- Email: [email protected]
Economic impact of artificial reefs: A case study of small scale fishers in Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia
Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres
Economic impact of artificial reefs: A case study of small scale fishers in Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia Gazi Md. Nurul Islam ∗ , Kusairi Mohd Noh, Shaufique F. Sidique, Aswani Farhana Mohd Noh Institute of Agricultural and Food Policy Studies, Putra Infoport, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 February 2013 Received in revised form 19 October 2013 Accepted 28 October 2013 Keywords: Artificial reefs Artisanal fishers Marine fisheries Economic impact Peninsular Malaysia
a b s t r a c t This paper examines the economic benefits of artificial reefs (ARs) on artisanal fishers in Terengganu in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The data for this study was obtained from interviews with 290 artisanal fishers from three districts of Terengganu, using a structured questionnaire. The study found that for fishers, income from fishing was significantly lower in AR areas, compared to non-AR areas. The income of the fishers who used drift nets as their main fishing gear was significantly lower in AR areas. This indicates that income from fishing was not attributable to the AR programme in Malaysia. The results suggest that artificial reefs may not be effective at increasing catch and income for artisanal fishers in Terengganu. Furthermore, the larger-engined boats gained substantial fishing income, which seems to reflect unequal distribution of benefits, because only those who could invest in fishing equipment and who spent more on fishing operations were able to gain maximum benefits. The results suggest that the current use of multiple gear in the same fishing locations created conflicts between various groups of fishers, and increased fishing costs. These conflicts could be reduced if the artificial reef locations are clearly marked and they established user rights among various fisher groups. The fisheries agencies involved in artificial reefs programme should ensure that artificial reef development produces positive social and economic benefits for the local fishing communities through sustainable fisheries management in Malaysia. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Traditionally, artificial reefs (AR) have been used by smallscale fishers to increase catches (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Bohnsack, 1991). However, over-exploitation of marine fisheries in several countries has drawn the attention of policymakers over the years. In Malaysia, the government has undertaken a large ARdevelopment programme over the last three decades. Considerable investment has been financed by the government to develop a diverse range of AR structures and designs. One of the objectives of deploying AR in marine waters is to increase catches, in order to improve the economic conditions of artisanal fishing communities. Several studies from across the world have provided limited empirical evidence on the socio-economic benefits of AR to fishers (Crowder et al., 2000; Carter, 2003; Rey, 1985). Few studies conducted outside Malaysia have given a positive impression of the economic performance of AR (Polovina and Sakai, 1989;
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8947 1093; fax: +60 3 8943 2611. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (G.M.N. Islam). 0165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.10.018
Johnson et al., 1994; Venkatasami and Mamode, 1995; Yodee, 1994). The contribution of AR to fisheries resources and the economic impact on poor fishers has not been studied in detail in Malaysia. Viswanathan et al. (1996) investigated the economic impact of AR on the livelihood of artisanal fishers in Peninsular Malaysia, and have found that the AR may simply attract existing stocks without increasing fish biomass, which means that the catch is merely redistributed to other fishers. Whitmarsh et al. (2008) investigated the economic impact of artificial reef programmes in southern Portugal. They found that AR contributed direct use benefits to the local fishing community and the economy in southern Portugal. However, the study highlighted that a clear exploitation strategy is needed to control fishing activity around the reefs in order to prevent overfishing. Artificial reefs serve a variety of functions, ranging from the traditional practice of food production to newer applications – which include mariculture, tourism and resource conservation (Seaman, 2002). Several studies highlight that there are potential uncertainties about the positive outcome of AR, while the expectations from them were often over-optimistic (Grossman et al., 1997; Bohnsack, 1989; Garcia, 1991; Mottet, 1985; Grove and Sonu, 1985). Some authors expressed their concern that there is a need to control
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
harmful activities around AR that could impact both fish population and habitats (Rogers and Beets, 2001; Salmona and Verardi, 2001). Other studies suggest that management of AR should be consistent with fisheries management, e.g. to avoid stock overexploitation, through unexpected reallocation of fishing effort over space around AR (Polovina, 1991; Botsford et al., 2003; Denny and Babcock, 2004). The uncertainty of positive contributions from AR have been highlighted by others (Bohnsack, 1989; Polovina, 1994; Kerr, 1992; Seaman, 1996), which suggests that AR may serve purely as an aggregating device, without any increase in fish biomass. The inability of production increases from AR has been attested by Pickering and Whitmarsh (1997), who presented the “attraction versus production” debate of AR programmes. They argue that while the proper design of ARs may maximise productivity, it may have serious problems of distribution in the absence of an effective management strategy. Chou (1997) stressed the importance of the design in his review on the development of ARs in the ASEAN region. Milon (1989) refers this to a “paradox of artificial habitat development” – namely, a technology which is biologically effective may jeopardise the overall economic performance of a fishery if access to the resources is not controlled. The Department of Fisheries Malaysia (DOFM) and the Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia (FDAM) have been involved in the AR programme in Malaysia. The main objective of AR, deployed by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia, was to protect inshore fishery habitats from trawls to enhance fisheries resources, while the Fisheries Development Authority deployed AR as a fish-aggregating device by the artisanal fishers in order to increase income from fishing. Although the Department of Fisheries Malaysia had intended to ban fishing surrounding AR areas, these structures were not protected, due to lack of monitoring and enforcement. Most of the concrete AR was not suitable for fishing, especially by those who used various types of fishing methods. The policy for AR development has been unclear whether the fishers would use the fisheries for long term benefits or whether these structures could be used for short term benefits from catch. The objectives of the study were to (i) assess and classify the artisanal fisheries of the Terengganu region, Malaysia; (ii) investigate if artisanal fishers are receiving the perceived posited benefits of AR construction (i.e. higher catch rates and equitable access), and; investigate if current management arrangements are most suitable for the long term operation of these ARs. The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes an overview of AR and fisheries in Malaysia; Section 3 presents the study area and data sources; Section 4 summarises the results, while the discussion and recommendations are presented in the final section.
2. Artificial reefs in Malaysia The artificial reef project was officially introduced in the coastal marine waters of Malaysia in 1975. More than US$16 million has been spent on AR programmes in Malaysia over the past three decades (1975–2010). The materials used for AR until 1995 were mainly scrap automobile tyres and derelict fishing vessels. Since 1995, use of tyres was banned because of its possible negative effects on the marine environment, and because these materials were highly unstable in the seabed (Saharuddin et al., 2012). However, underwater visual surveys showed that almost all AR with tyres in Terengganu were submerged by sedimentation (Ahmad et al., 2008). Since 1986, various concrete materials have been used for AR, including concrete, reef balls, PVC, ceramics, abandoned oil rigs, and cuboids of various shapes and designs. The AR is usually placed on the seabed between three-to-five miles away from the shore at an
123
Fig. 1. Study location and the map of Peninsular Malaysia.
average water depth of 15–30 m (Department of Fisheries Terengganu, pers. comm.). It is expected that the presence of fish at AR structures would make it easier for fishers to harvest at the nearest fishing locations with reduced fishing costs. Intensive research and development of AR took place before deploying the large AR structures during 2006–2009. Several large AR structures were deployed by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia, including concrete cubes, cuboids, soft bottom, lobsters, and tetrapods during this period. The main justification for deploying these durable structures was to protect inshore fisheries from trawls (Department of Fisheries Terengganu, pers. comm.). Whitmarsh et al. (2008) argue that antitrawling devices may enhance juvenile fish, and generate indirect use benefits through wider fishery production. 2.1. Artificial reefs in Terengganu The ARs were deployed by the Fisheries Development Authority over 549 locations throughout Malaysia until 2010, while about 65% of total AR were deployed in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Azmi and Yazid, 2008). There are 13 different types and design of AR deployed in Terengganu. The sizes of concrete AR range from small (1 m × 1 m × 1 m) to large (3.4 m × 3.4 m × 3.6 m), with a maximum weight of 35 tonnes. Each module consists of several hundred units of AR, averaging 2400 units of automobile tyres deployed in each location, while AR with cylinders averaged 2900 units. On average, each type of AR designed with concrete materials consists of 14–150 units (Appendix A). Data obtained from the Department of Fisheries Malaysia show that 11 types of AR structures were deployed in 38 locations in Kuala Terengganu, nine types in 31 locations in Kuala Setiu and six types in 23 locations in Kuala Besut (Figs. 1 and 2). In Kuala Terengganu and Setiu, AR was more densely covered with AR structures compared to Besut. Various types of fish species are attracted to AR structures. Visual observations from two AR sites showed that the presence of demersal fishes – such as groupers, snappers and coral fishes were mostly confined within distance of or close to the AR found after six months of deployment. The dominant and economically important demersal species were big eye snapper
124
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
Fig. 2. Artificial reef locations in the study districts of Terengganu State.
(Lutjanus lutjanus), brown stripe snapper (Lutjanus vitta), brown barred grouper (Cephalopholis boenack), areolated grouper (Epinephelus areolotus) and painted sweetlips (Diagramma pictum). The dominant pelagic species were yellowtail scad (Atule mate), shrimp scad (Alapes djedaba), trevally (Carangaoides spp.) and Caranx sexfasciatus (Ahmad et al., 2012). 2.2. Terengganu fisheries The state of Terengganu, located in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia about 500 km north-east of Kuala Lumpur, is surrounded on three sides by the South China Sea. Terengganu is made up of six small districts. More than 11,000 fishers are directly involved in fishing, representing about 13% of the total number of fishers in Peninsular Malaysia (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2010). Currently, there are approximately 4900 artisanal fishers (45%) in Terengganu (Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). The fishers in Terengganu are predominantly Malays. There are 7322 fishing boats in Terengganu, which account for 17% of total fishing boats in Peninsular Malaysia in 2010. The small-scale artisanal fishers in Terengganu are poor, and have lower catch rates compared to larger-scale commercial fishing operators. The incidence of poverty is very high among the artisanal fisher households in Terengganu (Yahaya and Wells, 1982). However, recent studies show that the incidence of poverty of fishers in Terengganu State is the lowest as compared to other states in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2012). Fishing activities are conducted throughout the year in Terengganu. However, due to strong winds, fishing activities are minimal between November and January. The majority of artisanal fishers use outboard-engine fishing boats. Inboard-powered boats are mostly fitted with 25 horsepower engines, on average. The smaller fibre glass boats (locally called sampan) are more commonly used in the artisanal fishing community. Fishers in Terengganu use a variety of fishing gear, such as hand lines, long lines, traps, gill nets, and drift nets. However, each gear type has a number of different designs and sizes, to catch specific types of fish and shrimp species.
similar to that used to investigate the contribution of AR to the fishers in Peninsular Malaysia (Viswanathan et al., 1996) and fishing income in coastal waters in Portugal (Whitmarsh et al., 2008). The list of artisanal fishers for each district was obtained from the Department of Fisheries office in Terengganu, containing the sizes of boat and types of gear used. The list indicated that fishers used three main types of gear: hook and line; drift or gill nets; and traps. Sample respondents were randomly selected from the list of artisanal fishers. Interviews were conducted in the late afternoon or evening, as most fishers were only available during this time. A total of 312 respondents were interviewed between September 2011 and November 2011. After the interview, we discovered that 22 respondents were actually purse seiners, although they are licensed as artisanal fishers. Since these fishers were not using traditional fishing equipment, they were excluded from our analysis, leaving us with a sample of 290 respondents. When inconsistencies were identified in the collected data during the analysis, the study team members revisited the selected fishers to gather more information. 3.1. Study area and data source The survey was conducted in three adjacent districts in Terengganu state: Besut, Setiu, and Kuala Terengganu (Fig. 1). The data for this study was obtained from face-to-face interviews of fishers, using a structured questionnaire. Prior to field data collection, we had conducted focus group discussions (FGD) and a key informants survey (KIS) to improve the questionnaire and gather information on fishing practices, gear used, and income and expenditure of fishers. The questionnaire consisted of five sections covering various indicators: Section A covered household characteristics; Section B covered fishing gear and method-related indicators; Section C covered fishing locations (AR and non-AR areas), catches and costs; Section D covered household income from other non-fishing sources; and Section E covered respondent perceptions on fisheries management and the overall impact of AR programmes on their livelihoods. During the interview, the enumerators used maps to assist respondents in identifying and marking their approximate fishing locations. There are three main fishing seasons in Terengganu. The “catch value per trip” calculation for three different fishing seasons – the main season, the shrimp season, and the squid season – was used to estimate monthly fishing income. Fishing income was calculated by multiplying income per trip by the number of trips per week (as reported in the questionnaire), and multiplying this amount by four (weeks) to get the monthly catch value for the respective fishing seasons. These monthly values were then multiplied by the number of operating months for the respective seasons. The total catch values for all the seasons were then divided by 12 to get the average monthly catch value. Fishing income was calculated by catches in AR areas and non-AR areas. The survey results were analysed by district (Besut, Setiu, and Kuala Terengganu), fishing vessel type (inboard/outboard powered), boat engine power (up to 15 horsepower/16 and larger horsepower) and fishing gear (hook and line/drift net and gill nets/traps). 4. Results 4.1. Characteristics of respondents
3. Methodology The study adopted a household survey approach, to obtain data from the selected respondents in Terengganu. The approach was
The data showed that a large number of people who engaged in fisheries were relatively old, at an average age of 50 years, while 22% of the fishers were more than 60 years old. The average
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129 Table 1 Respondents’ average trip time spent for fishing by boat and gear use (%). Gear use and income Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Traps All Boat Inboard Outboard All
Up to 30 min
30–60 min
60 min and above
All
125
Table 2 Number of fishing locations and fishing duration by boat engines and districts. N
District
Fishing duration (h) Inboard
7.6 17.2 2.8 27.6
7.6 32.1 2.1 41.8
4.1 20.3 6.2 30.6
19.3 69.7 11 100
56 202 32 290
0.3 27.2 27.6
2.8 39 41.7
12.8 17.9 30.7
15.9 84.1 100
46 244 290
Besut Setiu KTa ALL a
size of households consisted of five members, but one third of the total sample households had a very large household size (7–12 members). The majority of respondents used relatively low-powered small boats (sampan), which were fitted with outboard engines with an average output of 25 horsepower. The average value of inboard-powered boats was 36% higher than the outboard-powered boats. Average boat and gear values were US$2588 and US$857 respectively. Boat values were relatively higher in Kuala Terengganu, followed by Besut and Setiu. The gear value was the highest in Setiu (US$971), compared to Besut and Kuala Terengganu (Appendices D and E). Fishers used various types and designs of fishing gear to target various types of fish, shrimp and squid. The average value of fishing gear/nets for inboard-powered vessels was 32% higher than for outboard-powered gear. Among the districts, the average value of fishing gear for inboard-powered vessels was significantly higher in Setiu than in the other two districts. This data clearly indicates that fishers who used inboard-powered vessels had substantially higher amounts of capital (boat and gear) compared to those who used outboard-powered vessels in Besut and Setiu districts. Meanwhile in Terengganu, fishers on outboard-powered boats used high value fishing gear (US$855), compared to the gear used by inboardpowered boats (US$470). More than half of the total respondents in the study used multiple fishing gears, such as hook and lines, drift/gill nets, and traps. Fishers in Besut mostly used multiple gears (67%), followed by Setiu (58%) and Kuala Terengganu (44%). Various types and designs of drift nets and gill nets were the major fishing gear used by traditional fishers (70%) in the study area (Appendix F). The gear is designed to catch various types and sizes of fish and shrimp. Hook and line and drift nets were widely used by traditional fishers in the study area, with only a limited number of fishers using traps (11%).
4.2. Fishing location and travel time The majority of the drift/gill net users spent between 30 min and 60 min to reach their fishing locations. The hook-and-line fishers spent between 5 min and 60 min, while the trap users spent 60 min and above to get to their fishing locations. More than 84% of the total sampled fishers used outboard-powered fishing boats. A substantial number of outboard-powered vessel fishers (39%) spent between 30 min and 60 min to reach their fishing location, while a smaller proportion of the inboard-powered fishers (13%) travelled for 60 min and above to get to their fishing locations. The results indicate that fishers used relatively lowengine-powered fishing boats and travelled shorter distances from the shore (Table 1). The outboard-powered vessels on average spent 9 h per day for fishing, while inboard-powered engine vessels spent around 8 h. Fishing hours for inboard-powered vessels were significantly longer (12 h) in Besut, compared to the duration (5 h)
12 5 5 8
Fishing locations (number)
Outboard
t-Statistics
Inboard
Outboard
t-Statistics
8 9 9 9
1.71 −3.68 −0.27 −0.84
3.5 2.2 1.8 2.8
2.5 3.0 2.8 2.7
3.25 −3.68 −2.35 0.08
Kuala Terengganu.
in Setiu and Terengganu (Table 2). The longer fishing hours for inboard-powered fishers were statistically significant (P < 0.01). Both inboard-powered and outboard-powered vessel users visited, on average, three fishing locations throughout the fishing season. In Besut, inboard-powered vessel respondents covered relatively more fishing locations (3.5) and had travelled longer hours (2.5) compared to outboard fishers, while the outboard fishers in Setiu and Terengganu visited three locations on average. The number of fishing sites visited by inboard-powered fishers was statistically significant (P < 0.01).
4.3. Fishing income The average monthly fishing income, with the use of various types of boats, gear and boat engine power are presented in Table 3. Comparisons were made between the income of fishers who concentrated within AR areas and within non-AR areas. The results of the study showed that average income from fishing was substantially lower from AR areas (23%) compared to non-AR areas. The difference in income between AR areas and non-AR areas was statistically highly significant (P < 0.05). Both inboard-powered and outboard-powered boats failed to capture higher fishing income by 6% and 25% from AR areas. Similarly, both small and large horsepower engined boats (15 hp, and 16 + hp) obtained less income from fishing in AR areas (about 21%). Based on fishing gear, drift/gill net users received significantly less income from fishing in AR areas (26%). Income was significantly different between the gear groups F(2, 287) = 6.095, P < 0.05. The decline in income of drift net users was statistically significant (P < 0.05), which indicates that artisanal fishers who used various nets were not able to get higher income from AR areas (Table 3). The results suggest that hook-and-line fishers were able to operate close to AR areas, and their benefits was relatively
Table 3 Monthly fishing income from AR and non-AR areas by boat type, gear type, engine horsepower and trip time (US$). Fishing method Boat Inboard Outboard Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Trap Horsepower Up to 15 hp >16 hp Trip time Up to 30 min 30–60 min 60 min and above All
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
t-Statistics
799 (19) 604 (145)
853 (27) 807 (99)
6.3 25.1
0.29 2.69
491 (39) 673 (113) 606 (12)
434 (17) 910 (89) 726 (20)
+13.1 25.7 16.6
0.46 2.73 0.55
576 (92) 692 (72)
731 (51) 875 (75)
21.2 20.9
1.74 1.72
477 (60) 690 (62) 747 (42) 627 (164)
604 (20) 781 (59) 952 (47) 817 (126)
21.0 11.6 21.5 23.3
1.11 0.86 1.44 2.74
Note: numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
126
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129 Table 7 Costs of fuel for fishers, by district and gear (US$/day).
Table 4 Monthly fishing income from AR and non-AR areas (US$). District
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
Fuel cost
Besut Setiu KT All
662 (57) 593 (48) 620 (59) 627 (164)
904 (33) 867 (44) 713 (49) 817 (126)
−26.8* −31.6** −13.0 −23.3***
District Besut Setiu Kuala Terengganu All Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Trap All
Note: * Significant at 10% ** Significant at 5%. *** Significant at 1%. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
t-Statistics
17.7 (57) 13.2 (48) 13.3 (59) 14.9 (164)
18.0 (33) 15.5 (44) 16.3 (49) 16.4 (126)
0.0 17.0 22.0 10.5
0.01 1.29 1.92 0.70
9.6 (39) 16.9 (113) 13.0 (12) 14.9 (164)
13.9 (17) 17.1 (89) 15.8 (20) 16.4 (126)
45.2 0.9 21.8 10.5
2.59 0.05 0.74 0.70
Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3. Table 5 Monthly fishing income by gear use (US$). District
Hook and line
Drift net
Trap
Besut Setiu KTa All
546 (11) 522 (7) 444 (38) 442 (56)
787 (72) 789 (66) 759 (64) 718 (202)
697 (7) 571 (19) 1010 (6) 681 (32)
Note: Numbers in brackets show number of respondents, exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3. a Kuala Terengganu.
higher from fishing in AR areas (13%) compared to non-AR areas. However, the increase in income was not statistically significant (Table 3). Fishers income by districts are presented in Table 4. The results show that fishers from the Besut and Setiu districts received significantly lower income (27% and 32% respectively) from AR areas. In Kuala Terenggnau, fishers captured 13% less income; however, the difference in income between AR and non-AR areas was not statistically significant. Fishing income by different gears and districts are presented in Table 5. The results of the study showed that drift net fishers obtained the highest average income (US$718), followed by trap fishers (US$681) and hook-and-line fishers (US$442). However, the income from drift nets was almost similar among the three districts (Table 5). In Kuala Terengganu, fishers who used traps obtained the highest income (US$1010), indicating that trap users gained significantly from fishing around AR areas in Terengganu. In Table 4, the results showed that the income of fishers from AR and non-AR areas were not significantly different, indicating that traps are the most efficient fishing method used in AR areas. In Besut, both traps and hook-and-line users gained substantial income from fishing. The results indicate that users who employ multiple gears have shared the same fishing locations. The existence of those who use fishing practices that is more efficient methods (such as traps, and hook and line) and those who use traditional gear (such as drift
nets and gill nets) could lead to conflicts over access to fishing (Table 5). The data showed that inboard-powered fishers derived 17% higher catch values (US$831), compared to the outboard-powered fishers catch values (US$686). Fishers from Besut who used inboard-powered vessels derived significantly higher income (39%) from fishing (Table 6). The results of the study showed that fishers who used boats with relatively large horsepower could acquire significant amount of income from the catch. However, in Besut, the catch was not different between high- and low-engine horsepowered boats (Table 6). The results reveal that the fibreglass outboard boats (sampan) – which are commonly used by artisanal fishers – are now fitted with large engines (15 hp and above) in order to conduct intensive fishing activities. Among the districts, fishers in Setiu and Kuala Terengganu who used outboard-engine boats derived higher income, compared to inboard-powered boats. In Besut, the fishers who used inboardpowered boats gained significantly higher income (39%), compared to outboard boat users.
4.4. Fishing cost The average day-to-day running costs of a fishing vessel consist mainly of fuel, ice, food and bait. However, fuel constitutes the major cost of fishing operations in Terengganu. The average daily fuel cost differs by type of boat and engine power. The study showed that hook-and-line users had 45% higher fuel costs for fishing per day in non-AR areas compared to AR areas. Similarly, trap users also spent 22% higher fuel costs to fish in non-AR areas. However, fuel costs for drift/gill net users were almost same for AR areas and non-AR areas (Table 7). The results indicate that although drift net users spent almost the same amount on fuel in AR areas and non-AR areas, they could derive higher income from non-AR areas. Compared to AR areas, fuel costs were substantially higher in nonAR areas in Kuala Terengganu and Setiu (22% and 17% respectively).
Table 6 Fishers gross fishing income, in relation to boat type and engine power (US$). District
Besut Setiu KTa All
Fishing boat
Engine horsepower
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
Up to 15
16 and above
Difference (%)
1110 (16) 697 (25) 605 (5) 831 (46)
673 (74) 734 (67) 665 (103) 686 (244)
39.4* −5.2 −9.8 17.4
749 (48) 668 (43) 492 (52) 631 (143)
753 (42) 773 (49) 820 (56) 785 (147)
0.5 13.7 40.0 19.6*
Note: a Kuala Terengganu. * Significant at 5% level. Numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
However, fuel costs were almost the same between AR areas and non-AR areas in Besut (Table 7).
5. Discussion and policy implication There is growing recognition that artificial reefs (AR) are capable of enhancing coastal fisheries as well as provide economic benefits to fishers (Whitmarsh et al., 2008; Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997). In Malaysia, the AR programme has been implemented by the government agencies for more than 30 years and was expected to increase the income of fishers who make use of AR structures. The results of the study show that the income of the majority of the artisanal fishers who fished around AR areas, was less than the income of those fishing with comparable gear in the non-AR areas. The majority of the artisanal fishers failed to derive benefits from AR programmes, which suggests that AR programme may not be a viable strategy for socio economic improvement of artisanal fishing communities in Malaysia. In Terengganu, drift nets are the principal gear used in inshore fisheries. Among the fishers using various artisanal gears, the average income of drift net users was relatively higher in non-AR areas compared to AR areas. The higher income derived by drift net users may be due to catching high value shrimp from non AR locations – close to shore areas during the monsoon season. Although fishing income was relatively lower in the AR areas, some drift net users still fishing in these areas due to lack of alternative productive fishing locations in the inshore fisheries. The results of the study show that fishers who used hook and lines had travelled far from the shore and conduct fishing in both artificial reefs and natural coral reef areas. They spent relatively higher operational costs for fishing compared to drift net users and could derive relatively higher income from AR areas compared to the drift net users. More than half of the total artisanal fishers used multiple gears. The existence of multiple gear in the AR areas create an entanglement problem between fishing gears especially drift net and hook and line users who targeting to fish surrounding the AR areas. Social conflicts have created among fisher groups due to lack of ownership status of ARs. Sutton and Bushnell (2007) highlighted that conflicts within groups of AR users usually come about due to crowding and congestion at AR sites. The Department of Fisheries Malaysia initially restricted fishing activities surrounding the AR areas by putting buoys at the AR sites. However, due to lack of enforcement and institutional support, the Department of Fisheries was unable to maintain fishing restrictions in the AR areas. Although the fisheries in zone A (five nautical miles from shore) is exclusively allocated for the artisanal fishers, the ownership of ARs has net been clearly defined. The results of the study suggests that the deployment of concrete based AR structures have failed to provide benefits to the drift net users in Terengganu. Wiyono et al. (2006) and Piniella et al. (2007) highlighted that fishing locations are generally determined by type of gear used, target fish species and capacity of boats. Previous studies also highlighted that the low cost AR materials such as derelict boats, tyres, other wooden materials have aggregated fish that contributed to income of fishers (Viswanathan et al., 1996). Bohnsack (1991) reported that a high density of fish aggregation occurs in the small ARs compared to the large structures. Future study can provide information on how concrete based ARs can enhance fisheries resources in the inshore areas. The results of this study failed to support the findings of other studies which have highlighted that fishers were benefited from fishing surrounding AR area. Such results are expected in Malaysia where fishing in the ARs area is not restricted. The uncontrolled
127
fishing may lead to overfishing if the aggregation/attraction of existing stocks is increased without increasing overall stock size (Jebreen, 2001). The potential for multiple gear use in the AR areas need to be addressed for sustainable artisanal fisheries in Malaysia. The government had expected to protect artisanal fishers from trawls, which previously entered into the inshore fisheries in an uncontrolled manner. Furthermore, the small- and medium-sized trawls are now allowed to fish in the inshore areas during the monsoon season with special license (Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). These encroachment problems have not been resolved. A recent study on current fishing practices in the inshore fisheries suggests that the valuable reef fisheries will be severely depleted unless effective monitoring and surveillance are established in AR areas (Saharuddin et al., 2012). The results of the study suggests that ARs are used by various fisher groups in Terengganu. However, the fact that artisanal fishers were not benefiting from the AR programme may be because fishers used efficient fishing methods (such as traps, and hook and line) in large horsepower engine boats. Baine (2001) pointed out that resource managers should provide information about fishing regulations, help solve conflicts between users and identify responsibilities among the stakeholders for long-term sustainable fisheries management. In Malaysia, the government has put more emphasis on the ecological aspects of AR development (structures, materials and locations); however, the social and economic aspects of AR have received equal attention. In Malaysia, fishing restrictions has been imposed by implementing fisheries zones, limitation of license for fishing boat and gear. However, fisheries resources have been overexploited due to lack of effective implementation of these fisheries rules. It is evident from the developing countries that AR cannot support an ever-increasing number of fishers and therefore cannot prevent a decline of fisheries resources (Watanuki and Benjamin, 2006). Some strategies must be adopted to reduce the number of participants in Malaysian fisheries. Given the current fisheries management, it would be difficult, both socially and politically, to remove fishers from fisheries. However, the allocation of fishing rights should be considered at the early stage of new AR deployment. Whitmarsh et al. (2008) highlights that there is a need to design a clear exploitation strategy for controlling the over-exploitation of resources, particularly in the open access characteristics of fisheries. Several management options can be explored to achieve sustainable fisheries in Malaysia. The fisheries authorities can implement closed seasons in the inshore fisheries, however, the duration and locations would be decided through a consensus of fisheries stakeholders. The government should put priority to ensuring social security and economic well being of artisanal fishers. Some compensation and incentive schemes should be implemented to improve fishers welfare and enhance fisheries resources. The AR programmes would be promoted through participation of fishers and other fisheries stakeholders. The AR could be used as potential fisheries management tools if this programme is accepted by fishers, social scientists, environmental experts, and policy makers.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on the paper. The authors are grateful to the Economy and Environment Programme for South East Asia (EEPSEA) for funding this project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the field support and assistance provided by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia (DOFM) and the Fisheries Development Authority Malaysia (LKIM) during data collection in the study area.
128
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
Appendix A. Number of artificial reefs by type and districts in Terengganu State, Malaysia AR type
Besut
Soft bottom Cube Cuboid Cuboid bio-active Recreational Tetrapod Protect Ceramic Sine slab Squid Plastic stripe Cylinder Tyres Total
Setiu
Kuala Terengganu
Marang
Dungun
Kemaman
2 1 1
3 8 1 2
3 8 1 2 4 7 4 31
7 23
2 1 1 2 4 4 7
1 1
2 4 7 4 38
2 4 6 3 25
2 6
1 1
42 14 128 14 40 17 16 115 110 60 150 2900 2400 143
1
1 1 2
3 2
1
1
6
6
13
13
Average number of unit per design/location
Appendix B. Investment in artificial reefs in Malaysia, 1975–2010 Time period
Allocation (RM)
1975–1985
640,000
1986–1995
17,640,000
1996–2005
5,276,297
2006–2010
25,410,000
Source of funds
Material and design
Third Malaysia Plan (RMK3) and Fourth Malaysia Plan (RMK4) Fifth Malaysia Plan (RMK5) and Sixth Malaysia Plan (RMK6)
Only six ARs were deployed during this period, most were factory discards and used automobile tyres
Seventh Malaysia Plan (RMK7) and Eighth Malaysia Plan (RMK8) Ninth Malaysia Plan (RMK9), Economic Stimulus Package, Recreation Scheme
Total 228 ARs deployed in 1992, 49 structures deployed in Terengganu State, mostly used scrap automobile tyres and old/derelict fishing vessels. Since 1995, use of tyres significantly dropped and subsequently forbidden Materials used include concrete, reef balls, PVC, ceramic, abandoned oil rigs, cuboids of various shapes and designs since 1996 The ARs were: concrete cube, cuboids, soft bottom, lobster, recreation and tetrapod. More than 300 ARs deployed by DOFM with heavy materials weighing between 5 and 19 metric tonnes
Appendix C. Sample respondents and characteristics of fishing boats by district District
No. of fishers
No. of Sample
Besut Setiu KTa Total
296 309 321 926
90(30) 92(30) 108(34) 290(31)
Boat category Inboard 16(18) 25(27) 5(5) 46(16)
Engine horsepower Outboard
<15 hp
16 hp and above
74(82) 67(73) 103(95) 244(84)
48(53) 43(47) 52(48) 143(49)
42(47) 49(53) 56(52) 147(51)
Note: numbers in bracket are percentage. a Kuala Terengganu.
Appendix D. Average engine horsepower and value of fishing equipment District
Horsepower
Boat value (US$)
Gear value (US$)
Besut Setiu KTa All
22 23 28 25
2626 2487 2642 2588
763 971 838 857
a
Kuala Terengganu.
Appendix E. Average value of fishing boats and gear by district (US$) District
Besut Setiu KTa All Note: a Kuala Terengganu. * Significant at 10%. ** Significant at 1%.
Boat
Gear
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
4452 3148 3367 3356
2087 2240 2606 2349
53.2** 28.8** 22.6* 35.8**
932 1454 470 1166
726 791 855 798
22.0* 45.6** −45.1* 31.5**
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
129
Appendix F. Type of fishing gear used by respondents by district (%) Gear type
Besut
Setiu
K. Terengganu
All
Hook and linea Drift net/gill netb Trapsc All Multiple gear
3.8 (11) 24.8 (72) 2.4 (7) 31.0 (90) 67.0 (60)
2.4 (7) 22.8 (66) 6.6 (19) 31.7 (92) 57.6 (53)
13.1 (38) 22.1 (64) 2.1 (6) 37.2 (108) 43.5 (47)
19.3 (56) 69.7 (202) 11.0 (32) 100 (290) 55.2 (160)
Note: Numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. a Hook and line include handline, squid jig, longline with multiple design. b Drift net include pukat kembong and pukat kaya, trammel net, scoop net; and gill net used to catch shrimp. c Small traps are used to catch squid while relatively large-sized traps are used to catch high value demersal fish.
References Ahmad, A., Maznah, O., Mohamed Pauzi, A., Rafezi, H., Raja Bidin, R.H., 2012. Achievement on Research and Development of Artificial Reefs 2006–2010. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, Putrajaya, pp. 191 (in Malay). Ahmad, A., Mahyam, M.I., Zaidnuddin, I., Mohamed Pauzi, A., Ku Kassim, K.Y., Nor Azman, Z., 2008. Artificial Reef Status in the Coastal areas in Terengganu using Image Assessment ‘Side Scanner Sonar’. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 57 ms. Unpublished paper. Azmi, D., Yazid, M., 2008. Installation of artificial reefs (Unjam–Unjam) by fisheries development authority Malaysia (FDAM). In: Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Integrated Coastal Resources Management Approach in Southeast Asia: Review of the Project ICRM-PL Langkawi, Malaysia, 21–23 October 2008. Baine, M., 2001. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44, 241–259. Bohnsack, J.A., 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioural preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 631–645. Bohnsack, J.A., 1991. Habitat structure and the design of artificial reefs. In: Bell, S.S., McCoy, E.D., Mushinsky, H.R. (Eds.), Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 412–426. Bohnsack, J.A., Sutherland, D.L., 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 37 (1), 11–39. Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F., Hastings, A., 2003. Principles for the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13, S25–S31. Carter, D.W., 2003. Protected areas in marine resource management: another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean and Coastal Management 46 (5), 439–456. Chou, L.M., 1997. Artificial reefs of Southeast Asia – do they enhance or degrade the marine environment? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 44, 45–52. Crowder, L.B., Lyman, S.J., Figueira, W.F., Priddy, J., 2000. Source–sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66, 799–820. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2010. Annual Fisheries Statistics. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, Ministry of Agriculture Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished). Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2012. Traditional Fishers Income Survey 2008. Putrajaya, p. 175. Denny, C.M., Babcock, R.C., 2004. Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages? Biological Conservation 116, 119–129. Grossman, B.G., Jones, G.P., Seaman, W.J., 1997. Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 22 (4), 17–23. Garcia, S., 1991. Artificial Reefs and Fish Aggregating Devices in Southeast Asian Fisheries. Fisheries Department, FAO. Grove, R.S., Sonu, C.J., 1985. Fishing reef planning in Japan. In: D’Itri, Frank, M. (Eds.), Artificial Reefs: Marine and Freshwater Applications. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. Jebreen, E., 2001. Artificial Reefs: Their Effects on Fish Stocks. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Information Series QI01031, Queensland Government, Brisbane, pp. 78. Johnson, T.D., Barnett, A.M., Demartini, E.E., Craft, L.L., Ambrose, R.F., Purcell, L.J., 1994. Fish production and habitat utilization on a southern California artificial reef? Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2/3), 709–723. Kerr, S., 1992. Artificial reefs in Australia – their construction, location and function. In: Working Paper of the Australian Bureau of Rural Resources, Canberra. Milon, J.W., 1989. Economic evaluation of artificial habitat for fisheries: progress and challenges. Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 831–843.
Mottet, M.G., 1985. Enhancement of the marine environment for fisheries and aquaculture in Japan. In: D’Itri, F.M. (Ed.), Artificial Reefs, Marine and Freshwater Applications. Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, MI, USA, pp. 13–112. Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D., 1997. Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research 31, 39–59. Piniella, F., Soriguer, M.C., Fernández-Engo, M.A., 2007. Artisanal fishing in Andalusia: a statistical study of the fleet. Marine Policy 31 (4), 573–581. Polovina, J.J., 1991. Fisheries Applications and Biological Impacts of Artificial Habitats. Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries. Academic Press, pp. 153–176. Polovina, J.J., Sakai, I., 1989. Impacts of artificial reefs on fishery production in Shimamaki, Japan. Bulleting of Marine Science 44 (2), 997–1003. Polovina, J.J., 1994. Function of artificial reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2–31), 1349. Rey, H., 1985. Toward the Formulation of a Method to Assess the Socio-Economic Impact of Artificial Reefs (Unpublished paper). Rogers, C.S., Beets, J., 2001. Degradation of marine ecosystems and decline of fishery resources in marine protected areas in the US Virgin Islands. Environmental Conservation 28, 312–322. Salmona, P., Verardi, D., 2001. The marine protected area of Portofino, Italy: a difficult balance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44, 39–60. Seaman Jr., W., 1996. Frontiers that increase unity; defining an agenda for European artificial reef research. In: Paper presented at the European Artificial Reef Research Network (EARRN) Conference, European Community Specific Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration in the Field of Agriculture and Agro-Industry, Including Fisheries, 26–30 March 1996, Ancona, Italy. Seaman Jr., W.J., 2002. Unifying trends and opportunities in global artificial reefs research, including evaluation. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59, S14–S16. Saharuddin, A.H., Ali, A., Lokman, M.H., Salihin, W., 2012. Recent development and management of artificial reefs (ARs) in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of MTS-IEEE Oceans, 2012-Yeosu, Korea, pp. 1–23. Sutton, S.G., Bushnell, S.L., 2007. Socio-economic aspects of artificial reefs: considerations for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean and Coastal Management 50, 829–846. Venkatasami, A., Mamode, A., 1995. Fish-Aggregating Devices (FADs) as a Tool to Enhance Production of Artisanal Fishermen: Problems and Perspectives. Albion Fisheries Research Centre, Mauritius. Viswanathan, K.K., Kusairi, M.N., Tai, S.Y., 1996. The income impacts of artificial reefs: a Malaysian case study. In: Pollnac, R. (Ed.), Fish Aggregating Devices in Asia and the Pacific. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Whitmarsh, D., Santos, M.N., Ramos, J., Monteiro, C.C., 2008. Marine habitat modification through artificial reefs off the Algarve (southern Portugal): an economic analysis of the fisheries and the prospects for management. Ocean and Coastal Management 51, 463–468. Watanuki, N., Benjamin, J., 2006. The potential of artificial reefs as fisheries management tools in developing countries. Bulletin of Marine Science 78 (1), 9–19. Wiyono, E.S., Yamada, S., Tanaka, E., Arimoto, T., Kitakado, T., 2006. Dynamics of fishing gear allocation by fishers in small scale coastal fisheries of Pelabuhanratu Bay, Indonesia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13 (3), 185–195. Yahaya, J., Wells, R.J.G., 1982. A case study of costs and earnings of three gears in the Trengganu fishery, Malaysia. Developing Economies 20, 73–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1982.tb00438.x. Yodee, K., 1994. Bioeconomics of Small-scale Fisheries in the Artificial Reef Areas in Ranong Province, vol. 67. FAO, Thailand, pp. 67–86.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres
Economic impact of artificial reefs: A case study of small scale fishers in Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia Gazi Md. Nurul Islam ∗ , Kusairi Mohd Noh, Shaufique F. Sidique, Aswani Farhana Mohd Noh Institute of Agricultural and Food Policy Studies, Putra Infoport, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 February 2013 Received in revised form 19 October 2013 Accepted 28 October 2013 Keywords: Artificial reefs Artisanal fishers Marine fisheries Economic impact Peninsular Malaysia
a b s t r a c t This paper examines the economic benefits of artificial reefs (ARs) on artisanal fishers in Terengganu in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The data for this study was obtained from interviews with 290 artisanal fishers from three districts of Terengganu, using a structured questionnaire. The study found that for fishers, income from fishing was significantly lower in AR areas, compared to non-AR areas. The income of the fishers who used drift nets as their main fishing gear was significantly lower in AR areas. This indicates that income from fishing was not attributable to the AR programme in Malaysia. The results suggest that artificial reefs may not be effective at increasing catch and income for artisanal fishers in Terengganu. Furthermore, the larger-engined boats gained substantial fishing income, which seems to reflect unequal distribution of benefits, because only those who could invest in fishing equipment and who spent more on fishing operations were able to gain maximum benefits. The results suggest that the current use of multiple gear in the same fishing locations created conflicts between various groups of fishers, and increased fishing costs. These conflicts could be reduced if the artificial reef locations are clearly marked and they established user rights among various fisher groups. The fisheries agencies involved in artificial reefs programme should ensure that artificial reef development produces positive social and economic benefits for the local fishing communities through sustainable fisheries management in Malaysia. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Traditionally, artificial reefs (AR) have been used by smallscale fishers to increase catches (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Bohnsack, 1991). However, over-exploitation of marine fisheries in several countries has drawn the attention of policymakers over the years. In Malaysia, the government has undertaken a large ARdevelopment programme over the last three decades. Considerable investment has been financed by the government to develop a diverse range of AR structures and designs. One of the objectives of deploying AR in marine waters is to increase catches, in order to improve the economic conditions of artisanal fishing communities. Several studies from across the world have provided limited empirical evidence on the socio-economic benefits of AR to fishers (Crowder et al., 2000; Carter, 2003; Rey, 1985). Few studies conducted outside Malaysia have given a positive impression of the economic performance of AR (Polovina and Sakai, 1989;
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8947 1093; fax: +60 3 8943 2611. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (G.M.N. Islam). 0165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.10.018
Johnson et al., 1994; Venkatasami and Mamode, 1995; Yodee, 1994). The contribution of AR to fisheries resources and the economic impact on poor fishers has not been studied in detail in Malaysia. Viswanathan et al. (1996) investigated the economic impact of AR on the livelihood of artisanal fishers in Peninsular Malaysia, and have found that the AR may simply attract existing stocks without increasing fish biomass, which means that the catch is merely redistributed to other fishers. Whitmarsh et al. (2008) investigated the economic impact of artificial reef programmes in southern Portugal. They found that AR contributed direct use benefits to the local fishing community and the economy in southern Portugal. However, the study highlighted that a clear exploitation strategy is needed to control fishing activity around the reefs in order to prevent overfishing. Artificial reefs serve a variety of functions, ranging from the traditional practice of food production to newer applications – which include mariculture, tourism and resource conservation (Seaman, 2002). Several studies highlight that there are potential uncertainties about the positive outcome of AR, while the expectations from them were often over-optimistic (Grossman et al., 1997; Bohnsack, 1989; Garcia, 1991; Mottet, 1985; Grove and Sonu, 1985). Some authors expressed their concern that there is a need to control
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
harmful activities around AR that could impact both fish population and habitats (Rogers and Beets, 2001; Salmona and Verardi, 2001). Other studies suggest that management of AR should be consistent with fisheries management, e.g. to avoid stock overexploitation, through unexpected reallocation of fishing effort over space around AR (Polovina, 1991; Botsford et al., 2003; Denny and Babcock, 2004). The uncertainty of positive contributions from AR have been highlighted by others (Bohnsack, 1989; Polovina, 1994; Kerr, 1992; Seaman, 1996), which suggests that AR may serve purely as an aggregating device, without any increase in fish biomass. The inability of production increases from AR has been attested by Pickering and Whitmarsh (1997), who presented the “attraction versus production” debate of AR programmes. They argue that while the proper design of ARs may maximise productivity, it may have serious problems of distribution in the absence of an effective management strategy. Chou (1997) stressed the importance of the design in his review on the development of ARs in the ASEAN region. Milon (1989) refers this to a “paradox of artificial habitat development” – namely, a technology which is biologically effective may jeopardise the overall economic performance of a fishery if access to the resources is not controlled. The Department of Fisheries Malaysia (DOFM) and the Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia (FDAM) have been involved in the AR programme in Malaysia. The main objective of AR, deployed by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia, was to protect inshore fishery habitats from trawls to enhance fisheries resources, while the Fisheries Development Authority deployed AR as a fish-aggregating device by the artisanal fishers in order to increase income from fishing. Although the Department of Fisheries Malaysia had intended to ban fishing surrounding AR areas, these structures were not protected, due to lack of monitoring and enforcement. Most of the concrete AR was not suitable for fishing, especially by those who used various types of fishing methods. The policy for AR development has been unclear whether the fishers would use the fisheries for long term benefits or whether these structures could be used for short term benefits from catch. The objectives of the study were to (i) assess and classify the artisanal fisheries of the Terengganu region, Malaysia; (ii) investigate if artisanal fishers are receiving the perceived posited benefits of AR construction (i.e. higher catch rates and equitable access), and; investigate if current management arrangements are most suitable for the long term operation of these ARs. The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes an overview of AR and fisheries in Malaysia; Section 3 presents the study area and data sources; Section 4 summarises the results, while the discussion and recommendations are presented in the final section.
2. Artificial reefs in Malaysia The artificial reef project was officially introduced in the coastal marine waters of Malaysia in 1975. More than US$16 million has been spent on AR programmes in Malaysia over the past three decades (1975–2010). The materials used for AR until 1995 were mainly scrap automobile tyres and derelict fishing vessels. Since 1995, use of tyres was banned because of its possible negative effects on the marine environment, and because these materials were highly unstable in the seabed (Saharuddin et al., 2012). However, underwater visual surveys showed that almost all AR with tyres in Terengganu were submerged by sedimentation (Ahmad et al., 2008). Since 1986, various concrete materials have been used for AR, including concrete, reef balls, PVC, ceramics, abandoned oil rigs, and cuboids of various shapes and designs. The AR is usually placed on the seabed between three-to-five miles away from the shore at an
123
Fig. 1. Study location and the map of Peninsular Malaysia.
average water depth of 15–30 m (Department of Fisheries Terengganu, pers. comm.). It is expected that the presence of fish at AR structures would make it easier for fishers to harvest at the nearest fishing locations with reduced fishing costs. Intensive research and development of AR took place before deploying the large AR structures during 2006–2009. Several large AR structures were deployed by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia, including concrete cubes, cuboids, soft bottom, lobsters, and tetrapods during this period. The main justification for deploying these durable structures was to protect inshore fisheries from trawls (Department of Fisheries Terengganu, pers. comm.). Whitmarsh et al. (2008) argue that antitrawling devices may enhance juvenile fish, and generate indirect use benefits through wider fishery production. 2.1. Artificial reefs in Terengganu The ARs were deployed by the Fisheries Development Authority over 549 locations throughout Malaysia until 2010, while about 65% of total AR were deployed in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Azmi and Yazid, 2008). There are 13 different types and design of AR deployed in Terengganu. The sizes of concrete AR range from small (1 m × 1 m × 1 m) to large (3.4 m × 3.4 m × 3.6 m), with a maximum weight of 35 tonnes. Each module consists of several hundred units of AR, averaging 2400 units of automobile tyres deployed in each location, while AR with cylinders averaged 2900 units. On average, each type of AR designed with concrete materials consists of 14–150 units (Appendix A). Data obtained from the Department of Fisheries Malaysia show that 11 types of AR structures were deployed in 38 locations in Kuala Terengganu, nine types in 31 locations in Kuala Setiu and six types in 23 locations in Kuala Besut (Figs. 1 and 2). In Kuala Terengganu and Setiu, AR was more densely covered with AR structures compared to Besut. Various types of fish species are attracted to AR structures. Visual observations from two AR sites showed that the presence of demersal fishes – such as groupers, snappers and coral fishes were mostly confined within distance of or close to the AR found after six months of deployment. The dominant and economically important demersal species were big eye snapper
124
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
Fig. 2. Artificial reef locations in the study districts of Terengganu State.
(Lutjanus lutjanus), brown stripe snapper (Lutjanus vitta), brown barred grouper (Cephalopholis boenack), areolated grouper (Epinephelus areolotus) and painted sweetlips (Diagramma pictum). The dominant pelagic species were yellowtail scad (Atule mate), shrimp scad (Alapes djedaba), trevally (Carangaoides spp.) and Caranx sexfasciatus (Ahmad et al., 2012). 2.2. Terengganu fisheries The state of Terengganu, located in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia about 500 km north-east of Kuala Lumpur, is surrounded on three sides by the South China Sea. Terengganu is made up of six small districts. More than 11,000 fishers are directly involved in fishing, representing about 13% of the total number of fishers in Peninsular Malaysia (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2010). Currently, there are approximately 4900 artisanal fishers (45%) in Terengganu (Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). The fishers in Terengganu are predominantly Malays. There are 7322 fishing boats in Terengganu, which account for 17% of total fishing boats in Peninsular Malaysia in 2010. The small-scale artisanal fishers in Terengganu are poor, and have lower catch rates compared to larger-scale commercial fishing operators. The incidence of poverty is very high among the artisanal fisher households in Terengganu (Yahaya and Wells, 1982). However, recent studies show that the incidence of poverty of fishers in Terengganu State is the lowest as compared to other states in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2012). Fishing activities are conducted throughout the year in Terengganu. However, due to strong winds, fishing activities are minimal between November and January. The majority of artisanal fishers use outboard-engine fishing boats. Inboard-powered boats are mostly fitted with 25 horsepower engines, on average. The smaller fibre glass boats (locally called sampan) are more commonly used in the artisanal fishing community. Fishers in Terengganu use a variety of fishing gear, such as hand lines, long lines, traps, gill nets, and drift nets. However, each gear type has a number of different designs and sizes, to catch specific types of fish and shrimp species.
similar to that used to investigate the contribution of AR to the fishers in Peninsular Malaysia (Viswanathan et al., 1996) and fishing income in coastal waters in Portugal (Whitmarsh et al., 2008). The list of artisanal fishers for each district was obtained from the Department of Fisheries office in Terengganu, containing the sizes of boat and types of gear used. The list indicated that fishers used three main types of gear: hook and line; drift or gill nets; and traps. Sample respondents were randomly selected from the list of artisanal fishers. Interviews were conducted in the late afternoon or evening, as most fishers were only available during this time. A total of 312 respondents were interviewed between September 2011 and November 2011. After the interview, we discovered that 22 respondents were actually purse seiners, although they are licensed as artisanal fishers. Since these fishers were not using traditional fishing equipment, they were excluded from our analysis, leaving us with a sample of 290 respondents. When inconsistencies were identified in the collected data during the analysis, the study team members revisited the selected fishers to gather more information. 3.1. Study area and data source The survey was conducted in three adjacent districts in Terengganu state: Besut, Setiu, and Kuala Terengganu (Fig. 1). The data for this study was obtained from face-to-face interviews of fishers, using a structured questionnaire. Prior to field data collection, we had conducted focus group discussions (FGD) and a key informants survey (KIS) to improve the questionnaire and gather information on fishing practices, gear used, and income and expenditure of fishers. The questionnaire consisted of five sections covering various indicators: Section A covered household characteristics; Section B covered fishing gear and method-related indicators; Section C covered fishing locations (AR and non-AR areas), catches and costs; Section D covered household income from other non-fishing sources; and Section E covered respondent perceptions on fisheries management and the overall impact of AR programmes on their livelihoods. During the interview, the enumerators used maps to assist respondents in identifying and marking their approximate fishing locations. There are three main fishing seasons in Terengganu. The “catch value per trip” calculation for three different fishing seasons – the main season, the shrimp season, and the squid season – was used to estimate monthly fishing income. Fishing income was calculated by multiplying income per trip by the number of trips per week (as reported in the questionnaire), and multiplying this amount by four (weeks) to get the monthly catch value for the respective fishing seasons. These monthly values were then multiplied by the number of operating months for the respective seasons. The total catch values for all the seasons were then divided by 12 to get the average monthly catch value. Fishing income was calculated by catches in AR areas and non-AR areas. The survey results were analysed by district (Besut, Setiu, and Kuala Terengganu), fishing vessel type (inboard/outboard powered), boat engine power (up to 15 horsepower/16 and larger horsepower) and fishing gear (hook and line/drift net and gill nets/traps). 4. Results 4.1. Characteristics of respondents
3. Methodology The study adopted a household survey approach, to obtain data from the selected respondents in Terengganu. The approach was
The data showed that a large number of people who engaged in fisheries were relatively old, at an average age of 50 years, while 22% of the fishers were more than 60 years old. The average
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129 Table 1 Respondents’ average trip time spent for fishing by boat and gear use (%). Gear use and income Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Traps All Boat Inboard Outboard All
Up to 30 min
30–60 min
60 min and above
All
125
Table 2 Number of fishing locations and fishing duration by boat engines and districts. N
District
Fishing duration (h) Inboard
7.6 17.2 2.8 27.6
7.6 32.1 2.1 41.8
4.1 20.3 6.2 30.6
19.3 69.7 11 100
56 202 32 290
0.3 27.2 27.6
2.8 39 41.7
12.8 17.9 30.7
15.9 84.1 100
46 244 290
Besut Setiu KTa ALL a
size of households consisted of five members, but one third of the total sample households had a very large household size (7–12 members). The majority of respondents used relatively low-powered small boats (sampan), which were fitted with outboard engines with an average output of 25 horsepower. The average value of inboard-powered boats was 36% higher than the outboard-powered boats. Average boat and gear values were US$2588 and US$857 respectively. Boat values were relatively higher in Kuala Terengganu, followed by Besut and Setiu. The gear value was the highest in Setiu (US$971), compared to Besut and Kuala Terengganu (Appendices D and E). Fishers used various types and designs of fishing gear to target various types of fish, shrimp and squid. The average value of fishing gear/nets for inboard-powered vessels was 32% higher than for outboard-powered gear. Among the districts, the average value of fishing gear for inboard-powered vessels was significantly higher in Setiu than in the other two districts. This data clearly indicates that fishers who used inboard-powered vessels had substantially higher amounts of capital (boat and gear) compared to those who used outboard-powered vessels in Besut and Setiu districts. Meanwhile in Terengganu, fishers on outboard-powered boats used high value fishing gear (US$855), compared to the gear used by inboardpowered boats (US$470). More than half of the total respondents in the study used multiple fishing gears, such as hook and lines, drift/gill nets, and traps. Fishers in Besut mostly used multiple gears (67%), followed by Setiu (58%) and Kuala Terengganu (44%). Various types and designs of drift nets and gill nets were the major fishing gear used by traditional fishers (70%) in the study area (Appendix F). The gear is designed to catch various types and sizes of fish and shrimp. Hook and line and drift nets were widely used by traditional fishers in the study area, with only a limited number of fishers using traps (11%).
4.2. Fishing location and travel time The majority of the drift/gill net users spent between 30 min and 60 min to reach their fishing locations. The hook-and-line fishers spent between 5 min and 60 min, while the trap users spent 60 min and above to get to their fishing locations. More than 84% of the total sampled fishers used outboard-powered fishing boats. A substantial number of outboard-powered vessel fishers (39%) spent between 30 min and 60 min to reach their fishing location, while a smaller proportion of the inboard-powered fishers (13%) travelled for 60 min and above to get to their fishing locations. The results indicate that fishers used relatively lowengine-powered fishing boats and travelled shorter distances from the shore (Table 1). The outboard-powered vessels on average spent 9 h per day for fishing, while inboard-powered engine vessels spent around 8 h. Fishing hours for inboard-powered vessels were significantly longer (12 h) in Besut, compared to the duration (5 h)
12 5 5 8
Fishing locations (number)
Outboard
t-Statistics
Inboard
Outboard
t-Statistics
8 9 9 9
1.71 −3.68 −0.27 −0.84
3.5 2.2 1.8 2.8
2.5 3.0 2.8 2.7
3.25 −3.68 −2.35 0.08
Kuala Terengganu.
in Setiu and Terengganu (Table 2). The longer fishing hours for inboard-powered fishers were statistically significant (P < 0.01). Both inboard-powered and outboard-powered vessel users visited, on average, three fishing locations throughout the fishing season. In Besut, inboard-powered vessel respondents covered relatively more fishing locations (3.5) and had travelled longer hours (2.5) compared to outboard fishers, while the outboard fishers in Setiu and Terengganu visited three locations on average. The number of fishing sites visited by inboard-powered fishers was statistically significant (P < 0.01).
4.3. Fishing income The average monthly fishing income, with the use of various types of boats, gear and boat engine power are presented in Table 3. Comparisons were made between the income of fishers who concentrated within AR areas and within non-AR areas. The results of the study showed that average income from fishing was substantially lower from AR areas (23%) compared to non-AR areas. The difference in income between AR areas and non-AR areas was statistically highly significant (P < 0.05). Both inboard-powered and outboard-powered boats failed to capture higher fishing income by 6% and 25% from AR areas. Similarly, both small and large horsepower engined boats (15 hp, and 16 + hp) obtained less income from fishing in AR areas (about 21%). Based on fishing gear, drift/gill net users received significantly less income from fishing in AR areas (26%). Income was significantly different between the gear groups F(2, 287) = 6.095, P < 0.05. The decline in income of drift net users was statistically significant (P < 0.05), which indicates that artisanal fishers who used various nets were not able to get higher income from AR areas (Table 3). The results suggest that hook-and-line fishers were able to operate close to AR areas, and their benefits was relatively
Table 3 Monthly fishing income from AR and non-AR areas by boat type, gear type, engine horsepower and trip time (US$). Fishing method Boat Inboard Outboard Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Trap Horsepower Up to 15 hp >16 hp Trip time Up to 30 min 30–60 min 60 min and above All
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
t-Statistics
799 (19) 604 (145)
853 (27) 807 (99)
6.3 25.1
0.29 2.69
491 (39) 673 (113) 606 (12)
434 (17) 910 (89) 726 (20)
+13.1 25.7 16.6
0.46 2.73 0.55
576 (92) 692 (72)
731 (51) 875 (75)
21.2 20.9
1.74 1.72
477 (60) 690 (62) 747 (42) 627 (164)
604 (20) 781 (59) 952 (47) 817 (126)
21.0 11.6 21.5 23.3
1.11 0.86 1.44 2.74
Note: numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
126
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129 Table 7 Costs of fuel for fishers, by district and gear (US$/day).
Table 4 Monthly fishing income from AR and non-AR areas (US$). District
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
Fuel cost
Besut Setiu KT All
662 (57) 593 (48) 620 (59) 627 (164)
904 (33) 867 (44) 713 (49) 817 (126)
−26.8* −31.6** −13.0 −23.3***
District Besut Setiu Kuala Terengganu All Gear Hook and line Drift/gill net Trap All
Note: * Significant at 10% ** Significant at 5%. *** Significant at 1%. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
AR area
Non-AR area
Difference (%)
t-Statistics
17.7 (57) 13.2 (48) 13.3 (59) 14.9 (164)
18.0 (33) 15.5 (44) 16.3 (49) 16.4 (126)
0.0 17.0 22.0 10.5
0.01 1.29 1.92 0.70
9.6 (39) 16.9 (113) 13.0 (12) 14.9 (164)
13.9 (17) 17.1 (89) 15.8 (20) 16.4 (126)
45.2 0.9 21.8 10.5
2.59 0.05 0.74 0.70
Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3. Table 5 Monthly fishing income by gear use (US$). District
Hook and line
Drift net
Trap
Besut Setiu KTa All
546 (11) 522 (7) 444 (38) 442 (56)
787 (72) 789 (66) 759 (64) 718 (202)
697 (7) 571 (19) 1010 (6) 681 (32)
Note: Numbers in brackets show number of respondents, exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3. a Kuala Terengganu.
higher from fishing in AR areas (13%) compared to non-AR areas. However, the increase in income was not statistically significant (Table 3). Fishers income by districts are presented in Table 4. The results show that fishers from the Besut and Setiu districts received significantly lower income (27% and 32% respectively) from AR areas. In Kuala Terenggnau, fishers captured 13% less income; however, the difference in income between AR and non-AR areas was not statistically significant. Fishing income by different gears and districts are presented in Table 5. The results of the study showed that drift net fishers obtained the highest average income (US$718), followed by trap fishers (US$681) and hook-and-line fishers (US$442). However, the income from drift nets was almost similar among the three districts (Table 5). In Kuala Terengganu, fishers who used traps obtained the highest income (US$1010), indicating that trap users gained significantly from fishing around AR areas in Terengganu. In Table 4, the results showed that the income of fishers from AR and non-AR areas were not significantly different, indicating that traps are the most efficient fishing method used in AR areas. In Besut, both traps and hook-and-line users gained substantial income from fishing. The results indicate that users who employ multiple gears have shared the same fishing locations. The existence of those who use fishing practices that is more efficient methods (such as traps, and hook and line) and those who use traditional gear (such as drift
nets and gill nets) could lead to conflicts over access to fishing (Table 5). The data showed that inboard-powered fishers derived 17% higher catch values (US$831), compared to the outboard-powered fishers catch values (US$686). Fishers from Besut who used inboard-powered vessels derived significantly higher income (39%) from fishing (Table 6). The results of the study showed that fishers who used boats with relatively large horsepower could acquire significant amount of income from the catch. However, in Besut, the catch was not different between high- and low-engine horsepowered boats (Table 6). The results reveal that the fibreglass outboard boats (sampan) – which are commonly used by artisanal fishers – are now fitted with large engines (15 hp and above) in order to conduct intensive fishing activities. Among the districts, fishers in Setiu and Kuala Terengganu who used outboard-engine boats derived higher income, compared to inboard-powered boats. In Besut, the fishers who used inboardpowered boats gained significantly higher income (39%), compared to outboard boat users.
4.4. Fishing cost The average day-to-day running costs of a fishing vessel consist mainly of fuel, ice, food and bait. However, fuel constitutes the major cost of fishing operations in Terengganu. The average daily fuel cost differs by type of boat and engine power. The study showed that hook-and-line users had 45% higher fuel costs for fishing per day in non-AR areas compared to AR areas. Similarly, trap users also spent 22% higher fuel costs to fish in non-AR areas. However, fuel costs for drift/gill net users were almost same for AR areas and non-AR areas (Table 7). The results indicate that although drift net users spent almost the same amount on fuel in AR areas and non-AR areas, they could derive higher income from non-AR areas. Compared to AR areas, fuel costs were substantially higher in nonAR areas in Kuala Terengganu and Setiu (22% and 17% respectively).
Table 6 Fishers gross fishing income, in relation to boat type and engine power (US$). District
Besut Setiu KTa All
Fishing boat
Engine horsepower
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
Up to 15
16 and above
Difference (%)
1110 (16) 697 (25) 605 (5) 831 (46)
673 (74) 734 (67) 665 (103) 686 (244)
39.4* −5.2 −9.8 17.4
749 (48) 668 (43) 492 (52) 631 (143)
753 (42) 773 (49) 820 (56) 785 (147)
0.5 13.7 40.0 19.6*
Note: a Kuala Terengganu. * Significant at 5% level. Numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. Exchange rate: 1US$ = MYR 3.
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
However, fuel costs were almost the same between AR areas and non-AR areas in Besut (Table 7).
5. Discussion and policy implication There is growing recognition that artificial reefs (AR) are capable of enhancing coastal fisheries as well as provide economic benefits to fishers (Whitmarsh et al., 2008; Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997). In Malaysia, the AR programme has been implemented by the government agencies for more than 30 years and was expected to increase the income of fishers who make use of AR structures. The results of the study show that the income of the majority of the artisanal fishers who fished around AR areas, was less than the income of those fishing with comparable gear in the non-AR areas. The majority of the artisanal fishers failed to derive benefits from AR programmes, which suggests that AR programme may not be a viable strategy for socio economic improvement of artisanal fishing communities in Malaysia. In Terengganu, drift nets are the principal gear used in inshore fisheries. Among the fishers using various artisanal gears, the average income of drift net users was relatively higher in non-AR areas compared to AR areas. The higher income derived by drift net users may be due to catching high value shrimp from non AR locations – close to shore areas during the monsoon season. Although fishing income was relatively lower in the AR areas, some drift net users still fishing in these areas due to lack of alternative productive fishing locations in the inshore fisheries. The results of the study show that fishers who used hook and lines had travelled far from the shore and conduct fishing in both artificial reefs and natural coral reef areas. They spent relatively higher operational costs for fishing compared to drift net users and could derive relatively higher income from AR areas compared to the drift net users. More than half of the total artisanal fishers used multiple gears. The existence of multiple gear in the AR areas create an entanglement problem between fishing gears especially drift net and hook and line users who targeting to fish surrounding the AR areas. Social conflicts have created among fisher groups due to lack of ownership status of ARs. Sutton and Bushnell (2007) highlighted that conflicts within groups of AR users usually come about due to crowding and congestion at AR sites. The Department of Fisheries Malaysia initially restricted fishing activities surrounding the AR areas by putting buoys at the AR sites. However, due to lack of enforcement and institutional support, the Department of Fisheries was unable to maintain fishing restrictions in the AR areas. Although the fisheries in zone A (five nautical miles from shore) is exclusively allocated for the artisanal fishers, the ownership of ARs has net been clearly defined. The results of the study suggests that the deployment of concrete based AR structures have failed to provide benefits to the drift net users in Terengganu. Wiyono et al. (2006) and Piniella et al. (2007) highlighted that fishing locations are generally determined by type of gear used, target fish species and capacity of boats. Previous studies also highlighted that the low cost AR materials such as derelict boats, tyres, other wooden materials have aggregated fish that contributed to income of fishers (Viswanathan et al., 1996). Bohnsack (1991) reported that a high density of fish aggregation occurs in the small ARs compared to the large structures. Future study can provide information on how concrete based ARs can enhance fisheries resources in the inshore areas. The results of this study failed to support the findings of other studies which have highlighted that fishers were benefited from fishing surrounding AR area. Such results are expected in Malaysia where fishing in the ARs area is not restricted. The uncontrolled
127
fishing may lead to overfishing if the aggregation/attraction of existing stocks is increased without increasing overall stock size (Jebreen, 2001). The potential for multiple gear use in the AR areas need to be addressed for sustainable artisanal fisheries in Malaysia. The government had expected to protect artisanal fishers from trawls, which previously entered into the inshore fisheries in an uncontrolled manner. Furthermore, the small- and medium-sized trawls are now allowed to fish in the inshore areas during the monsoon season with special license (Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). These encroachment problems have not been resolved. A recent study on current fishing practices in the inshore fisheries suggests that the valuable reef fisheries will be severely depleted unless effective monitoring and surveillance are established in AR areas (Saharuddin et al., 2012). The results of the study suggests that ARs are used by various fisher groups in Terengganu. However, the fact that artisanal fishers were not benefiting from the AR programme may be because fishers used efficient fishing methods (such as traps, and hook and line) in large horsepower engine boats. Baine (2001) pointed out that resource managers should provide information about fishing regulations, help solve conflicts between users and identify responsibilities among the stakeholders for long-term sustainable fisheries management. In Malaysia, the government has put more emphasis on the ecological aspects of AR development (structures, materials and locations); however, the social and economic aspects of AR have received equal attention. In Malaysia, fishing restrictions has been imposed by implementing fisheries zones, limitation of license for fishing boat and gear. However, fisheries resources have been overexploited due to lack of effective implementation of these fisheries rules. It is evident from the developing countries that AR cannot support an ever-increasing number of fishers and therefore cannot prevent a decline of fisheries resources (Watanuki and Benjamin, 2006). Some strategies must be adopted to reduce the number of participants in Malaysian fisheries. Given the current fisheries management, it would be difficult, both socially and politically, to remove fishers from fisheries. However, the allocation of fishing rights should be considered at the early stage of new AR deployment. Whitmarsh et al. (2008) highlights that there is a need to design a clear exploitation strategy for controlling the over-exploitation of resources, particularly in the open access characteristics of fisheries. Several management options can be explored to achieve sustainable fisheries in Malaysia. The fisheries authorities can implement closed seasons in the inshore fisheries, however, the duration and locations would be decided through a consensus of fisheries stakeholders. The government should put priority to ensuring social security and economic well being of artisanal fishers. Some compensation and incentive schemes should be implemented to improve fishers welfare and enhance fisheries resources. The AR programmes would be promoted through participation of fishers and other fisheries stakeholders. The AR could be used as potential fisheries management tools if this programme is accepted by fishers, social scientists, environmental experts, and policy makers.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on the paper. The authors are grateful to the Economy and Environment Programme for South East Asia (EEPSEA) for funding this project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the field support and assistance provided by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia (DOFM) and the Fisheries Development Authority Malaysia (LKIM) during data collection in the study area.
128
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
Appendix A. Number of artificial reefs by type and districts in Terengganu State, Malaysia AR type
Besut
Soft bottom Cube Cuboid Cuboid bio-active Recreational Tetrapod Protect Ceramic Sine slab Squid Plastic stripe Cylinder Tyres Total
Setiu
Kuala Terengganu
Marang
Dungun
Kemaman
2 1 1
3 8 1 2
3 8 1 2 4 7 4 31
7 23
2 1 1 2 4 4 7
1 1
2 4 7 4 38
2 4 6 3 25
2 6
1 1
42 14 128 14 40 17 16 115 110 60 150 2900 2400 143
1
1 1 2
3 2
1
1
6
6
13
13
Average number of unit per design/location
Appendix B. Investment in artificial reefs in Malaysia, 1975–2010 Time period
Allocation (RM)
1975–1985
640,000
1986–1995
17,640,000
1996–2005
5,276,297
2006–2010
25,410,000
Source of funds
Material and design
Third Malaysia Plan (RMK3) and Fourth Malaysia Plan (RMK4) Fifth Malaysia Plan (RMK5) and Sixth Malaysia Plan (RMK6)
Only six ARs were deployed during this period, most were factory discards and used automobile tyres
Seventh Malaysia Plan (RMK7) and Eighth Malaysia Plan (RMK8) Ninth Malaysia Plan (RMK9), Economic Stimulus Package, Recreation Scheme
Total 228 ARs deployed in 1992, 49 structures deployed in Terengganu State, mostly used scrap automobile tyres and old/derelict fishing vessels. Since 1995, use of tyres significantly dropped and subsequently forbidden Materials used include concrete, reef balls, PVC, ceramic, abandoned oil rigs, cuboids of various shapes and designs since 1996 The ARs were: concrete cube, cuboids, soft bottom, lobster, recreation and tetrapod. More than 300 ARs deployed by DOFM with heavy materials weighing between 5 and 19 metric tonnes
Appendix C. Sample respondents and characteristics of fishing boats by district District
No. of fishers
No. of Sample
Besut Setiu KTa Total
296 309 321 926
90(30) 92(30) 108(34) 290(31)
Boat category Inboard 16(18) 25(27) 5(5) 46(16)
Engine horsepower Outboard
<15 hp
16 hp and above
74(82) 67(73) 103(95) 244(84)
48(53) 43(47) 52(48) 143(49)
42(47) 49(53) 56(52) 147(51)
Note: numbers in bracket are percentage. a Kuala Terengganu.
Appendix D. Average engine horsepower and value of fishing equipment District
Horsepower
Boat value (US$)
Gear value (US$)
Besut Setiu KTa All
22 23 28 25
2626 2487 2642 2588
763 971 838 857
a
Kuala Terengganu.
Appendix E. Average value of fishing boats and gear by district (US$) District
Besut Setiu KTa All Note: a Kuala Terengganu. * Significant at 10%. ** Significant at 1%.
Boat
Gear
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
Inboard
Outboard
Difference (%)
4452 3148 3367 3356
2087 2240 2606 2349
53.2** 28.8** 22.6* 35.8**
932 1454 470 1166
726 791 855 798
22.0* 45.6** −45.1* 31.5**
G.M.N. Islam et al. / Fisheries Research 151 (2014) 122–129
129
Appendix F. Type of fishing gear used by respondents by district (%) Gear type
Besut
Setiu
K. Terengganu
All
Hook and linea Drift net/gill netb Trapsc All Multiple gear
3.8 (11) 24.8 (72) 2.4 (7) 31.0 (90) 67.0 (60)
2.4 (7) 22.8 (66) 6.6 (19) 31.7 (92) 57.6 (53)
13.1 (38) 22.1 (64) 2.1 (6) 37.2 (108) 43.5 (47)
19.3 (56) 69.7 (202) 11.0 (32) 100 (290) 55.2 (160)
Note: Numbers in bracket show the number of respondents. a Hook and line include handline, squid jig, longline with multiple design. b Drift net include pukat kembong and pukat kaya, trammel net, scoop net; and gill net used to catch shrimp. c Small traps are used to catch squid while relatively large-sized traps are used to catch high value demersal fish.
References Ahmad, A., Maznah, O., Mohamed Pauzi, A., Rafezi, H., Raja Bidin, R.H., 2012. Achievement on Research and Development of Artificial Reefs 2006–2010. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, Putrajaya, pp. 191 (in Malay). Ahmad, A., Mahyam, M.I., Zaidnuddin, I., Mohamed Pauzi, A., Ku Kassim, K.Y., Nor Azman, Z., 2008. Artificial Reef Status in the Coastal areas in Terengganu using Image Assessment ‘Side Scanner Sonar’. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 57 ms. Unpublished paper. Azmi, D., Yazid, M., 2008. Installation of artificial reefs (Unjam–Unjam) by fisheries development authority Malaysia (FDAM). In: Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Integrated Coastal Resources Management Approach in Southeast Asia: Review of the Project ICRM-PL Langkawi, Malaysia, 21–23 October 2008. Baine, M., 2001. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44, 241–259. Bohnsack, J.A., 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioural preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 631–645. Bohnsack, J.A., 1991. Habitat structure and the design of artificial reefs. In: Bell, S.S., McCoy, E.D., Mushinsky, H.R. (Eds.), Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 412–426. Bohnsack, J.A., Sutherland, D.L., 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 37 (1), 11–39. Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F., Hastings, A., 2003. Principles for the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13, S25–S31. Carter, D.W., 2003. Protected areas in marine resource management: another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean and Coastal Management 46 (5), 439–456. Chou, L.M., 1997. Artificial reefs of Southeast Asia – do they enhance or degrade the marine environment? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 44, 45–52. Crowder, L.B., Lyman, S.J., Figueira, W.F., Priddy, J., 2000. Source–sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66, 799–820. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2010. Annual Fisheries Statistics. Department of Fisheries Malaysia, Ministry of Agriculture Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished). Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2012. Traditional Fishers Income Survey 2008. Putrajaya, p. 175. Denny, C.M., Babcock, R.C., 2004. Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages? Biological Conservation 116, 119–129. Grossman, B.G., Jones, G.P., Seaman, W.J., 1997. Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 22 (4), 17–23. Garcia, S., 1991. Artificial Reefs and Fish Aggregating Devices in Southeast Asian Fisheries. Fisheries Department, FAO. Grove, R.S., Sonu, C.J., 1985. Fishing reef planning in Japan. In: D’Itri, Frank, M. (Eds.), Artificial Reefs: Marine and Freshwater Applications. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. Jebreen, E., 2001. Artificial Reefs: Their Effects on Fish Stocks. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Information Series QI01031, Queensland Government, Brisbane, pp. 78. Johnson, T.D., Barnett, A.M., Demartini, E.E., Craft, L.L., Ambrose, R.F., Purcell, L.J., 1994. Fish production and habitat utilization on a southern California artificial reef? Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2/3), 709–723. Kerr, S., 1992. Artificial reefs in Australia – their construction, location and function. In: Working Paper of the Australian Bureau of Rural Resources, Canberra. Milon, J.W., 1989. Economic evaluation of artificial habitat for fisheries: progress and challenges. Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 831–843.
Mottet, M.G., 1985. Enhancement of the marine environment for fisheries and aquaculture in Japan. In: D’Itri, F.M. (Ed.), Artificial Reefs, Marine and Freshwater Applications. Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, MI, USA, pp. 13–112. Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D., 1997. Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research 31, 39–59. Piniella, F., Soriguer, M.C., Fernández-Engo, M.A., 2007. Artisanal fishing in Andalusia: a statistical study of the fleet. Marine Policy 31 (4), 573–581. Polovina, J.J., 1991. Fisheries Applications and Biological Impacts of Artificial Habitats. Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries. Academic Press, pp. 153–176. Polovina, J.J., Sakai, I., 1989. Impacts of artificial reefs on fishery production in Shimamaki, Japan. Bulleting of Marine Science 44 (2), 997–1003. Polovina, J.J., 1994. Function of artificial reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2–31), 1349. Rey, H., 1985. Toward the Formulation of a Method to Assess the Socio-Economic Impact of Artificial Reefs (Unpublished paper). Rogers, C.S., Beets, J., 2001. Degradation of marine ecosystems and decline of fishery resources in marine protected areas in the US Virgin Islands. Environmental Conservation 28, 312–322. Salmona, P., Verardi, D., 2001. The marine protected area of Portofino, Italy: a difficult balance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44, 39–60. Seaman Jr., W., 1996. Frontiers that increase unity; defining an agenda for European artificial reef research. In: Paper presented at the European Artificial Reef Research Network (EARRN) Conference, European Community Specific Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration in the Field of Agriculture and Agro-Industry, Including Fisheries, 26–30 March 1996, Ancona, Italy. Seaman Jr., W.J., 2002. Unifying trends and opportunities in global artificial reefs research, including evaluation. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59, S14–S16. Saharuddin, A.H., Ali, A., Lokman, M.H., Salihin, W., 2012. Recent development and management of artificial reefs (ARs) in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of MTS-IEEE Oceans, 2012-Yeosu, Korea, pp. 1–23. Sutton, S.G., Bushnell, S.L., 2007. Socio-economic aspects of artificial reefs: considerations for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean and Coastal Management 50, 829–846. Venkatasami, A., Mamode, A., 1995. Fish-Aggregating Devices (FADs) as a Tool to Enhance Production of Artisanal Fishermen: Problems and Perspectives. Albion Fisheries Research Centre, Mauritius. Viswanathan, K.K., Kusairi, M.N., Tai, S.Y., 1996. The income impacts of artificial reefs: a Malaysian case study. In: Pollnac, R. (Ed.), Fish Aggregating Devices in Asia and the Pacific. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Whitmarsh, D., Santos, M.N., Ramos, J., Monteiro, C.C., 2008. Marine habitat modification through artificial reefs off the Algarve (southern Portugal): an economic analysis of the fisheries and the prospects for management. Ocean and Coastal Management 51, 463–468. Watanuki, N., Benjamin, J., 2006. The potential of artificial reefs as fisheries management tools in developing countries. Bulletin of Marine Science 78 (1), 9–19. Wiyono, E.S., Yamada, S., Tanaka, E., Arimoto, T., Kitakado, T., 2006. Dynamics of fishing gear allocation by fishers in small scale coastal fisheries of Pelabuhanratu Bay, Indonesia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13 (3), 185–195. Yahaya, J., Wells, R.J.G., 1982. A case study of costs and earnings of three gears in the Trengganu fishery, Malaysia. Developing Economies 20, 73–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1982.tb00438.x. Yodee, K., 1994. Bioeconomics of Small-scale Fisheries in the Artificial Reef Areas in Ranong Province, vol. 67. FAO, Thailand, pp. 67–86.