the past stands in stark contrast with the lax

enforcement of the small scale fishermen using DFPs With the rise of democratization in

the past decade and weakening of the military, laws protecting fisheries are flaunted by

small scale fishermen who are rarely prosecuted According to one resident of

Balobaloang Island (personal communication), after Soeharto, conflict over territory and

jurisdiction emerged between the three law enforcement organizations, the water police

(POLAIR), the local police (POLRI) and the navy, leading to difficulties enforcing the

DFP laws

Because of the difficulty enforcing the laws, MPA managers and other

organizations interested in protecting the fisheries must be able to monitor the health of

large scale fisheries The damage created by DFPs need to be monitored both inside and

outside MPAs Such monitoring at large habitat-scale levels are most appropriate for

satellite imagery techniques, which is the focus of this paper

2.1 Motivations: Why do Fishermen Use Destructive Fishing Practices?

A number of theories have been put forth by the academic community to explain

the reasons why fishermen in Southeast Asia use methods that are destructive to the very

resources they rely on for their livelihoods Many of these theories complement each

other and suggest a variety of factors that together provide an explanation of why

fishermen use destructive fishing practices I argue that no one factor is sufficient unto

itself, but each is a small piece in a comprehensive explanation for the motivation of DFP

use

Extreme ecosystem-wide overfishing in the Philippines has been described by

scientists working for the International Center for Living and Aquatic Resources

Management (ICLARM) as Malthusian overfishing, the “logical result of declining catch

per effort (and hence income)” (Pauly et al., 1989) In developing countries fishermen are

among the poorest in the economy and have few possibilities for alternative employment

Sons enter the profession of their fathers and, together young migrants from farming

areas, respond to increasing pressure to feed a population growing unchecked Both

subsistence and commercial fishing operations effectively destroy the entire ecosystem in

trying to catch more fish with progressively fewer fish available The fishermen are

subsidized by income from the more mobile daughters who move to work in factories in

cities and then send a portion of their incomes to their brothers and fathers who are

fishermen in coastal communities; this subsidization keeps the fishermen working the

seas, where the income would not normally be able to support them, and they continue

fishing the depleting fish stocks (Pauly, 2008)

When faced by declining fish stocks, traditional fishermen who use line and hook

methods are forced to decide to either change profession (if there are any alternatives) or

to switch to destructive fishing techniques if they hope to make a profit from their

catches In the study site of Balobaloang Island, there are, in fact, alternatives to fishing

such as inter-island trade and coconut silviculture Those outsiders who choose to fish

using DFPs cause a shift to smaller fish populations, lower fishery productivity, and

eventually total collapse; scholars point to the increase in use of DFPs as the reason for

the ecosystem collapse (Pauly et al., 1989) The intention in coining the phrase

“Malthusian overfishing” was not to directly link population growth with overfishing;

rather, it was intended to emphasize the point that coastal communities should not be

areas of last resort for those who cannot find employment elsewhere and are not areas

that can produce an increasing amount of goods and services (Pauly, 1994, p 117)

Malthusian overfishing typically involves “growth, recruitment and ecosystem

overfishing as well as a variety of destructive fishing methods” (McManus, 1997)

Growth overfishing is where “fish are caught before they [have] ‘had a chance to grow’”

and is common throughout Southeast Asia; recruitment overfishing is where the numbers

of adult fish are diminished by environmental degradation or overfishing so as to leave

few reproductive individuals to replace the population; and ecosystem overfishing is

where the entire ecosystem is altered and previously abundant populations are not

replaced (Pauly et al., 1989; Pauly, 1994, p 91-93)

A classic example of recruitment overfishing can be seen in the populations of

grouper (genus Epinephelus of the family Serranidae; Indonesian: ikan kerapu) within the

Coral Triangle Grouper tend to “spawn in large aggregations at traditional sites during

short time periods” during which “fishermen [who are familiar with such behavior] tend

to catch large numbers of fish over such aggregations,” leading to direct removal of the

reproductively active fish “and thus may have severe detrimental effects on future fishery

yields” as the fish can live up to 100 years (Shapiro, 1987, p 295 and p 313) According

to local fishermen from the study site of Balobaloang Island, spawning groupers are

known to be “lazy feeders” during this period and are hard to catch using traditional

fishing methods of lines and bait It is when these spawning populations are targeted

using blast fishing methods that the adult population is damaged, resulting in recruitment

overfishing (Ammarell, personal communication)

Recent market prices for line-caught fish for local consumption at Paotéré Harbor

in Makassar, Indonesia [using the exchange rate of roughly Rp.9,000 to US$1] for the

local varieties of grouper caught for export have been reported to be between Rp.70,000

(US$7.78) and Rp.300,000 (US$33.33) per kilogram, making a large fish a highly

profitable catch and as such, a target for chemical fishing (Chozin, personal

communication) Because blast fishing kills the fish, this method cannot be used to catch

fish intended for shipment for consumption abroad, as they are to be held in live tanks for

fresh preparation in the restaurant Traditionally these fish were not sold for export, but

dried and sold in port for less money; more recently however, increasing demand and

high market prices make the grouper targets for the international live fish trade (The New

Zealand Herald, 1/25/2007)

Because groupers are sedentary creatures that rely on ambush tactics for feeding,

they are “dependent on a hard substrate habitat” and require spatially complex shelters

“in terms of area, relief, and shelter size” (Parrish, 1987, p 421) which are frequently

destroyed by blast fishing Particularly susceptible to disturbances in the environment, the

non-territorial, migratory grouper will move on to a new spawning area if the old one has

been damaged (Wilson and Wilson, 1992, p 97 and p 152) Researchers have even

found spatial distribution in other areas to roughly correspond “to the distribution of reef

building corals” (Parrish, 1987, p 422)

Care must be taken however, not to point the finger at in-migration to coastal

areas as being a significant factor in the increase in the destructive fishing Cassels et al

(2005) showed that there is no linear relationship between the size of a coastal population

and the health of the local environment, and that there are factors other than migrant

status that affect resource extraction and use Though there is a relationship between

“migration and lower environmental quality, i.e., large numbers of migrants live in

villages with poor quality coral reefs,” this does not show causality They could not draw

the conclusion that migration “is directly connected with poor environmental quality via

destructive fishing behavior,” where poor migrants “are incorporated into the fishing

sector rather than the subsistence sector” through either economic methods or

intermarriage There are no behavior differences between migrants and non-migrants in

damage to the environment; when assimilated into the community, there are no

behavioral differences to suggest that “migrants degrade the coastal environments”

(Cassels et al., 2005) Because of the perception that the fishermen are desperately poor,

their destructive fishing methods are seen as a last resort by those who “pity” the

fishermen (Erdmann, 2001) The number of fishermen actually born in the study site

within this paper is currently not known by the author and would be a topic worth

pursuing within the context of the above migration studies Though there appears to be

no significant migration to the study site, this is an important point to note as possibly

being applicable to other areas within the Coral Triangle

In an extension of the population pressure theory of Malthusian overfishing, the

motivation to overfish is simply that, as in “Papua New Guinea, blasting is used as an

economically viable fishing method (myopically speaking) in the midst of what are

perceived to be limitlessly abundant coral seas” (McManus, 1997) This is more likely to

be the motivation among Indonesians than in the Philippines where the research for the

Malthusian overfishing theory was done This opinion of “limitlessly abundant coral

seas” has also been expressed by fishermen using blast fishing in the study site within

this paper and will be explored further in later chapters (Hapsari, 2008) Similarly, in

other areas (including Balobaloang Island) DFP use is motivated by “’greed rather than

need’” as with criminal enterprises, and is protected through corruption throughout the

political network (Erdmann et al., 2002; Thorburn, 2003; Hapsari, 2008)

Blast fishing in fact can be very profitable (if the reef has not already been

destroyed) Divers with medium and large scale operations can make around US$50-$150

per week, more than ten times the average Indonesian laborer (Pet-Soede and Erdmann,

1998) Pet-Soede and Erdmann (1998) suggest that the destructive fishing techniques

may be the preferred method and used first because of the high salaries They cite a study

that shows small-scale fishermen in Asia as actually being much higher in

socio-economic status, having incomes “often equaling or surpassing national averages” (at

least, before the Asian financial crisis) showing greed as much of a motivation as need

Furthermore, Subani (1972, p 80) writes that chemical and blast fishing are

preferred because they are easier and quicker for the fishermen to catch fish in a

relatively short period of time when compared to traditional hook and line fishing Using

explosives, the fisherman does not need to have any specialized knowledge of fisheries or

other experiences with fishery issues, but only needs the knowledge of how to detonate

an explosive However, Chozin (2008) has shown that among the small crew of about six

on such an operation, there are a variety of skills used such as spotting schools of fish and

knowledge of timing the detonation so as to target that school

Furthermore, this trend in pursuing DFP use for profit reflects the Malthusian

Tragedy of the Commonsthesis according to which “failure occurs where individuals

seek personal benefit in environmental systems and costs are ‘externalized’ to the group”

in areas where there is no organization of the extraction of resources (Robbins, 2004, p

44) In the case of Balobaloang Island (the area of interest in this study), the fishermen

from Sumanga’ Island who use blast fishing say that they give a portion of the catch to

the people of Balobaloang, and so there is some benefit to the group as a whole (though

one or two fish out of a ton is almost nothing) (Hapsari, 2008) The Tragedy of the

Commons can be thought of as an extension of Malthusian overfishing: the fishermen

who have chosen to continue fishing in the face of declining fishery productivity are

under pressure to catch fish with decreasing resources, thereby using DFPs that damage

the commons in a way that affects the larger population with lower yields, while the

fishermen themselves continue to profit

According to Paul Robbins, author of Political Ecology, there are two big

problems with the Tragedy of the Commons thesis when applied to marine environments

The first problem with the thesis is that, in focusing on the people, technology, and laws,

it ignores many of complexities of the biological and reproductive processes of the

fisheries Fish populations are a result of a large number of factors, only one of which is

predation and fishing The second criticism of the Tragedy of the Commons is that it

operates in an “open-access environment, free of constraints on entry, with no rules to

govern their behavior and catch.” This is rarely the case, as many communities (such as

in the study site in the Sabalana Archipelago) often have informal, unwritten rules by

which the fishermen operate (Robbins, 2004, p 153-154) as well as formalized rules of

the national and local government of Indonesia

The idea that greed is fueling the overfishing is further supported by local

officials who, in taking “protection money,” add to this perception; “for the average

coastal policeman, a cyanide boat is viewed more as a source of ‘extracurricular

funding’” (Erdmann, 2001) It is not the small fishermen then, who are blamed in such

situations, but the elite Indonesians, companies backing and financing the fishermen, and

even the demand from outside Indonesia

In 2000, Christopher Johnson of The Globe and Mail (9/5/2000) reported that a

“one-metre Napoleon [wrasse], served alive with an exposed heart fetched CN$3,000

[US$2,040 at the 9/4/00 exchange rate of CN$0.68 to US$1] in Hong Kong.” Eating live

reef fish is “a status symbol for many newly rich Chinese” in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and

mainland China and has caused populations to plummet, according to a 2007 World

Conservation Union (WCU) report The report found the number of some grouper species

and Napoleon wrasse to fall as much as 99% between 1995 and 2003 (Casey, 1/24/2007)

Most Hong Kong people are reported to prefer grouper caught on a reef to those raised on

fish farms, as “farmed fish is less tasty and fresh”; it is this very demand from China that

has “decimated endangered species in Asia” such as wrasse, grouper, and coral trout,

according to the WCU (The New Zealand Herald, 1/25/2007)

Furthermore, a USAID study that found the “biggest culprit” threatening the

world’s coral reefs to be the United States, in importing 80% of all coral reef products,

and is “the world’s largest consumer of live coral and live rock for the aquarium trade”

(3/3/2000) [Think - Have you ever eaten grouper or seen a saltwater aquarium?] All of

these external factors drive the use of destructive fishing practices (Lowe, 2002)

This brings us back to the idea that indebtedness, or relative poverty, is a factor in

DFP use: fishing companies provide equipment such as motors, and the poor fishermen

are forced to use DFPs to pay off the debt from the equipment The companies also buy

the live catch and pay for the release of the fishermen who are caught and jailed for the

illegal activities In such cases, it is the fishing companies that run the trade and are

effectively the culprits for motivating and sustaining DFPs The poverty of the fishermen,

where they cannot pay for the equipment up front, makes them susceptible to financing

schemes and to the pressure from companies to have a large catch from diminishing

resources For example, people of the Togean Islands of North Sulawesi “do believe that

cyanide is harmful, but feel helpless to oppose it” (Lowe, 2002)

All of the factors listed above contribute to the use of DFPs: population growth,

choice to continue fishing in the face of dwindling resources, greed of fishermen and

companies, corruption of local officials, increased demand from abroad, and indebtedness

(relative poverty) When taken together, all of the above factors provide a comprehensive

explanation of why fishermen resort to using destructive fishing practices, destroying the

resources they rely on for their livelihoods

2.2 Chemical Fishing

Chemical fishing (Indonesian: membius) is often used to stun fish so they can be

caught and used both domestically and internationally in the live fish trade of exotic

species such as lobsters (often sold to international tourists in Balinese hotels and

restaurants), groupers, and Napoleon wrasse Most creatures caught this way are sent

overseas for consumption or for saltwater ornamental aquarium fish collectors (Pet,

1997) Two different chemical methods have been used in Indonesia, one using

ground-up plants and the other with cyanide Cyanide exposure is estimated to unintentionally

kill about 50% of fish exposed on the reef and, of those that survive for transport to Asian

restaurants and aquarium collectors abroad, the subsequent death of about 40% of the

remaining (Sumuch and Morrissey, 2004) Though harmful to the fish, exposure to the

chemicals is deadly for the coral polyps, causing them to expel the symbiotic algae and

lose their color The bleaching is a “generalized response shown by corals to stress” and

happens in response to a wide variety of extremes such as “temperature, salinity, and

light irradiance” (Brown, 1997, p 365)

In one method of chemical fishing, poisonous plants (Indonesian: tuba) have been

used, such as kayu tuba (English: tuba wood, or in Latin: Derris elliptica Benth) a vine

that can grow to 15 m, with a thickness of 20 mm, and is found in forests along the edges

of rivers, coiling around other plants like the slingerplant The roots are crushed and

when mixed with water will cause fish to become sick and finally die Tuba laut (English:

sea tuba, or in Latin: Derris heterophylla Backer) can include many types of bushes

growing along the coast, rivers and marshes The branches and leaves, when crushed, can

be used to poison fish with a little milder effect, though still killing the fish Places where

these are used include bays and rivers where the current is not strong and other similar

places such as ponds, lakes, and marshes When a strong current is present, the poison

can quickly spread far After the poison is thrown into the water, it kills the fish, which

then float to the surface to be easily collected Tuba is known in almost every fishery in

Indonesia, in coastal communities as well as those inland, according to Subani (1972, p

78) It has also been observed by Alcala (2000) in shallow coastal areas of the

Philippines Both are in the genus Derris, in the pea family Fabaceae, the roots of which

contain a chemical used in pesticides, Rotenone (Starr et al., 1999, p 3)

Tuba is reported to have been used in Komodo National Park, with as many as

60% of fishermen reporting its use “every now and then.” The tuba is reported to be

tossed on top of the water, stunning the fish, not killing them Different plants are also

reported to be used there; the seeds of Croton argyratus, Croton tiglium, and Anamirta

cocculus are ground and mixed with water, as with Derris (the species were only

reported, but not confirmed by Pet) In the study, fishermen also referred to herbicides

and pesticides used for collecting small groupers, snappers, and emperors as “tuba”,

leading to confusion in interviews The herbicides are mixed with sand, dumped onto reef

flats and crests, and is reported to be active for three days, killing everything underneath

and everything that passes over the mixture (Pet, 1997)

The other, more common, method of chemical fishing (though presumably more

expensive) is to use plant fertilizer or a tablet of potassium cyanide (KCN) or sodium

cyanide (NaCN) mixed with water and referred to as just “cyanide” (Indonesian:

sianida) The preferred use is thought to depend on availability or price Because many

authors researching chemical fishing do not specify the type, price, size, how many

tablets per kilogram, it is difficult to know the reasons for choice, and McAllister et al

(1999) point to Ocean Voice International’s recommendation for these details to be

included in reports, when possible The use of cyanide began in the Philippines as early

as 1962 (and possibly even as far back as 1954 in Taiwan) and quickly spread to

Indonesia (McAllister et al., 1999) These days, in some communities the cyanide is

supplied directly to the fishermen for free by live fish businesses, the companies

mentioned earlier that provide the motivation and sustain the DFPs Even the Indonesian

army has been accused of facilitating the “circulation of cyanide between the mining

industry and the live fish trade” (Lowe, 2002)

The cyanide is used by breaking a tablet, sometimes by mouth, and mixing with

water in a plastic squeeze bottle (usually one 13 g tablet per liter of water) (Pet, 1997) or

tying the tablet to the end of a pole and waving it “around coral heads or [poking] into

crevices” (McAllister et al., 1999) This is believed to be the most common method of

chemical fishing and accounts for about 70% of the fish caught for the aquarium

industry” as well as those caught for consumption (McManus et al., 1997) The fishermen

can get in close to the fish, which will corner itself inside a coral formation, and squirt it

A typical fishing trip using chemicals to catch aquarium fish is about two weeks, visiting

four locations, each of which is worked for about three days Though some do not revisit

locations, others have been known to use a location for several weeks or even months at a

time Former divers reported working at depths of 10 m-20 m (Pet, 1997)

A third method of chemical fishing, used for catching “consumption fish”,

reported in and around Komodo National Park by Pet (1997) is to mix chopped up bits of

fish mixed with cyanide to catch fish which die after eating the chum This method

differs from the other uses of cyanide in that it actually kills the fish and, though not

reported or investigated, raises serious questions about the health effects on those eating

the fish caught with this method In the summer of 2007, the Chinese central government

“banned imports of Indonesian fish and other foods after scores of shipments were found

to contain toxic substances,” announcing the ban after “excessive drug residue, additives

and harmful bacteria were found in 121 batches in the first six months” of 2007

Chemicals found included mercury, chromium, antibacterial drugs, and harmful bacteria

Within the same article, the reporter found one restaurant manager on Lamma Island who

said, “’We stopped buying fish imported from Indonesia 10 years ago because some

Indonesian fishermen use destructive fishing techniques such as putting drugs in the

water” (Heron, 8/5/2007)

The problem with both tuba and cyanide chemical fishing methods is that, while

stunning the fish, the delicate coral polyps that build the reefs are killed in both the

immediate area and down current, resulting in a one to two meter patch (larger if a strong

current is present) of bleached, dead coral (McManus, 1997) Coral mortality from direct

exposure to cyanide is estimated to be at 5% of corals per year, much lower than that of

blast fishing at 14% per year (seen in an area of the Philippines), confirmed with informal

interviews of fishermen familiar with the practice (McManus et al., 1997)

2.3 Blast Fishing

The second DFP method common in eastern Indonesia is blast fishing

(Indonesian: membom), also called dynamite or bomb fishing After schooling fish are

located visually by the fishermen, the boat moves in close and a bomb is thrown into the

middle of the school Fish killed from the blast that do not float to the surface must be

retrieved by divers who hold their breaths by free diving or use crude “hookah”

compressors on the boat with an air hose for the divers (McManus, 1997; Pet-Soede and

Erdmann, 1998; Fox and Erdmann, 2000) Blast fishing results in extremely high yields

for the fisherman though the long term effects can be described as a “boom and bust”

affecting the entire fishery (Berrill, 1997) Over time, the bomb composition has changed

from dynamite obtained from Japanese military and construction activities in the early

days to homemade kerosene and fertilizer bombs more common these days (Pet-Soede

and Erdmann, 1998) Apparently a few corrupt Indonesian military members still feed the

demand; in October 2006, the wife of an Indonesian marine was arrested with 9 kg of

TNT and several detonators She claimed that the explosives, powerful enough to blow

up a two story building, were meant for blast fishing, as her husband had been selling

such items to fishermen in Pasuruan, East Java for the previous six months (Osman,

10/6/2006)

Blast fishing destroys the coral skeletons made of calcium carbonate, and though

some fragments may survive, most die within several months Corals are killed through

the concussion force which turns the limestone foundations into rubble, with pieces no

bigger than fifteen centimeters in length and a few centimeters in diameter (personal

observation); a bomb of only 1 kg “can leave a crater of rubble 1-2 m in diameter” (Fox

et al., 2003) Repeated bombing over time turns the reef into nothing more than “shifting

fields of dead coral rubble” covering the sea floor that are “punctuated by the occasional

massive coral head” (Pet-Soede and Erdmann, 1998; personal observation) It becomes

impossible for new growth to occur because of the instability of the rubble, being pushed

around in the current like garbage, forming “’killing fields’ for coral juveniles” and for

any recruits (new growth polyps) that may be present (Fox and Erdmann, 2000; Fox et

al., 2003; personal observation, see Figure 2.2 below) Furthermore, the destruction of

spatially complex reef structures makes it impossible for fish to use the reef for protection

and hiding; this is the case with juvenile groupers which “settle where hiding places are

abundant” and “hide almost constantly” until they grow to a few inches and can venture

into deeper waters (PT Kedamaian Makmur Sejahtera Grouper Fish Farms)

Areas heavily dynamited undergo a shift from hard coral domination to soft coral,

macroalgae domination and eutrophication (excessive plant growth and decay), though

only in cases where the environment is optimal Factors affecting suitability for soft coral

growth include “grazing intensity, sedimentation rate, larval ability and survival, and

ocean current patterns” (Fox et al., 2003)

Rubble fields around Komodo National Park in Indonesia estimated to be several

decades old have been found to have “high substrate instability and low survival of

recruits resulting in new coral growth to be “very slow at best, and at worst, nonexistent”,

even with the presence of source larvae necessary for new growth (Fox et al., 2003)

The rubble, which cannot support new growth, must be replaced with a stable

substrate for any kind of new hard coral growth to happen Coral recruitment (new

growth) is greatly enhanced with a stable substrate that is at a height above rubble so as

to prevent being buried; rehabilitation may be as easy as building “spatially complex”

rock piles or introducing cement slabs (Fox et al., 2005) Such efforts have been

undertaken in the area of interest in this study and will be alluded to later

Figure 2.2: (a) An outcropping of live coral within a large area of rubble, and (b) another

photo of the same “killing fields” of rubble The area is located in a high current area off

the western end of Balobaloang Island Both photos have been edited to show the

difference between sand and rubble, which is much brighter in reality (photo by Edow

Maddusila, edited by author using Microsoft Photo Editor)

According to a 1972 Marine Fisheries Research Institute in Jakarta (Subani, 1972,

p 79), blast fishing had only really begun after WWII in Indonesia, and it became more

widespread after the 1950s When the war had just finished, many of those who had

responsibility dispose of the firearms, grenades, and ammunition did not do so Not only

did Indonesians use the explosives, but so did their neighbors in the Philippines,

Thailand, and Malaysia The general public (civilians as well as military) were informed

that using these explosive materials to fish was prohibited, although many people chose

to break the law

In fact, prohibitions against using explosives in fishing had been law since the

time of the Dutch colonial period when the government wrote an ordinance to protect fish

populations Outlawing the activity suggests that destructive fishing practices had begun

even before WWII, but it was the Japanese soldiers that introduced fish bombing on a

large scale According to the Dutch regulation, it was forbidden to catch fish using the

following methods: i materials that contain fish poison (ratjun in the text, or racun in

contemporary Indonesian), ii materials that cause “drunkenness” or “dizziness” (mabok

in the text, or mabuk in contemporary Indonesian), or near death, and iii materials that

contain explosives (old and contemporary Indonesian: bahan peledak) (Subani, 1972, p

81) These days, though illegal, blast fishing is known throughout Indonesia Though

corruption is thought to keep bombers safe, a number of them were arrested in 1996 in

Komodo National Park, and one of the most important blast fishermen was killed as he

tried to throw a bomb at a patrol boat (Pet, 1997)

Yields from blast fishing are extremely high Collecting greater than 95% of the

fish killed by two blasts using a kerosene-fertilizer bomb in a 300 mL glass bottle, Fox

and Erdmann (2000) counted 2,153 individuals weighing a total of 75.3 kg Less than 2%

floated in the first blast thrown into a targeted school of fish From this catch, each

fisherman made UD$8.35, more than five times the daily Indonesian salary In the second

blast, thrown randomly on a 10 m deep reef slope, only 10.9 kg of fish was collected,

yielding US$3.83 per fisherman Less than 20% of the fish collected had no value Blast

fishing can be profitable, but is more often wasteful, with fish killed that have no value

and many left on the sea bottom (Fox and Erdmann, 2000) Depending on the size of the

operation, a typical bombing trip is a week at sea, catching 500 kg to 1,000 kg of fish

which is then dried Boats without compressors work at depths up to 10 m, and those with

the equipment may work in waters deeper than 5-10 m (Pet, 1997)

Though not included in destructive fishing, coral loss from anchor damage is also

a problem throughout Southeast Asia Many anchors in the shape of grapple hooks are

thrown into the water and dragged until catching, damaging coral in the process

(McManus et al., 1997; Edinger et al., 1998) The effect is similar to that of blast fishing,

damaging the reefs However, fishermen of Balobaloang Island in the study site have said

that they prefer sandy areas because anchors can get caught in the coral and are very

difficult to dislodge (Ammarell, personal communication)

2.4 Ecological Effects of Destructive Fishing Practices

In a comparison of the two destructive fishing methods chemical and blast

fishing, Pet-Soede and Erdmann (1998) observed that chemical fishers in Indonesia are

“quite sparing in their use of cyanide” so that “one bout of cyanide fishing on a reef kills

far fewer corals than blast fishing McManus et al (1997) also stated that, because of the

higher rate of coral mortality and increased inhibition to regrowth from the destruction of

the structure itself, blast fishing is significantly more destructive than chemical fishing

This point is still debated however, because of anecdotal evidence pointing to the use of

chemical fishing in earnest in South Sulawesi (Ammarell, personal communication) In

the study area within this paper, chemical fishing is reported to be a relatively recent

phenomenon, the use becoming known in 2003 (reported by a resident of Balobaloang

Island, personal communication)

In his research in the Spermonde Archipelago in South Sulawesi roughly 200 km

north of the study site of this paper, Chozin (2008) found that fish captured during blast

fishing operations and later sold at market included mackerel, yellowtail, sailfish, scad,

trevally, sardines, anchovies, snapper, and triggerfish The ecological impacts of blast

fishing are really an example of what has been happening around the world in developing

countries since the early 1990s In Komodo National Park, the number of bombing

incidents was found to have tripled between 1991 and 1993, peaking at around 300

incidents annually; biannual peaks were seen in April and in October, the periods

between monsoons when the winds diminished (Pet, 1997)

It is clear that in blast fishing both the blast and concussive force of the

shockwave kills adult fish, fish fry, eggs, and other animals in the area of the blast

Explosives cause external and internal damage to fish seen in torn fins, swim bladder

damage, broken bones (including related blood loss), damaged eggs, and damaged scales

In fact, it is the internal injuries characteristic to blast fishing that were frequently used to

prosecute fishermen using this DFP method in Guam; these prosecutions and hefty

punishments eventually led to the practice being stopped in that area (according to an

ICRS conference attendee, personal communication) Additionally, the coral that serves

as fish nests are destroyed by the blast, and the damage to the reef structure itself means

that it will take a long time for the reef to recover from nothing (Subani, 1972, p 80-81)

Another ecological effect of all destructive fishing practices includes the

documented loss of “keystone” species which, though some may not be economical or

the targets of fishermen for consumption fishing, they normally keep others in check

Such species include triggerfish, pufferfish and other species that are easily killed by

blast fishing techniques (for consumption, as by-catches, or for tourist trade) These fish

have been found to have dropped in population from overfishing from DFP use

The removal of fish that prey on sea urchins and crown of thorn starfish results in

an explosion of these reef-damaging populations which contribute to the corrosion of the

“reef framework” itself The reef is changed into an “entirely new type of ecosystem

[where the] habitat is no longer suitable for many of the fish that once inhabited it” (The

Economist, 11/4/2000) Thus, with the disappearance of sea urchin predators and scraping

herbivores, the delicate balance of the reef ecosystem is disrupted Such events have been

documented in the Red Sea, Kenya, and the Caribbean

Herbivorous fish are usually caught using blast fishing and are rarely caught with

line and bait By removing populations of parrotfish, macroalgae can grow out of control

and unchecked, can overgrow corals quickly (Sumich and Morrissey, 2004, p 266) A

phase shift is seen where the “coral/invertebrate dominated” reef changes to an “algal

dominated” reef community and the removal of keystone species (Pet-Soede and

Erdmann, 1998)

Fishing in general, even at low intensity, has an impact on fish abundance and

diversity; adults of the species are virtually eliminated, “removing all but the smallest

individuals” that are unable to replace the fish population The loss of adult fish is seen

when juveniles begin accounting for “a substantial percentage of the catch” as seen in

1998 in the Riau Archipelago (Pet-Soede and Erdmann, 1998) Storms and eutrophication

exacerbate the problem, making it even more difficult for the reefs to recover from the

overfishing (Roberts, 1995) In North America, overfishing has caused a vast decline in

fish populations forcing the United States and Canada to close fishing grounds in the

Grand Banks and Georges Bank, respectively (Berrill, 1997, p 2)

Species removal effects resulting from overfishing have been recorded on the

Great Barrier Reef and elsewhere with the outbreak of the reef-damaging

crown-of-thorns starfish (COT) that devour the corals These outbreaks are thought to have directly

resulted from overfishing, causing the removal of COT predators (Roberts, 1995) COT

outbreaks have also been seen in North Sulawesi and Okinawa (personal observation)

Likewise, through chemical fishing, the removal of grouper which have “often

been characterized as generalized, opportunistic carnivores” that “exert a major predation

pressure on many benthic fishes [those that live on the sea bottom] and invertebrates” can

be expected to reduce predation pressure and potential catches of other demersal [those

that live at or near the sea bottom], carnivorous fishes” (Parrish, 1987, p 406-408)

Populations of fish species that prey on other fish (piscivores) such as groupers

have seen a massive reduction through overfishing as well Though because of the

redundancy of species, where “a number of species occupy a similar functional role

within an ecosystem,” animals considered “opportunistic predators” fill the reef Thus,

the loss of a piscivore population has a much smaller effect on the food web because

“apparent specialists may switch to feeding on the former prey of species [removed] by

fishing.” Though a variety of species may all prey on urchins, for example, they all tend

to be caught by the “nonselective” nature of blast fishing (Roberts, 1995)

2.5 Economic Effects of Destructive Fishing Practices

“Boom and bust” describes the process of exploiting a habitat beyond its

regenerative capacity The “cycle of discovery, exploitation, depletion, and collapse”

defines the history of fisheries where the smaller-scale fishermen may choose to

compensate for smaller catches by using more destructive methods if they wish to

continue being fishermen Less successful (smaller) fishing operations lose money and

are forced out of the industry In the final stage of collapse, the fishery is often closed to

fishing in “hopes that it will recover” (Berrill, 1997, p 4) The fisheries around the area

of interest in this study were fished sustainably for many generations, are now

somewhere between depletion and collapse, most likely closer to collapse than not

Recently, a small area with still-healthy coral has been closed to fishing, though

enforcing this is highly difficult

In a study conducted in the Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi, it was

calculated that after the first twenty years of blast fishing “in areas with a high value of

coral reefs for tourism and coastal protection the net loss to society” was the equivalent

of US$306,800/km2 coral reef in tourist areas and the “economic costs to society were

four times higher than the net private benefit to blast fishers”; these numbers are