Introduction
Coastal regions provide unique features that drive population growth and economic prosperity. They attract people for their rich resources, and they offer access points to transportation and trade. They also offer a special sense of place at the interface between land and sea which make them an ideal location for recreational or cultural activities （Neumann et al., 2015）. Currently, there are at least three on-going trends in coastal areas:
1） an increase of human population triggered by movement of rural migrants to the coastal cities; 2） an increase in economic activity and land use at the waterfront areas; 3） wider and intensified environmental impacts, use conflicts, social risks and economic losses as the result of the first two trends （Dadon and Oldani, 2017）. Because of urbanization and industrialization, the coastal areas are being transformed drastically and now face diverse and complex issues from environmental and social perspectives.
With more people living in coastal areas, acquiring resources has become highly contested. Land in particular is becoming more invaluable as conflicting interests arise over land use for housing, agriculture, industry, port, and conservation area. It is the poor who suffer the most, living in squalid slum settlements which get only minimal and uneven urban services because of informal or illegal tenure status. The widespread growth of slums or informal settlements is still a persistence issue in many developing countries, with almost a quarter
論 文
Cross-Sector Collaboration in Settlement Upgrading Programs for Fishing Communities in Indonesia
Putra Arief Budiman
Abstract: One of the most vulnerable social groups in coastal areas is small-scale fishing communities. A substantial body of literature demonstrates how they confront a wide range of development challenges from the bio-ecological, economic, and socio-political perspectives. This study discusses the additional social struggles of contemporary fishermen in obtaining decent housing and habitable human settlements. In Indonesia, the majority of fishing settlements share similar physical traits, such as unplanned housing with overcrowding, lack of basic services, and repeated exposure to disasters. However, these communities have established a deep place attachment to their surrounding coastal environment. In response, the government initiated several programs to improve the living spaces of these fishing communities. However, weaknesses in project design remain notable; this is mainly due to the single-sectoral and technocratic approaches in the planning process. Therefore, the study proposes collaborative governance followed by collective actions, where fishing cooperatives and neighborhood associations play leading roles, to address the multi-dimensional issues of fishing villages.
of the world’s urban populations still living in health-threatening housing conditions and deprived environments
（UN-Habitat, 2016）. Many approaches have been tried in dealing with slum settlements; however, participatory slum upgrading is believed to be the most widely accepted intervention （UN-Habitat, 2003）.
Among slum residents on the coast, many live as small-scale, artisanal, traditional fishermen （hereafter referred to as small scale fishermen）. There is no standard in defining small-scale fisheries （Panayotou, 1982; Ruddle, 2014）, but Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ［FAO］（2004） have described their characteristic as fisheries that involve fishing households （as opposed to commercial companies）, using relatively small amounts of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels （if any）, making short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption .
The fishing industry is becoming more lucrative than ever. As fish consumption per capita increased from 9.0 kg in 1961 to 20.2 kg in 2015, global fish production peaked at 171 million tonnes with total value of USD 362 billion in 2016（FAO, 2018）. However, small-scale fishing communities around the world suffer from relatively high incidences of poverty. The World Bank （2012） estimate up to 5.8 million of fishers earn less than
$1 per day. They are among the most vulnerable socio-economic groups and their bio-ecological, economic, and socio-political development challenges are well documented by many researchers （e.g. Acheson, 1981; Panayotou, 1982; Béné, 2003; Béné and Friend, 2011; Knudsen, 2016）. This paper intends to explore another dimension of the small-scale fishermen’s vulnerability related to settlement development in the coastal area. The research focuses on Indonesia, an archipelagic country whose marine economy relies significantly on small-scale fishing communities of which many lives in coastal slum settlements. Accordingly, this research employs desk research of literatures and policy documents, as well as in-depth interview with relevant experts from the national government entities and NGOs. The research seeks to identify policy gaps in managing fishing villages in the country and propose a collaborative governance scheme in the field of settlement development to support multi-sectoral development objectives for a society dependent on fisheries.
Development Challenges of Small-Scale Fisheries
The contribution of small-scale fisheries to the society is often undervalued. The sector provides meaningful contribution to food security, poverty alleviation, and local economies. They capture about half of global fish catches and employ more than 90 percent of the world’s fishers and fish workers （World Bank, 2012）. They provide a safety net for unskilled labor and affordable nutrition for the poor （Béné and Friend, 2009）. Small scale fisheries tend to be the economic back bone of coastal communities, generating multiplier effects in other fishing-related activities such as fish traders, processors, transporters, net-makers and boat- builders. Culturally, they are strongly anchored in local communities, reflecting often historic links to adjacent fishery resources, traditions and values, and support for social cohesion （FAO, 2015）.
Despite their economic and cultural importance, FAO （2015） highlights the fact that these fisheries-
dependent communities face severe livelihood issues such as lack of alternative opportunities, youth unemployment, unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, lack of credits and markets, forced labour, and child labour, but also conditions not conducive to individual well-being as indicated by low levels of formal education, and high incidence of ill health （often including above-average incidences of HIV/AIDS）（FAO, 2015）. Furthermore, environmental issues such as pollution, climate change impacts and natural and human-induced disasters add to the threats facing small-scale fishing communities. These multi-dimensional distresses are borne by women, children, and unskilled fishers, as well as by those people who depend, directly and indirectly, on the fishing industry （ibid.）.
The notion of poverty in small-scale fisheries have been discussed in many （Panayotou, 1982; Cunningham, 1994; Béné, 2003; Béné and Friend, 2009; Jentoft and Eide, 2011; Knudsen, 2016）, and it has been noted that fishery rhymes with poverty’（Béné, 2003）. Béné in his widely cited article （2003） concluded that most literature views poverty in fishery as the result of low fishing catches due to overfishing which was an inevitable consequence to the open-access nature of fisheries. This perspective equates small scale fisheries with poverty; therefore, prevented further discussion on how fisheries contribute to poverty alleviation （ibid.）. However, recent theoretical development which put wider perspective that include different social attributes
（such as literacy rate, access to education, health, and other basic services） as well as other social manifestations of poverty （such as power relations）（Thorpe, Andrew and Allison, 2007） shows that this might not be the only cause. The cause of poverty in small-scale fisheries communities is not only the inadequacy of suitable fishing gear which limits their income, but also because of multi-dimensional issues that put communities in vulnerable position. A number of literatures have discussed constraints and problems that affect them from at least three point of view: bio-ecological, economic, socio-political.
Bio-ecological
Historically, humans have viewed with its marine life as a continuous and inexhaustible supply of food.
However, fish like any other living renewable resources need time to replenish. Meanwhile, fish are a common property resource that are owned by no one which may lead to, in Hardin’s （1968） term, a tragedy of commons . Béné （2003） sum up this conventional wisdom of fisheries as: the open-access nature of the fisheries allows more people to enter the fishing sector, which lead to the economic and biological overexploi- tation of the resources . FAO （2018） reported that the percentage of fish stocks harvested at sustainable levels decreased from 90 percent in 1974 to 66.9 percent in 2015. On the other hand, according to the same report, 33.1 percent of stocks were fished unsustainably, rising from only 10 percent in 1974. At the same time, pollution, loss of habitat, and climate change cause decreasing reproductive success of many marine species.
Moreover, the inadequacy of suitable fishing gears confines their fishing range to only near shore area, which often already overexploited. Declining fish stocks are obviously a major cause of poor income, especially for
small-scale fishermen who own fewer tools to expand for new fishing ground.
To survive the realm of the sea, humans are at the mercy of nature and depend on artificial equipment.
However, the sea is a treacherous and uncertain environment. Extreme weather, disorientation, or mechanical failures are some of the many risks faced by fishermen that could threaten life and livelihood. In Bangladesh, fishers are forced to discontinue fishing due to rough weather and tidal surges during the monsoon seasons
（Islam, 2011）. Furthermore, many marine ecosystem’s species are only available at certain times because they seasonally migrate. Some species also had experienced population boom and bust in ways which are difficult for fishery scientists to predict （Acheson, 1981）. This seasonality or interruption in fishing operations causes a variation in income as well as food security along the year （Islam, 2011）.
Economic
Experts believe that what keeps fishermen’s income at low levels is the lack of alternative employment opportunities which create a labor surplus within the fishery sector （Panayotou, 1982; Béné, 2003）. Small-scale fisheries face occupational immobility in which entry to a fishery is relatively easy and not very costly, while exit is difficult. As Panayotou （1982） points out: A good fishing year and a widespread unemployment attracted many people to become a fisherman. It is expected when the fishery becomes over-crowded and profits for most fishermen disappear the labour surplus will switch profession or migrate if necessary, assuming perfect mobility of labour and capital. However, this might not be the case because a fisherman might not be able to afford to spend time looking for a job or moving when his income is down to subsistence level and, for another, he can hardly expect to find a buyer for his boat and gear. Hence, even if they earn less than their opportunity costs, fishermen may continue to fish.
Poor small-scale fishermen may suffer economic exclusion because they are unable to access productive assets that are necessary to improve fishing activities. Since they may have limited access to formal credit, they turn to middlemen who often provide capital loan beside market fish products. In a positive relationship, the benefit would be mutual because middlemen supposedly possess a good knowledge about the markets. However, many have reported that middlemen have use whatever it takes to maintain control over fish markets, such as price manipulation, violence, or create a credit terms that would put fishermen continuously indebted （Acheson, 1981; Panayotou, 1982）. The fishermen’s bargaining position is weak; therefore, middlemen are able to establish a monopsony and control fishery systems.
Socio-Political
Fishery activities take up a great deal of time; therefore, fishermen are often absent or underrepresented in the political process. As a result, institutional support is often skewed in favour of the large-scale fishermen.
This is a form of political disempowerment where small-scale fishermen have limited control over the marine
resource in which they depend on because they are excluded from decision-making processes （Béné, 2003）. This might be critical for small scale fishermen since it may lead to a reduction or even denial of access and use of the resources.
Béné （2003） also mentioned that in some parts of the world, certain individuals or groups of individuals have been denied having access or control over fishing resource because of their caste, gender, or ethnic origin. He stated this problem as social marginalization of small-scale fishermen （Béné, 2003）. Fishing communities have strong kin systems, which is why it is not uncommon to see participants in the fisheries belong to specific families, ethnic and religious groups which then often restricts access to fisheries to those within their social group.
It Never Rains but It Pours: Living in a Coastal Slum Fishing Village1
It is well documented in several studies that the poor small-scale fishermen households especially in developing countries live in squalid environments. The characteristics of these settlements are comparable to slums, with lack of water supply and inadequate sanitation, unhealthy environmental conditions, and substandard housing. Anugraham （1940 in Bavinck, 2011） provides details on the housing situation of a fishing village in Chennai: Most of the fishers live in huts. Normally a hut is about 8 feet by 10 feet with low walls and low roof of palm matting. There is only one doorway which is hardly 5 feet high. In some cases, a bamboo tatty which serves as a provisional door is placed at the entrance and fastened by ropes to either door post. Most of the huts have no windows, as the need for ventilation is neither valued nor even felt by the fisherfolk. The venti- lators, if any, are nothing more than holes to send out smoke. Incidentally, they let in a little light. Islam （2011）
describe the settlements in which Bangladeshi small-scale fishermen lives in: rather hostile physical environment, many of them on government owned land, in congested shanty settings..., ... these settings are risky and with limited basic services. ...village settlements are highly congested and sanitation facilities are poorly developed. Many households still lack water sealed toilets, exposing them to risk of water borne disease . Similar issues of landlessness, informality, deteriorated neighbourhood, or geographical isolation also have been described in India （Jacob and Rao, 2016）, Turkey （Knudsen and Koçak, 2011）, Brazil （Gillam and Charles, 2018）, Myanmar （Okamoto, 2011）, and Indonesia （Marpaung, 2017; Asmal and Amri, 2018）. It should be noted that many studies also suggest that some fishermen live in decent housing, showing degree of variety in fishing communities. Nevertheless, fishing villages are considered to be lagging behind other towns and villages with sewage and road deemed as insufficient, even in developed countries such as Japan （MAFF, 2019）.
Living in a coastal slum fishing village adds another dimension of hardship for the fishermen: not only 1 Although settlement in which small-scale fishermen live in can be found also in urban areas, the term fishing village will
be used to show hybridization of urban and rural characteristic.
do they face adversity at sea, but also misery on the land. The list of challenges faced by slum dwellers is long, and many of these disadvantages reinforce each other in a vicious cycle. For example, poor housing and overcrowding are partly responsible for the health problems encountered by slum residents. Crowded homes enhance the prevalence of contagious disease such as tuberculosis. İnadequate sanitation and water services, the absence of solid waste collection, vermin infestation, and indoor air pollution due to ill-designed ventilation are among factors that make slum residents susceptible to diseases. Ezeh et al. （2017） noted that children of the slums are more susceptible to infections, such as diarrhea and pneumonia, and often under-nourished which led to stunted growth. The poor cannot afford to be sick not only because they have limited financial means to pay for health care, but also they may lost the opportunity to obtain daily income. Another example is related to disaster occurrence in slums. Many fishing villages emerge in extremely marginal locations such as flood plains or shorelines which make them at risk of natural or man-made disasters. Their dilapidated houses may easily collapse in the event of earthquakes or could be swept away if flooding or tsunami happened. High density buildings in which many are made from flammable materials means that fire could spread rapidly. Because of the narrow streets, evacuation and rescue could be delayed, whereas every second counts in the event of disaster.
Furthermore, it is estimated that 300 million people in developing countries at risk of intensifying natural hazards and rising sea levels induced by climate change （Ooi and Yuen, 2009）.
However, one of the most significant, but also maybe the least understood, threats faced by the fishing communities is displacement. It is understood that fishers may decide to leave their homes because of overfishing, population pressure, or coastal erosion, and other reasons. However, there is also the case in which displacement comes in the form of evictions or gentrification. As the competition for land use in the coastal area grows, more lucrative business sectors demand coastal space resulting in the rising economic value of waterfront land. This may prompt restriction over access to beaches and fishing activities, and the worst being the wholesale removal of fishing populations （Bavinck, Jentoft and Scholtens, 2018）. Coastal grabbing , which means a relatively sudden and forceful transfer of property rights over resources and coastal space, has been taking place in recent decades in several countries triggered by globalization （Bavinck et al., 2017）. In addition, coastal gentrification had occurred because new wealthy tenants who purchase properties along the coast for its amenities had increased land prices, leaving resource-dependent activities, such as fisheries, less valued or priced out of the waterfront, frequently leading to fragmented social networks within communities （Colburn and Jepson, 2012）. Meanwhile, the fact that most fishermen do not hold formal tenure of their land exacerbates the risk of displacement. While the majority are ruled by informal customary land arrangements, some fishing settlements in developing countries initially formed illegally on vacant land, marsh or above the ocean surface because of poverty and migratory patterns of the inhabitants.
Fishing settlements are commonly sited adjacent to fishing harbors which land fish from a certain fishing ground, creating a strong dependent relationship of work and living space. In fact, boundary is indistinct
in some cases; hence, fishing settlement could also function as fishing harbour. Proximity is an important feature, not only as it reduces transportation costs for processing, storage, and marketing, but also fishing related industries such as shipbuilding, boat repairs, fish auctions etc, are usually clustered in one area. In order to stay close to fishing ports, small-scale fishermen trade-off amenities and tenure security. FAO （2015） has recognized the importance of tenure rights for land in the coastal area to fishery sector by stating: ［Tenure rights］ are critical for ensuring and facilitating access to fisheries, for accessory activities （including processing and marketing）, and for housing and other livelihood support . Their houses serve not only as a shelter, but also as a place for land-based fishing related activities such as net mending, fish drying or processing, and marketing.
These activities absorb fluctuations in fishing income arising from environmental uncertainty （weather, seasonal fluctuations, poor fishing gears, etc.）（Panayotou, 1982）. For small-scale fishermen, fishing settlements, fishing ports, and fishing grounds provide integral and indispensable features and conditions that support fishing activ- ities. Thus, any measure that affects fishing communities in fishing villages would also have a further impact on the productivity of fisheries sector and livelihood of fishermen.
Fishing communities have historical and dependent links with their settlement environment. They have established a feeling of deep-rooted place attachment , which means positive bonds to physical and social settings that support identity and provide other psychological benefits （Low and Altman, 1992; Brown, Perkins and Brown, 2003）. This place attachment attribute to socio-cultural and emotional well-being （Khakzad and Griffith, 2016）. Furthermore, an extensive review by Masterson and colleagues （2017） suggest that place attachment also contribute positively to stewardship of ecosystem services. Stronger place attachment not only strengthened protective norms, but also enhance local ecological knowledge which was developed through social learning of place-based communities （Andersson, Barthel and Ahrné, 2007）. The areas where they live are the site of maritime cultures and heritages built up over a long period of time. This construct place identity which embrace sense of belonging towards certain community or territory （Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto and Breakwell, 2003）. In the fishing settlements, fishing community produce tangible and intangible cultural values that are treasured not only by fishermen but also by general public, as they represent community’s identity and also sense of place.
The fishing village is where the social interactions among fishermen take place. In a way, it is what holds fishing communities together. Well-functioning fishing communities are most important contributors to fishery productivity （Jentoft, 2000）. Without them, fishery activities and its contribution to food security and Figure 1 Fishing Village-Fishing Port-Fishing Ground System
local economic development would have been absent. In fishing settlement, fishermen interact with one another, establish cooperation, and share information and knowledge about fishing ground and fishing methods which induce innovation and enhance productivity. These knowledge and innovation are transmitted to succeeding generations which ensure continuity of fishery practices in the future. Furthermore, in the fishing village they agreed upon values and norms, and set up governmental institutions, that govern not only their daily social behavior on the land but also the way of fisheries activities. Practices that support fishing activities or improve added value of fisheries product are part of everyday life that can be found in the fishing village, such as net mending, boat making, and fish processing. The fishing village is also the place where home-based informal economic sector strives; hence, it provides alternative employment for community member which then reduce pressure off the fisheries resources.
However, the declining and removal of fishing villages occurs in both developed and developing countries threatening the existence of fishing communities. This trend will bring devastating outcomes to fisher- men’s livelihoods and fisheries productivity as it will negate the economic, social, and cultural assets that have been accumulated by small-scale fishing communities over a long period. As a result, they may suffer major setbacks in escaping poverty. In addition, loss of place and its meaning would have negative impacts for psycho- logical well-being as well as individual and collective identity, memory and history （Gieryn, 2000）. Displacement, as well as environmental hazards and geographical isolation, are among the spatial risks that add to the vulnerability of small-scale fishing communities.
Fishing Villages in Indonesia
With more than 81.000 km of coastline, the coastal area of Indonesia is home to approximately more than 140 million Indonesia citizens （Harmadi, 2014）. Major cities, such as Jakarta, Semarang, and Surabaya, histor- ically began as small fishing ports eight centuries ago, and now have become vibrant and bustling metropolitan regions with a population reaching up to 10 million people. Among coastal residents are 1.4 million poor fishing households with the average monthly expenses of 80-120
USD （Harmadi, 2014）. The economic importance of the Indonesian marine industry is valued up to 82 billion USD. However, it has hardly benefited the small-scale fishermen who contributed to more than 60 percent of national captured fisheries （Muawanah et al., 2018）.
In Indonesia, the fishing settlements can be found not only in rural areas but also in the urban periphery and inner-city areas. Some settlements have a
long history and developed a material culture and built Figure 2 Kampung Bajo Village, Wakatobi
（source: field survey）
upon heritage, while others are recent and heterogeneous. One example of an old-established fishing settlement is Mola village in Wakatobi, home of the famous indigenous sea-nomad community, the Bajo. In Wakatobi, they had developed a unique on-water settlement above shallow water with houses, schools, a mosque and clinic connected by walkways. An example of more recent fishing village is Kampung Sumber Jaya in Bengkulu. The development of fishing and commercial ports in the area has attracted fishermen and workers from surrounding areas who had squatted on vacant land adjacent to the port.
According to Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs （MFMA）, there are 12.827 coastal fishing villages in Indonesia. Despite their distinct characteristics, most of the settlements share similar physical traits of informal and unplanned housing arrangements with high risk exposure and limited basic services. The dire living conditions of fishing settlements received attention from the national government which has been imple- menting various programs under the aegis of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing （MoPWH） and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs.
The national government is determined to improve the living conditions of these fishermen. President Joko Widodo’s nine priorities agenda （Nawacita） include policy direction to strengthen the marine economy so that the nation can become an advanced maritime state. One of the efforts is to improve the quality of fishing settlements through comprehensive slum upgrading in eleven areas sponsored by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing. Another one is land certification and community-based neighborhood infrastructure development projects conducted by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs. The national government’s intention to carry out slum upgrading in fishing villages is a promising progress since it will bring substantial improvement to many aspects of fishermen’s lives by reducing conflict, crime, insecurity, flood risks, and promoting household economies, proliferation of businesses, and strengthening resilience （Yu et al., 2016; Mitra et al., 2017; Perez- Casas, 2017）.
Review Over Policies and Programs Toward Fishing Villages
There are no specific laws governing fishing villages in Indonesia. However, there are a few laws related to small-scale fisheries, human settlements, and other cross-sectoral regulations that frame the government’s approach in dealing with fishing villages and provide guiding principles for upgrading interventions. Below, I will briefly explain the content of these laws and critically assess areas concern to fishing village.
1. Law No. 31 of 2004, later amended with Law No. 45 of 2009, regarding Fisheries
The laws provide the basic regulations at the national level that cover fisheries management;
fishing boats, gear and licensing; added-value fishery product; fisheries research and development; fishery fees; the empowerment and prosperity of fishermen; fishery courts and arbitration; and, fishery enforcement and sanctions （Muawanah et al., 2018）. The legislation defines small-scale fishermen as fishermen who use
small size vessel less than 5 Gross Tonnage （GT）, and it also rule that they are not required to acquire business license to operate. The regulation prohibits destructive practice of poisoning fish and blast fishing as well as Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing to maintain fishing stock in Indonesian waters. The law intends to improve small-scale fishermen welfare by mandating the provision of credit assistance and exemption from levies and licensing. However, the regulation skew towards larger scale fisheries as it become the dominant domain of the law. Out of 111 articles in the original Law, only 8 articles mention small-scale fishing practice.
2. Law No. 27 of 2007, later amended with Law No. 1 of 2014, regarding Coastal and Island Management The purpose of the law is to regulate conservation and utilization of coastal and small island resources to ensure sustainability both on the coastline and inshore waters. The law established important coastal management arrangements such as zoning regulations, concession rights, land reclamation, and conservation areas. It recognizes traditional fishermen as one of the main stakeholders in coastal management and acknowledges the right of traditional communities to fish with customary practices. In addition, there is also the statute of Mitra Bahari’（literal translation: maritime partners）, a stakeholder forum consisting representatives from local government, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, academicians, and business sector （article 41）. This forum focuses on counseling, training, research, and policy advising and traditional/small scale fishermen are able to participate as a forum member. However, this forum only has a consultative role and does not have authority to make decisions. This is little more than tokenism arrangement and may be insufficient to ensure the voice of small-scale fishermen to be heard.
The legislation also stipulates the creation of coastal zoning plan by local governments as a reference in issuing coastal waters tenure rights （HP3） which a right given to individual or legal entity to utilize an area of inshore waters along with its resources. This right can be given to traditional communities, but it has been criticized for favoring large-scale industries and tourism development （KIARA, 2019）. Furthermore, the zoning plan mainly focused on the water area and often disconnect the land area which fall under Spatial Plan regulation. This created disjointed planning between the land system and water system.
Furthermore, the law also does not govern fishing village. In fact, it excludes settlement as one of the priority zoning allocations for coastal regions and small islands （article 23）.
3. Law No. 7 of 2016 regarding The Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Farmers, and Salt Farmers As the title suggest, this law intend to protect and empower small-scale fishermen, fish farmers, and salt farmers. The act calls for protection and empowerment of small-scale fishermen, including provision of facilities and enabling environment necessary to run their businesses, enhancement of fishermen’s capacity and skills, as well as ensuring their safety against catastrophic events. However, the law does not specifically address issues of fishing village protection and improvement. The law does not stipulate assurance for rights of coastal space for small-scale fisheries. The facilities that are mentioned in the legislation mostly refer to
fisheries facilities （e.g. fishing harbor, cold storage） instead of settlement infrastructures （e.g. sanitation facilities, housing）.
4. Law No. 26 of 2007 regarding Spatial Planning
The law provides general regulation for spatial management in Indonesia with the objective of harmonizing natural and built-up environment. The regulation calls for the establishment of spatial plans at national, provincial, and city/district level governing not only land space, but also sea and air space. One of the important directives of the law is the obligation to allocate 30% of city area for green open space. One form of green open space is the green belt along the coastline. This become the excuse for local municipal- ities to clear informal coastal slum that inhabited by many small-scale fishermen households.
5. Law No. 1 of 2011 regarding Human Settlement and Housing
This law states that every citizen has the right to decent housing and a safe living environment.
Based on this law, the government intends to upgrade all slum settlements by the year 2025. Under this law, slum settlement is defined as a precarious settlement because of its disorganized spatial structure, high building density, poor quality construction and lack of access to urban infrastructure. This definition puts the physical aspect of slums at the center without recognizing the complex nature of the social and economic dimension of slums. As a result, existing programs mainly focus on the physical upgrading and fail to address other related issues such as poverty, land tenure, and social cohesion.
Based on those policies, government have been implementing several programs to improve living conditions of small-scale fishing communities. While there are few local governments who have introduced measures to upgrade fishing villages, the national government still plays the major role. Two ministries have strategic programs regarding fishing village improvement, Ministry of Public Works and Housing （MoPWH） and Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs （MFMA）.
One of the main tasks of MoPWH is to create livable human settlements in the country through infrastructure and housing development. The ministry is in charge in realizing the vision of cities without slum . Since many fishing settlements has been identified as slum, fishing village become one of the program targets. In 2015, the MoPWH was assigned by the President to conduct comprehensive slum upgrading programs in 11 locations. During Fiscal Year 2016-2018 more than 550 billion IDR （≈40 million USD） were allocated for street improvement, open space landscaping, drainage development, self-help house renovation, construction of communal sanitation facilities, street furnishing, promenade and boat dock/jetty construction, and retaining wall installation. The result was a major facelift of the fishing village’s physical image. In Kampung Sumber Jaya for example, beautification in the area has attracted local tourists who visit for boat rides around the mangrove forest in the surrounding the area. The program also contributes to improvement of access to drinking water and safe sanitation.
In Sumber Jaya village, in spite of significant improvements, the upgrading projects had some flaws.
The land use pattern of the settlement remains unchanged; thus, the settlement would not be able to cope with continuing influx of migrants in the future as activities in the port thrive further. Several fishermen also complain about limited space for fish processing activities. They used to dry fish in banks, which were then transformed into a promenade. The upgrading project led to eviction of several houses, which deemed as inevi- table consequence by the local authority. These evictees did receive compensation and later moved to other informal settlements nearby or live on boats.
Meanwhile, in the Mola village, the settlement of which the Bajo people built was completely altered.
The settlement, which exhibit Bajo people’s tangible cultural heritage and maritime way of life, was labelled as slum in 2014 because of the insufficiency of street network. Massive slum upgrading program ensue from 2015 to 2018. The most notable project was the development of street network throughout almost all part of the villages. In constructing the streets, the government heap soil on shallow waterways that used to be traversed by boats. This approach had altered visual identity of the area, and to some degree change residents’ lifestyle and household assets. The project has been conducted without considering the cultural value and the meaning of place held by the residents; hence, it diminishes local identity and weakens place attachment.
Another approach by MoPWH is through a housing development program exclusively for fishermen.
Since 2015, the ministry has built thousands of new houses for fishermen which they inhabit for free or at low cost. These houses were constructed by contractors in newly developed housing complex throughout the country, with complete basic infrastructure such as electricity, road, water, and drainage systems. Never- theless, this housing development project received a mixed review. Although most fishermen praise the uniformly built houses as more modern and neater compared to their former shabby shacks, some of them lament its design which disregards the diverse needs of fishermen, and for the high cost of maintenance and furnishing. In some cases, access to the fishing port is not easy and fishermen can not keep an eye on their most precious asset, their boats. The number of houses built is also insuf- ficient, so not all fishermen receive housing assistance. As a result, coastal slums persist. Furthermore, the selective nature of the housing program has created a degree of dissatisfaction among fishermen who were not selected as beneficiaries.
Apart from MoPWH, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs （MFMA） is experimenting with two programs in fishing villages: land registration and community-based infrastructure development. For fishermen who already have customary land rights proven by tax receipts, the MFMA will facilitate land registration so Figure 3 Housing Development for Fishermen （Source: www.
pu.go.id）
that they can obtain freehold land certificates. This certificate will ensure a fisherman’s tenure security, and it may be used as collateral so that they can increase fishery capital. In addition, the MFMA also provides grants for neighborhood infrastructure such as pedestrian, drainage, public toilets, and garbage bins. These infrastruc- tures are constructed by the community themselves to empower them and improve social cohesion. However, due to budget constraints, both programs have only been implemented at small scale in very few locations.
In formulating policies and designing programs, each government institution has its own objectives and approaches. Although there has been some coordination among stakeholders, they have not collaborated well enough to address coastal management and fishing village issues comprehensively. A single-sectoral and technocratic approach only solved particular manifestation of living in a run-down environment while fisher- men’s challenges are multi-dimensional. Settlement upgrading has the potential to achieve multi-objectives such as creation of alternative employment, disaster risk reduction, and provision of decent housing and basic infra- structures. With an integrated approach, fishing settlement upgrading could accomplish these objectives in an efficient manner. However, efforts in upgrading fishing village should be tailored according to features of coastal environment, maritime culture, and fishery-based livelihood. Hence, institutional framework that embraces cross-sectoral collaboration can address challenges and bridge the gaps in the implementation of fishing village upgrading programs is needed.
Cross-Sectoral Collaborative Governance
Coastal problems are highly complex and often unstructured. They are complex because they consist of a variety of social systems （communities, infrastructures, land uses etc.） and a variety of natural systems （coastal lands, marine resources etc.） They are also unstructured due to multiple sets of uncertainties, non-linearities and risks, and the fact that costs and benefits often fall on different actors （Gupta and Bavinck, 2017）. Single sectoral technocratic approach would be inappropriate to manage intricate coastal ecosystems as it may generate wider socio-economic risk. Conventional （Weberian） bureaucratic schemes rooted on principles such as hierar- chical structures of authority, strict on written rules and procedures, and organizational specialization have the very opposite characteristics required to promote adaptive and integrated coastal management （Colenbrander and Bavinck, 2017）. Based on their study in Cape Town, Colenbrander and Bavinck （2017） conclude that poor levels of departmental collaboration, limited autonomy and an inability to learn at an institutional level do in fact result in a deteriorating coastal environment.
In the case of Indonesia, bureaucratic silo-culture in coastal management is anticipated by the formation of Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs in 2015. This new ministry is responsible for inter- agency planning and policy coordination of maritime affairs which include infrastructure building policies.
However, despite the good intentions, gaps in policies and programs remain especially regarding fishing villages.
There has not been any regulation to ensure right of coastal space for small-scale fishermen and to conserve and
revitalize fishing villages so that they can be sustainable in the long term. Issues of fishing settlements are very much related to fishing communities and fishery productivity, which are the main concern of MFMA, as well as related to human settlement and infrastructure development, which are the responsibility of MoPWH. Both organizations are restricted by written rules and procedures and they have acquired specialist skills and adminis- trative functions in the pursuit of their respective objectives. Therefore, both institutions, along with other stake- holders, should collaborate to make effective use of each resources so that multiple objectives of upgrading fishing village can be achieved.
In recent decades, there has been a growing number of studies seeking for more collaborative bureau- cratic arrangements that are responsive and inclusive. One of which is collaborative governance, defined by Ansell & Gash （2007） as: A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliber- ative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets . In this case, the alliance of actors in fisheries sector and settlement development sector is highly important. This alliance can produce several actions that resolve both sectoral problem and concerns. Several cross-sectoral collective actions are proposed both at national and local level as follows:
1. Establish regulation to conserve and revitalize fishing villages as a legal basis for upgrading fishing settlement programs
Although initiatives to upgrade fishing settlements have been already carried out, a legal basis is necessary to continue conservation and revitalization efforts in the future. This regulation should ensure small-scale fisheries have the right to coastal space and set principles on fishing village governance.
2. Build capacity of fishery cooperatives to provide housing finance and manage property assets gained from slum upgrading
Small-scale fishermen may not possess assets that can be used as collateral to obtain institutional loans from banks. Fishing cooperatives can be an alternative creditor to finance not only for purchasing fishing gears but also for housing renovation. These cooperatives could manage government-subsidized mortgage using group lending scheme. In addition, major slum upgrading programs that include land rearrangement often create unreserved space that can be utilized for tourism or fish processing industry etc.
These communal property assets should be managed by fishing cooperatives who can benefit from additional business activities. This way, fishing cooperative would have an interest investing to maintain the area.
However, in order to diversify business operations, fishing cooperatives need technical and financial assis- tance from the government or other external sectors.
3. Designs for upgrading settlement that consider fishery production chains
Fishing settlements are also where land-based fishing related activities such as marketing, net
mending, fish drying or processing, etc. take place （Panayotou, 1982）. Slum upgrading programs should accommodate these activities to preserve fishery outputs or increase added value.
4. Housing provision and infrastructure development that anticipate further influx of poor migrants
Open access to in-shore marine resources makes small-scale fisheries an employer of last-resort
（Béné, 2003）. Hence, poor rural migrants who enter fishing activities are likely to move to fishing villages to find affordable housing in coastal areas. If not anticipated, this situation will lead to a further overcrowding or expansion of squatter settlements. Fishing village upgrading program should anticipate this issue by constructing housing and basic infrastructure which can grow as population increases. Incremental housing can be an alternative as it provides opportunity for households to expand their house gradually in accordance to their needs. Land readjustment should also be considered to make space for future incoming settler.
One important characteristic of collaborative governance is active participation of non-state actors, such as small-scale fishermen, fishing cooperatives, and neighborhood associations, in the stakeholder forum.
Through this forum, participants engage directly in decision making process and are not merely consulted by public agencies （Ansell and Gash, 2007）. According to Indonesian Law, such collaborative platforms in coastal management already exist in Mitra Bahari organization. However, under the current law, this body only has a consultative role that may be far from actual decision-making process. For collaborative governance to function, its role and legitimacy need to be strengthened so that they can decide or at least influence coastal policies.
Collaborative governance also urges communities to have real responsibility for policy outcomes since it involves joint activities, joint structures and shared resources （Ansell and Gash, 2007）. Therefore, community organiza- tions such as fishery cooperatives and neighborhood association should be empowered so they can actively participate in fishing village upgrading and management. To empower these organizations, a system of co-management, in which local government agencies and community organizations share management respon- sibility, is necessary.
Design for fishing village upgrading projects should acknowledge existing social institutions which have progressed through history, defined by local discourses, which then develop into local practices （Gupta and Bavinck, 2017）. Disintegration or further stratification within fishing communities should be avoided （Jentoft, 2000）. No other institutions have higher level of understanding regarding local institutions and environment than community-based organizations such as fishing cooperatives and neighborhood associations. They should collaborate and be agents of change in addressing coastal management and fishing village issues through local stakeholder forum to ensure greater participation and responsiveness to solve existing problems in fishing settlement-harbor areas. This approach holds the prospect of enhancing social cohesion as it promotes cooper- ation, builds networks, and improves trust within and among local communities.
Conclusion
The social and cultural context of small-scale fisheries, which include housing and land arrangement, is not fully understood by many fisheries and social scientists （Ruddle, 2014）. Most literatures on fisheries management focus on relationship between fishermen and nature （Bavinck, Jentoft and Scholtens, 2018）. While matters such as overfishing and protection of marine ecosystem are indeed important, present-day fishers’ face daily social struggles which centre on distributional justice by cause of disadvantageous power relations with others in human environment. One of which is their endeavour to obtain decent housing and habitable human settlement in the increasingly prized coastal area.
As clearly shown by the dismal images of fishing villages in many developing countries, fishermen, particularly small-scale fishers in the Global South, live in categorically slum settlements, unable to enter formal land/housing market in bourgeoning coastal areas. This is clearly the manifestation of low-income generation and political marginalization experienced by many small-scale fishers. However, the virtual absence of the most basic urban services and common goods hinder social prosperity and wealth generation of slum dwellers, which then created vicious cycle between poverty and degenerating settlement environment. In other words, small- scale fishermen, because of poverty, had limited options aside from living in slum settlement whose condition often detrimental to economic productivity and well-being. Hence, settlement issue becoming one of the signif- icant, but often neglected, development challenges faced by present-day fisher communities.
Governance failure is at the core of not only housing challenges in general, but also fishing villages problem. One of the critical governance flaws has to do with the rigid division of labour and organizational specialization which influenced by Weberian bureaucracy principles. With so much focus on improving fisheries
Figure 4 Collaborative Governance in managing fishing village
productivity and environmental sustainability, policy makers in fisheries sector often failed to acknowledge that fishing settlement is a part of fisheries issues. Meanwhile, authorities responsible for settlement development area disregard economic and cultural importance of coastal environmental service for the fishermen. In the silo- based bureaucracy arrangement, not only the coastal area is divided into two separate spheres, in which sea and land are being governed under different disconnected system, but also fishing village’s domain has been detached from the whole system of fisheries business. Fishing settlement is one of the social space of fishermen that cannot be separated with other social space: fishing harbour and fishing ground. While catching fish takes place at sea, fish landing, selling and processing occurs on the land which creates a network of relational encounters between ecosystems （Urquhart, Acott and Zhao, 2013）. Borrowing Lefebvre （1991） concept, these social spaces are not only the social product of fisher communities but also their mode of production for commodities, culture, and network. Hence, fisheries productivity could only be enhanced if this linkage is maintained to avoid destabi- lization of existing intricate system.
To govern fishing villages, there is an urgent need for an integrative, multidisciplinary, and adaptive approach. Collaborative governance provides opportunities for actors who have different perspectives to reach consensus, avoid adversarial policy, and then mobilize their respective resources. Empowerment of fishery cooperatives and neighborhood association is proposed to be the focus of cross-sectoral collaboration so both groups can build social trust and conduct collective learning and problem solving. As the marine people generally lacked in representatives in political arena, stakeholder forum, such as Mitra Bahari forum in Indonesia, would be an ideal platform for fishermen to voice their concern in human settlement development and coastal management. In government projects, they should be empowered to influence the direction and execution of projects rather than merely receive a share of project benefits. The purpose of citizen participation is not only empowerment, building beneficiary capacity, project effectiveness and efficiency, and project cost sharing as mentioned by Paul （1987）, but also the philosophical motivation behind the project that is ensuring the human rights of those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods are respected, that benefits of growth are equitably distributed and that human well-being of coastal and marine-resource dependent people is maintained or enhanced （Leach et al., 2012）. Further research on social structures and settlement strategies of fishing commu- nities should be encouraged to improve models for upgrading interventions in the area.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented in the 15th International Congress of Asian Planning Schools Association, in Seoul National University, South Korea. The author is grateful for the exceptionally insightful comments and advises from Prof. Osamu Soda of Waseda University. The author also would like to express gratitude to Alan Farr for his help in language editing of this paper.
〔投稿受理日2021. 5. 17／掲載決定日2021. 7. 12〕
References
Acheson, J. M. （1981） Anthropology of Fishing’, Annual Review Anthropology, 10, pp. 275-316. Available at: https://www.jstor.
org/stable/2155719.
Andersson, E., Barthel, S. and Ahrné, K. （2007） Measuring Social–Ecological Dynamics Behind The Generation Of Ecosystem Services’, Ecological Applications, 17（5）, pp. 1267-1278. doi: 10.1890/06-1116.1.
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. （2007） Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18（4）, pp. 543-571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Asmal, I. and Amri, N. （2018） Housing Character in the Border Beach Area of Cambayya’, Journal of Architecture & Environ- ment, 17（1）, pp. 1-16. doi: 10.12962/j2355262x.v17i1.a3394.
Bavinck, M. （2011） Wealth, Poverty, and Immigration: The Role of Institutions in the Fisheries of Tamil Nadu, India’, in Jentoft, S. and Eide, A. （eds） Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Netherlands, pp. 173-191.
Bavinck, M. et al. （2017） The impact of coastal grabbing on community conservation – a global reconnaissance’, Maritime Studies, 16（1）. doi: 10.1186/s40152-017-0062-8.
Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. and Scholtens, J. （2018） Fisheries as social struggle: A reinvigorated social science research agenda’, Marine Policy, 94（May）, pp. 46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.026.
Béné, C. （2003） When fishery rhymes with poverty: A first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty’, World Development, 31（6）, pp. 949-975. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X（03）00045-7.
Béné, C. and Friend, R. M. （2009） Water, poverty and inland fisheries: lessons from Africa and Asia’, Water International, 34（1）, pp. 47-61. doi: 10.1080/02508060802677838.
Béné, C. and Friend, R. M. （2011） Poverty in small-scale fisheries: Old issue, new analysis’, Progress in Development Studies, 11（2）, pp. 119-144. doi: 10.1177/146499341001100203.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D. and Brown, G. （2003） Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23（3）, pp. 259-271. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944（02）00117-2.
Colburn, L. L. and Jepson, M. （2012） Social Indicators of Gentrification Pressure in Fishing Communities: A Context for Social Impact Assessment’, Coastal Management, 40（3）, pp. 289-300. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2012.677635.
Colenbrander, D. and Bavinck, M. （2017） Exploring the role of bureaucracy in the production of coastal risks, City of Cape Town, South Africa’, Ocean and Coastal Management, 150, pp. 35-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.012.
Cunningham, S. （1994） Fishermen’s Incomes and Fisheries Management’, Marine Resource Economics, 9, pp. 241-252. doi:
10.1086/mre.9.3.42629083.
Dadon, J. R. and Oldani, J. I. （2017） Interjurisdictional coastal management in metropolitan areas’, Ocean and Coastal Manage- ment, 148, pp. 260-271. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.08.002.
Ezeh, A. et al. （2017） The history, geography, and sociology of slums and the health problems of people who live in slums’, The Lancet, 389（10068）, pp. 547-558. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736（16）31650-6.
FAO/Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research （2004） Report of the second session of the Working Party on Small-scale Fisheries.
Bangkok, Thailand, 18-21 November 2003. Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/006/y5245e/
y5245e00.pdf.
FAO （2015） Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradi- cation. Rome.
FAO （2018） The State of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the world 2018: Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I9540EN/.
Gieryn, T. F. （2000） A Space for Place in Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26（1）, pp. 463-496. doi: 10.1146/annurev.
soc.26.1.463.
Gillam, C. and Charles, A. （2018） Fishers in a Brazilian Shantytown: Relational wellbeing supports recovery from environ-
