A Case Analysis of the Customary Fishing Practices ofThe Palangri and Pukotero Fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Introduction

The Sulawesi Sea, also known as the Celebes, lies in the western Pacific Ocean, it is

bordered in the north by the Sulu archipelago and the island of Mindanao, the islands of

Sulawesi in the south and Borneo to the west. Due to its rich aquatic resources, the Sea has

become a rich fishing ground from which a complex combination of traditional and large-scale

fisheries flourish. Fisheries in the Sulawesi provide support to about 20 million people who live

around the area and have contributed significantly to the economies of the Philippines and

Indonesia (Palma, & Tsamenyi, 2008). Yet coastal communities have been dependent on the

Sulawesi ever since the invention and development of maritime technology. They have been

interacting and developing customary fishing practices, which predated the formation of

contemporary nation-states. The Agreement between the   Government of the   Republic of the

Philippines and the   Government of the   Republic of Indonesia Concerning the Delimitation of the

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Boundary was signed by Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert F.

del Rosario and Dr. R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa, Indonesian Foreign Minister and was witnessed

by President Benigno S. Aquino III and President Yudhoyono (Official Gazette, 2014).

Nevertheless, fisherfolk from around the Sulawesi Sea have been continuously governed by their

own customs in their use of a common fishing ground.

Most of the small scale fisherfolks in the Sulawesi live in the coastal communities

surrounding it. There was a presupposition that coastal communities are gradually displaced due

to the rise of the large scale fishing industry. Large scale fishing threatens these coastal

communities and thus the latter resort to alternative source of income because most of the fishes

are now caught by the former.

However as the researchers gathered the data they’ve found out that these coastal

communities are not necessarily displaced by the rise of large scale fishing industry. Small scale

fishing only reaches about 500 meters from the shore while large scale fishing can reach more

than 500 meters. Large scale fishing catch most of their fishes in the high seas, they don’t fish

near the shoreline.

The rights of Filipino and Indonesian small scale fisherfolk are being threatened because

they are classified as small scale commercial fishing. This is because the international

regulations on commercial fishing require them to hire professionals and degree holders such as

nautical engineers, marine engineers, licenced seafarers, to be able to obtain a permit or license

as tuna fishing operators (Fisherfolk Resource Development Center, 2006). These strict

regulations deprive small scale fisherfolk of their right to fish in the Sulawesi, as the regulations

give advantage to the large scale fishing companies in the region. The international regulations

are also strictly implemented to avoid accidents and restrict small scale fisherfolk to venture into

the high seas.

Customary fishing practices may be challenged by the large scale fishing industry, but

there are instances that show the interdependent connections between the two. Customary fishing

practices play a vital role in the interaction of fisherfolk in the Sulawesi be they small scale

fishing vessels or large scale fishing vessels.

This study would be relevant to the ASEAN Economic Community, especially to the

local fisherfolk and the appropriate local Filipino authorities.

The study sought to record and analyse the customary fishing practices of the local

Filipino fisherfolk in the Sulawesi fishing grounds. It focused on determining the undefined

customs and practices of small scale fisherfolk in governing the Sulawesi Sea and aimed to give

a clearer picture of the customary fishing practices between the fisherfolk of the Sulawesi Sea.

Though the primary respondents are Filipino fisherfolk, this study shed light on the practices of

other nationalities particularly Indonesians. Consequently, the study covered the implications of

customary fishing practices occurring in both countries.

This study is relevant to the ASEAN Economic Community, in its pursuit of greater people

to people interaction within the region. This can be a starting point for the formulation of more

suitable agreements among ASEAN members in governing regional commons cognizant with

resource management, environmental protection and protection of human rights.

This study is also relevant to the local fisherfolks for it would help them understand the

implications of their customary fishing practices in the Sulawesi Sea, and help them in

understanding how their customary fishing practices could be a mechanism in governing its

resources.

Lastly, this study ultimately hoped to help the concerned Filipino authorities in creating

laws and agreements that would be beneficial to both small scale and large scale fisherfolk. This

study hopes to provide sufficient information about the customary fishing practices in the

Sulawesi Sea and how these customary practices should be taken into consideration when

drafting laws and agreements relevant to coastal resource management.

B. Statement of the Problem

This study’s goal was to record and analyse the customary fishing practices of the

fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea. It specifically answers the following questions:

1. What are the customary fishing practices of fisherfolks in the Sulawesi Sea?

2. How do these customs reconcile with the codified maritime laws and treaties between

Indonesia and the Philippines?

3. What are the implications of these customary fishing practices with the Maritime

Agreement of 2015 between the Philippines and Indonesia?

C. Methodology

The lack of writing on fishing and fishing practices in the Sulawesi Sea has led the

researchers to use some older references those sources were the most recent ones available with

information relevant to the study.

The research design chosen for the study follows the case analysis approach. The

researchers deem case analysis fitting since it could utilize a variety of methodologies and

provide detailed description of specific or rare cases. The main unit of analysis used by the

researchers will be fisherfolk who fish in the Sulawesi Sea. The group sought to identify and

analyze the fisherfolks’ customary fishing practices and identify these customary fishing

practices. The instrument utilized is the interview schedule. Aside from one-on-one interviews

the researchers also conducted informal group discussion. These interviews range from the

highly structured style, in which questions are determined before the interview, and hoped to

eventually lead to an open-ended, conversational format.

Respondents were gathered through non-probabilistic linear snowball sampling. The

procedure depended on the referrals of the initial respondents. Snowball sampling best fit the

data collection procedure due to its convenient and fluid process.

D. Theory

The researchers opted to use Anthony Giddens theory of Structuration, the theory says

that within a great many circumstances there is the structure, and there is the agent. The concept

of structure constitutes the rules and resources of a given situation. With the agent being the

actor within the circumstances created by the rules and resources of the structure. Between the

Structure and the Agent, there were nine elements, divided into three levels showing the

connection between the Structure and the Agent. These were the levels of interaction, modality

and the structural level.

The first level is comprised of three elements that are mostly confined to the purview of

the agent. Power, is the element that is most important to the agent. It is the agent’s ability to

affect surrounding circumstances. Communication is the means by which the agents make their

power clear, a communication of ability and intent. Sanction is the means by which actions of

those who are agents are rewarded or punished.

The level of Modality is comprised of modal elements; these are elements by which the

first level can affect the succeeding structural level and vice-versa. Interpretative Scheme is the

element where actions; such as those done through the previously mentioned element of

Communication, are interpreted through stock knowledge of the situation. Facility is the physical

and non-physical means by which the element of power can be exercised, such as machinery in

the physical case, and an agreement between companies in the non-physical case. Norm is set of

social nuances that are affected by the element of Sanction.

The third level is the Structural level. This level is comprised of elements that are

affected by the elements of the first level. However, each element can in turn affect its

corresponding element in the first level through the same modal elements in the second level.

The element of Domination speaks for itself, it is control over the rules and resources of the

structure, with it are the elements of Signification and Legitimation. Signification is the elements

following interpretative scheme, where the information has finally gained some symbolic value,

this symbolic value can in turn affect communication at the first level. Legitimation mirrors

sanction, it sanction borne of Domination, sanction approved by the structure, an action or norm

attains legitimation when it is made somewhat legitimate by the standards of the structure.

The concepts of structure and agent and the elements in-between were adequate for

explaining the role of the Sulawesi Sea, and its maritime resources, and the rules for harvesting

them as reason for the circumstances that the fisherfolk as the agents had to deal with in their line

of work. With all this, the structure and agent are not seen as separate entities, but rather as a

whole, with the structure affecting the agent, which in turn affects the structure.

These levels and the elements that comprise them were used in data analysis, with the

data from the respondents matched with the element it would be appropriately attributed to, the

themes from this were drawn from their place and connection to each other in the Structure-

Agent cycle.

E. Methodology

The lack of writing on fishing and fishing practices in the Sulawesi Sea has led the

researchers to use some older references those sources were the most recent ones available with

information relevant to the study.

The research design chosen for the study follows the case analysis approach. The

researchers deem case analysis fitting since it could utilize a variety of methodologies and

provide detailed description of specific or rare cases. The main unit of analysis used by the

researchers will be fisherfolk who fish in the Sulawesi Sea. The group sought to identify and

analyze the fisherfolks’ customary fishing practices and identify these customary fishing

practices. The instrument utilized is the interview schedule. Aside from one-on-one interviews

the researchers also conducted informal group discussion. These interviews range from the

highly structured style, in which questions are determined before the interview, and hoped to

eventually lead to an open-ended, conversational format.

Respondents were gathered through non-probabilistic linear snowball sampling. The

procedure depended on the referrals of the initial respondents. Snowball sampling best fit the

data collection procedure due to its convenient and fluid process.

The researchers conducted the data gathering on July 23, 2016. The researchers arrived at

Barangay Bawing at approximately 9 in the morning. Upon arriving, they communicated with

their guide to assist them. By 9:15, they arrived at the house of their first respondent. Before they

interviewed their respondents, they asked first if they were willing to be interviewed and assured

the respondent that they will honor confidentiality, privacy and anonymity. They interviewed the

first respondent for 15 minutes, after they interviewed the respondent, their guide had already

gone ahead and asked another friend to be the next respondent. They were passed on from one

respondent to another, walking from one house to another. When the suggested respondent was

not around they had to find another respondent. One of the respondents’ houses was near the

shoreline, after interviewing the said respondent, they took the opportunity to take pictures of the

boats and the fish cages nearby. Each interview lasted roughly 15 minutes. They finished their

last interview at around 5 in the afternoon, following the ethical standards set for researchers.

On October 23, 2016, the researchers gathered additional photos. They arrived at General

Santos City Fishport at around 7:00 in the morning. Initially, they were not allowed to enter due

to strict protocols, however, they talked their way through and they were allowed to enter at

around 7:30 in the morning. Since the researchers do not have boots with them, they can’t go any

further without boots. They were then instructed to rent the boots at the Resources Office. The

next procedure was to quarantine the boots they rented and after that they were directed to the

“Bagsakan.” Bagsakan is the drop-off point of the freshly caught fish. This is where the big

fishes are dropped like the Tuna. They saw how the tuna’s were unloaded from the boats, then

cleaned, chopped, packaged and then delivered. To taste the freshness quality of the tuna, the

fisherfolks cuts the tail part and then tries the raw meat of the tuna. The next place the researcher

visited was the docking area of the service boats. They snapped pictures of the service boats and

steel boats that were in the outrigger of some of the service boats. They were around the area for

about 10-15 minutes. Then they visited the Pokutero docking area where they snapped photos of

the different classification of boats like the light boats and ranger boats. They stayed there for 30

minutes.

The researchers asked for information where they could find a mother boat, they were

initially told that there were no available mother boats. They roamed around the fishport and

spotted one mother boat that was under repair. Luckily, the chief engineer was around. They

asked the chief engineer if they could board the mother boat and they were allowed, and was the

one who guided them around the mother boat. They were shown first at the starboard side and

then the portside. He showed the storage area, deck, helm, seaman’s quarters, and the mess hall.

The last portion of the boat they were toured was the engine room. At the time of their tour, only

one engine was working but the sound it generates was very loud. The researchers captured

photos at around 11:00 am since most of the activity in fishport happens early in the morning.

They left the fishport at around 11:30 am.

F. Summary of Findings

1. The Practices of the Palangri and Pukotero Fisherfolk of the Sulawesi Sea

The practices of the fisherfolk in the Sulawesi can be interpreted as practices revolving

around the scramble to capitalize on the present marine resources. This can be observed through

application of the data to the three levels of the structuration framework. It can be seen through

the level of interaction where the different means of fishing and their alternatives are detailed.

Through the level of modality, with the tools the fisherfolk have at their disposal, and the

interactions and rules that are set. And through the structural level, the power present in an

advantageous situation shown by imposing authority back onto the agent..

Beginning with the level of Interaction, the element of Power may be identified as the

means to capitalize on the presence of marine resources; that is, fishing power. The most obvious

means of capitalizing on the marine resources of the Sulawesi lie in the means and methods of

fishing. Over the course of the interview, the researchers have come to identify two groups of

respondents; namely the Palangri, and the Pukotero.

The Palangri utilize long line fishing, where they attach the bait to their lines. One The

line is then spread out. They wait, observing the stretched line, and upon movement in the lines

being spotted, they move towards that portion of the line.

Longline fishing puts to test the essence of patience for fisherfolk. They have to lay down

their lines and wait for hours, sometimes it may take a day before they can haul back their lines.

This fishing method is very effective in catching tuna, billfish and sharks, among others.

This method is also used in the Sulawesi Sea, most fisherfolks roam around the Sulawesi to lay

down their lines. Since the Sulawesi Sea is abundant in tuna, some fisherfolks use this technique.

Pukotero fisherfolk make use of floatation devices called payaw. The payaw is a Fish

Aggregating Device being used by the artisanal or small scale and industrial Filipino fishermen.

It is used mainly to attract free-schooling tuna and small pelagics (sardines, scad, mackerel, etc.).

One of the respondents describes the form of their payaws:

Aside from fishing there are also other means one can make money, such as smuggling.

The researchers inquired as to the existence of illegal commerce taking place between the

fisherfolk of Indonesia and the Philippines. Through the answers, the researchers inferred that at

one point, smuggling was indeed present. Items from Indonesia such as soap, cigarettes, utensils

and jewelleries were some of the products being smuggled to the Philippines. Filipino fisherfolk

back then, went to Indonesia to buy their products. Engaging in this kind of commerce had

eventually become quite lucrative, it was a sideline for the fisherfolk who were unable to fish

and had been considered an alternative. Since the signing of the agreement, the Indonesian

governments’ stricter policies have stopped the smuggling in the area.

One problem that continuously plagues the fisherfolk in the area is piracy. Some

respondents had encountered pirates, known colloquially as Tulis. This threat affects both the

Palangri and the Pukotero fisherfolk. Piracy can be considered as means by which resources can

be capitalized upon in the Sulawesi. These pirates, being a faction unattached and unaffiliated

with fisherfolk and merchants, raid and take what they need. This is not a legitimate means of

gaining income, but is an action that can be done.

One respondent described the wariness of his particular compatriots when he encountered

an unidentified group, the respondent stated that if possible, they would try to discern whether

the group was hostile or not, and restrain them if they were so.

The presence of the pirates as an entity to fear or deal with in the Sulawesi Sea

communicates the intent and meaning of their power, their ability to command authority over

their victims. This fear of the pirates forced the victims and would be victims to adapt, either

abandoning ship, or acting pre-emptively,

Though palangri fisherfolk do not remain in one area, the Palangri don’t have

predetermined fishing grounds and so are constantly moving, Some of them sailed as far as

Malaysia to look for suitable catch. It is obvious that they are free to choose where they sail in

search for fish, as long as it is within their capability. In dividing the fishing grounds among

Palangri fisherfolk, they practice the “first come first served” basis. Whoever puts down their

lines first, will occupy the area. The amount of fish caught and present in the area may determine

how the fisherfolk adapt. When there is a decrease in fish they will have to wait for another

season to fish and find other means of income. They can’t transfer to another area if it is owned

and occupied by others. Some respondents said that catching smaller fish in nearby shores are

also alternative ways of earning money. Some fisherfolk had wanted to move to another area but

they couldn’t because they needed to follow the contract they had with the companies.

Sometimes others even cross the borders of Indonesia just to take chances of catching fish. A

respondent told us about this, saying:

“Dira ra mi sa among pwesto. Muhulat ug season. Unsahay mu kawat-kawat ug sulod sa Indonesia, didto managat.” (We just stay at our area waiting for another season. Sometimes taking chances to get inside of Indonesia, so as to fish there.)

On the other side of the spectrum, Pukotero fisherfolk have predetermined fishing

grounds. Unlike the Palangri, they aren’t burdened with the constant need to search for viable

fishing grounds and so don’t have to move from one place to another just to secure their catch,

another respondent explained: “Butang nato na sa kani na area, butang nato 06126, kamo ra gyud

dira, wala gyud lain naa dira.” (Say for instance, in this area for example 06126, you’re the only

one there, there is no one else there but you.)

Here one can observe that the companies have already secured fishing grounds, dividing

them as needed between the fisherfolk under their employ. The same respondent also added:

“bahin na siya daan. Sa kompanya na na. Naa man nay posisyon. Makita na sa tanan.” (It is

already divided. The company owns it. It has a position. Everyone can see it.)

This division can be visually confirmed through the presence of payaw or buoys

representing the physical borders of their assigned fishing grounds, The buoys for the most part

have visual differences, and correspond with the ships GPS, forming a grid, thus everyone with

access to an appropriate GPS could see. These buoys are also owned by different companies,

and are a way of communicating the ownership and current use of the fishing ground.

The buoys are then guarded by their ranger boats, patrolling their area. Even at sea, they

encounter thieves, fisherfolk with bad intentions, and pirates. A respondent said: “Mamutol ug

payaw, manguha sa amoang area, manguha pud na silag payaw.” (They cut down our buoys,

they also get our area and get our buoys.) These means of communicating the fishing capability

are sanctioned both by the fishing company, and by a rule of respect practiced by and between

fisherfolk.

On the level of modality the element of Facility is shown through the fishing vessels and

equipment available to the fisherfolk. The mother boat is the largest ship in the fleet; and is the

lead ship. The mother boat is where the commander of the fleet known as the piyado is located. It

is the main storage and preservation area for the fish and carries the catch before it is transported

to the mainland. It is the most advanced ship in the fleet because of the navigational systems

which help it direct the fleet whenever fishing begins.

The service boat; is the second largest ship in the fleet. It is the boat primarily used to

catch and transport the fish. Smaller boats called steel are carried on the outriggers of the service

boats. Each steel boat is manned by a single person.

Service boats transport the catch from the storage area of the mother boat to the

mainland. In addition, it also serves the purpose of resupplying the mother boat. It also acts as an

emergency transport vehicle, ferrying casualties to medical facilities on land.

The light boat and ranger boat are technically the same kind of vessel, only separated into

both light and ranger classes based on assignment. The light boat is called such because it

provides light to the other boats at night time. It also serves as guard when assigned to the duty

of ranger boat.

Pieces of equipment are responsible in keeping track of the border. Examples being

Radar, a radar-capable compass, and the Global Positioning System or the GPS. Most of the

fisherfolk make use of this technology; it is reliable in identifying location and boundaries

The element of interpretative scheme is shown how the fisherfolk interact with one

another, Fisherfolk therefore formulate standards on how to perceive and interact with each other

based on their existing stock of knowledge. The approach of fisherfolk to their fellow fisherfolk

is not initially hostile. Approach and interaction is passive. Action would be taken if the situation

were to escalate. When asked how they interacted with and treated their fellow fisherfolk,

Indonesians in particular; one respondent stated: “Oo, mga Indonesian nihawa ra pud sila kay

amoa man to na area didto, nag respetohay lang gyud sila.” (Yes, the Indonesians left since it

was our area, they simply showed respect). Respect is observed among them and this rule has

been practiced for decades. However, due to the fact that some fisherfolk decide to go against the

rules, actions are undertaken in order to protect what is theirs. One respondent told us:

”Kung kanang mamutol na ug payaw, dira na namo badlungon. Naa man mi ranger naga

patrol, kung madakpan sila badlungon lang pud namo.” (If they attempted to cut the buoys, we

would try to reprimand them. Our ranger boats patrol the area, and if we catch them we would

simply reprimand them.)

Fisherfolk are cautious every time they’re out at sea. What they face for the most part are

fellow fisherfolk who may have the intention to tamper with the buoys. There is no violence

between them. If the situation does escalate then non-violent actions such as reprimanding are

undertaken.

Fishing out at sea means that fisherfolk have to deal with unexpected happenings. These

happenings if not handled properly may lead to injuries and at the worst may take one’s life..

One of the most unnerving situations for any fisherfolk is watching as the weather slowly

worsens. The common practice, done by the respondents in a scenario of bad weather is to go

back to the mother boat, remount the smaller boats and hide. Fisherfolk, most especially those

who are working for companies have undergone training in handling emergency cases at sea.

Their training includes first aid, and proper swimming techniques for use during emergency

cases. The training is mandatory and is a requirement before working in the company.

Communication in a time of emergency is dependent on co-operation. Here the

territoriality is temporarily set aside when faced with the possibility of injured crew members

and casualties. The respondents for the most part stated that despite the chance that the fisherfolk

in trouble may be of a different nationality and the possibility that the other party may not

reciprocate despite the aid rendered, they are perfectly willing to help any fisherfolk in danger.

This reflects the elements of sanction and norm. Concern and respect for fellow man counts as

normative practice. This in turn is connected to the element of sanction, as one respondent stated

that failure to help may be reported to their superiors.

With the Structural level is the element of Domination, the authority and control over the

rules and resources that make up the structure. In this case, it is the ability to hold authority both

over the rules and the resources in the Sulawesi Sea. Since the element of domination cannot be

separated from the other two elements of the structural level, the power over the resources in the

Sulawesi Sea are also manifested through the signification and legitimation.

Legitimation is embodied through the normative practices used when fishing, interacting

with other fisherfolk or reacting to unforeseen parties such as pirates. These norms are

sanctioned by the fishing companies and the fisherfolk. Following these rules and norms means

having ones fishing uninterrupted, violating these rules means a reprimand and a negative report

to the guilty party’s superiors. The fishing companies provide the pay. Being able to fish is

directly affected by whether or not one follows the rules of fishing. Obeying the rules is

difference between whether or not the fisherfolk would be able to make enough money.

Signification is reached through both the interaction of fisherfolk with one another. One

group of fisherfolk would interact with another group, and relying on what they already know

understand that the other group has claimed the area.

The practices of the fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea are not what the researchers initially

expected, for one, the presence of advanced equipment means that unlike the researchers

previous assumptions, the fisherfolk are well aware and capable of continuously monitoring their

position relative to the Philippine-Indonesian maritime border

The fisherfolk operate on the orders and demands of their companies, be it from

designated territory or by fishing grounds claimed by whosoever managed to lay claim to it first.

The Palangri in give the impression of always being on the lookout for viable fishing grounds,

while the Pukotero give the impression of always guarding against those who may disrupt their

fishing through theft. For many companies that are operating in the area, the various groups of

fisherfolk are in a scramble to capitalize on the marine resources of the Sulawesi Sea. This

scramble revolved around the projection of fishing capability. This capability and its application

revolved around a rule of respect and sanction by the authorities. The objective of this scramble

was to capitalize on the marine resources of the Sulawesi, gaining dominance over fishing

grounds, either claimed, or assigned. This dominance ensures continued operation of the agent

through a steady supply of fish to their employers

2. The Previous State of Affairs Between Fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea

The previous state of affairs between Filipino and Indonesian Fisherfolk was one where

the Philippine Fishing Industry was dominant, due to minimal contact between the Filipino and

Indonesian fisherfolk, company authority and a disparity in marine resource acquirement and

processing capability.

Through the first level of interaction, the presence of Filipino fisherfolk in Indonesian

waters, and the emphasis of the fishing companies on peacefully resolving problems can be seen

as a projection of fishing power. On the second level of modality there is the lack of

communication and the disparity in fishing capability between Filipino and Indonesian

fisherfolk. And on the Structural level the advantages in the level of interaction and modality

ensured the advantage of the Philippine fishing industry.

It has already been established that the ability to fish is the main form by which power is

shown in the Structure-Agent cycle of the Sulawesi Sea. Also mentioned is the practice of the

Palangri fisherfolk, who claim fishing grounds within their limit of range, and respect the claims

ofothers if the territory stumbled upon has already been taken.

Many Palangri fisherfolk have sailed as far as Indonesia, with one respondent saying that

he had fished in Bitung, under a company operating in its area. Many of these companies

operating in Indonesian territory have their main bases of operation elsewhere, such as General

Santos City in the case of the respondent.

The presence of Filipino fisherfolk in Indonesian waters is communication of fishing

ability, moreover Filipino fisherfolk already have access to more advanced equipment compared

ot their Indonesian counterparts.

This communication of fishing ability is sanctioned by the fishing companies. The

Filipino fisherfolk aren’t able to operate in Indonesian waters without company approval and are

paid to ensure that those in their employ act properly. The method of punishment is the same,

namely reprimand or disciplinary action from the superiors.

The companies were usually responsible for dealing with grievances between fisherfolk

that passed up along their chain of command. The emphasis on non-confrontational solutions to

potential incidents was useful because tension which would probably have made its way up the

company chain of command would be avoided. From this it can be seen that in the time before

the 2015 PH-IND MDA, the companies cooperated with each other in this scramble to capitalize

on the marine resources present in the area, and the fisher folk’s rule of respect and avoidance of

confrontation was a rule that avoided complications and prevented incidents between Indonesian

and Filipino fisherfolk.

There is a lack of communication between Filipino and Indonesian fisherfolk. This lack is

mainly due to a language barrier, however some fisherfolk are capable of communicating with

them. Of the responders who did mention contact with Indonesia fisherfolk, some mentioned

having Indonesia crewmembers, others had relatives who knew how to speak Indonesian

The researchers found out that the fisherfolk interviewed had no knowledge of the fishing

practices of the Indonesians, whether or not they might have been the same as theirs, or if they

were somewhat different. Any contact when possible is usually concluded with both sides doing

little, the rule of respect for claimed areas still applies, and the respondents interviewed mostly

replied that there was no difference in treatment between Indonesian and Filipino fisherfolk.

Indonesian fisherfolk were allowed to enter Philippine territory and Filipino fisherfolk were

allowed to fish in Indonesian waters.

Interaction between Filipino and Indonesian fisherfolk has not always been positive,

reports from the 1990’s mention Filipino fishing vessels displacing their smaller Indonesian

counterparts, usually taking their spots, where fish were most abundant.

The respondents asked said nothing of the sort happened in recent years, only

commenting that despite the size and wealth of marine resources in the Sulawesi Sea, the

Indonesian fisherfolk weren’t as capable in fishing. The communication of power, through the

presence of Filipino fisherfolk may be seen as an unfair disadvantage for the Indonesians. The

facilities and means to catch fish employed by the Filipinos are brought to bear by a fishing

industry much larger and sophisticated.

There have been instances where this disparity in capability has had complaints. Many

have argued that despite having most fish caught in Indonesian territory, those same fish were to

be processed in Philippine territory, specifically General Santos City.

In this the actions and activities of the fisherfolk, in making use of their fishing power are

sanctioned by the companies. The companies then begin to affect what would be seen as

appropriate for the situation. Much like the general practices of the fisherfolk in the Sulawesi, the

companies make use of the same sanctions and the norms still revolve around respecting fellow

fisherfolks territory.

Here, the level of modality can be summarized as first, with Interpretative scheme, such

as having little contact between Filipino and Indonesian fisherfolk, and the agreement amongst

the Filipinos on their advantage in Fishing techniques and ship size. Second, there are the

agreements between fishing companies, allowing for the Philippine fishing industry to extend its

capability to Indonesian waters. And last, Norm, with the rule of respect for territory keeping

both Filipino and Indonesian fisherfolk away from conflict.

The level of modality, combined with the level of interaction can be summarized as the

fishing capability of the Philippine fishing industry being carried out through the agreements

between the fishing companies and the subsequent policies and requirements that come after.

Fishing power is communicated through the presence of the fishing fleets in the fishing grounds.

This communication is interpreted in many ways, but can be seen as communicating a disparity

in equipment and fleet capability of the Indonesian fishing industry. Furthermore, this is

sanctioned by the fishing companies, who encourage having any potential incidents end by non-

confrontational means, leading to this communicated power and disparity becoming part of the

structure.

The structural level begins with the element of domination, wherein the fishing and fish

processing capability has led to the dominance of the Philippine fishing industry. This is

supported by the element of signification, wherein the stock knowledge in place, that of the

disparity in capability between the Philippine and Indonesian fishing industries has reached a

level of symbolic power, the Indonesians and the Filipinos are aware of the unequal capability.

The element of legitimation is shown when the enforced policy of non-confrontation, combined

with the disparity in capability has led to the dominance of the Filipino fisherfolk.

The power to fish when put into practice meant taking advantage of the disparity in

capability. There were reports in the 90’s of larger Filipino vessels displacing smaller Indonesian

ones, taking the catch that the smaller vessels would have caught. Such is an example of

domination, as structures of domination exercise power, through the more capable vessels; the

Filipino fisherfolk of the time took advantage of the size of their ships, taking an unfair amount

of fish which may have rightly belonged to the Indonesian vessels also in the area.

Simply put in the structural level, the Filipino fishing and fish processing industry is

dominant through the use of the various tools ready to project fishing power. The present

disparity, coupled with the lack of communication between fisherfolk, give the Filipino

fisherfolk more freedom as agents compared to their Indonesian counterparts.

The Filipino fisherfolk hold more capability as a result of this domination. The Filipino

fisherfolk did not intend to give the Indonesians a disadvantage, yet Filipino fisherfolk held

greater leeway and yielded bigger catches. The elements of structuration cast the data as a cycle

that upheld the domination of the Philippine fishing industry near the Sulawesi, as the companies

sanctioned the fishing within the Sulawesi Sea. The disparity in capabilities between Philippine

and Indonesian fishing companies, show the Philippine fishing industry holding an unfair

advantage in the scramble to capitalize on the marine resources..

Complaints about the disparity, when coupled with past reports of Philippine vessels

imposing themselves on spots occupied by Indonesian vessels, spots that were equally abundant

in fish, can be seen as unfair resource allocation and gathering perpetrated by Philippine fishing

companies.

The common practice when tension was present between fisherfolk was to pass it up to

the relevant authorities, followed by an attempt to diffuse the said tension. This combined with

the disparity in fishing and processing capability, and the perceived unfair allocation and

gathering of resources, leads the researchers to conclude that this state of affairs may have played

part in the eventual proposal, drafting and ratification of the 2015 PH-IND MDA.

3. The State of Affairs in the Sulawesi Sea after the Ratification of the 2015 Philippine-

Indonesian Maritime Delineation Agreement

The new state of affairs between Indonesian and Filipino fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea is

a state wherein the Filipino fisherfolk have adapted in the face of strict border protocols in lieu of

the 2015 Philippine-Indonesian Maritime delineation agreement. This is first observed from

application of the stricter Indonesian border protocols, in response to the 2015 Philippine-

Indonesian maritime delineation to the structure of domination, and how the subsequent border

protocols affected the Filipino fisherfolk, and second, in the adaptation of the Filipino fisherfolk

in response to the change in circumstance.

The conclusion shows that the previous state of affairs between Philippine and

Indonesian fisherfolk in the Sulawesi Sea is a state wherein the Filipino fisherfolk, and by

extension the Philippine fishing industry in the region carried an advantage over their Indonesian

equivalents. This advantage, rooted in a previous state of disparity a stated by previous reports,

coupled with protests of relevant authorities in Indonesia may have led to the 2015 PH-IND

MDA.

The manifestation of the element of domination would be stricter border protocols on the

part of the Indonesians, these border protocols are enforced by the Indonesian authorities, and

though standard border protocol might be envisioned as warning and processing of documents,

the data gleamed from the respondents puts forward the idea of a border enforcement force, one

respondent said: “Muabot ra man gani kag boundary dakpon naman ka karun.” (When you

reach the boundary, they [Indonesians] will move to arrest you immediately.)

These border protocols are structures that give the ones using them the power to dictate

what is to be perceived as appropriate both in physical and social action. In this case, when

taking the nine points, and the previous state of affairs between Indonesian and Filipino

fisherfolk into account, the Indonesian authorities, mindful of the maritime delineation

agreement used their power as agents to institute these border protocols, acting through their

naval capacity and by means of law at their disposal.

The institution of the border protocols falls under Signification and Legitimacy, namely

signification and legitimacy far above the de-facto state of affairs in the past years, where

resource allocation was coupled with emphasis on non-confrontational means to solve potential

problems, this structure of domination is now enforced by legal means, and by a presumably

militarized arm in the vessels patrolling the area.

By also embodying the elements and structures of Signification and Legitimation, it can

also be assumed here that the elements and structures of Interpretative scheme and norm are also

taken into account. The Filipino fisherfolk have at many times commented on the strictness and

quick response of the Indonesian authorities should the authorities be in the position to intercept.

This behavior continues even if the fisherfolk in question return to the Philippine side of the

boundary, often in pursuit, another respondent said this: “Indonesia mugukod diretso na basta

makit-an ka.” (Indonesians will immediately pursue you once they see you.)

The consequences that come after being caught by such authorities are as follows, the

destruction of the fishing vessel, and the imprisonment of the fisherfolk for months.

The previous range of fishing has been cut at the side of the Indonesians, resulting in

some practices being effectively halted or delayed, These border protocols, in their harsh

methods have no doubt stymied the fishing practices of the Palangri fisherfolk, The process of

interpretative scheme is seen, as the Filipino fisherfolk had adapted in reaction to this new

information. One respondent noted that there was a clear divide between what now belonged to

the Indonesians and what belonged to the Filipinos, the respondent said: “Wala na. Di pud mi

makaingon na hatagi mi ninyo dira. Managat sila diri makakuha sa ilaha na, amoa amo lang

gyud.” (Not anymore. We can’t ask them to give us anything. If they fish here that’s theirs, ours

is ours only.)

This does not mean that the possibility of the Filipino fisherfolk moving in said area is

gone for good, as another respondent mentioned occasionally entering past the boundary zone, if

only rarely. This area beyond has been noted by some of the respondents as being very abundant

in Tuna, though that same respondent said that it was illegal to cross over to the said area.

Through the border protocols and subsequent actions it becomes clear that through the

stock knowledge held in thought, the Filipino fisherfolk now understand that their actions are no

longer acceptable, both by physical consequence and by social and legal consequence.

Embodying the elements of Interpretative scheme and norm, as in reaction to this new

knowledge the common practice would be to either leave and search for fishing grounds in

places that the Indonesians had no power over, or to take chances and fish past the border,

leaving once alerted to the presence of Indonesian naval vessels.

One of the more obvious effects of the stricter border protocols is the decrease in

smuggling, as shown by the data in Chapter 2. Smuggling was prevalent when possible, products

from both the Philippines and Indonesia were sold in the other country, often at higher price, the

products on the Indonesian side ranged from soaps to jewelry and cigarettes, one respondent

said: “Sa unang panahon, naa gyud na. Kanang barter. Tanan gamit gikan gyud na didto mga

plato, sabon.” (There really is smuggling before, that barter. All things really came there like

plates and soaps.)

The introduction of the stricter protocols and the resulting punishment on offenders

seems to have made the point needed, and other respondents spoke of such smuggling not being

prevalent or even done anymore.

These actions and subsequent consequences are now endorsed by the fishing companies,

largely out of the fact that these protocols are upheld as law. This newfound power over the

ability of the Filipino fisherfolk to fish falls under the element of power. Agency at this point, for

the Indonesian authorities had become more than just being able to police their own boundaries,

but also hold power over the fishing capability of the Filipino fisherfolk.

The stricter border protocols and subsequent effect on the Filipino fisherfolk had led to

some companies ceasing operations. This does not mean that the situation of the Palangri was

completely hopeless and untenable, many of the Palangri fisherfolk have adapted and looked for

other means of income, some of them remained as Palangri but fished elsewhere.

In response to the lack of opportunity as Palangri fisherfolk some fisherfolk for the most

part fish in local waters, away from the deeper sea and closer to home. Other former Palangri

moved to becoming Pukotero fisherfolk, as the Pukotero fisherfolk have not been affected much

by the border protocols, as their means of fishing means that their areas aren’t anywhere close

enough for Indonesian forces to take any action of hostility.

This is one way in which the structures of power may be embodied, in the absence of the

means to exercise the ability to fish as they had done previously, via long line fishing; the

fisherfolk looked for employment elsewhere, not discarding the idea of fishing altogether.

Some have been compensated by the Philippine government in lieu of the new structure;

others had been compensated by the government transitioning from being Palangri to making use

of fish cages. This may be a positive development, for it means having a smaller chance of

running into the pirates usually feared by both Palangri and Pukotero.

The sudden change in fortunes for the fisherfolk in the Sulawesi came as a surprise for

those who were unfortunately in a state which the Indonesian authorities thought illegal, when

asked some said that they didn’t see this coming at first, with the sudden escalation of the

Indonesian authorities being the only warning, .

In the wake of this sudden change, one method of fishing became less prevalent, with

those who used to practice it searching for other means to make ends meet, leading them to

search for a way to bypass the new structure limitation, which they found via other means of

fishing, and other methods. The change in structure led to the eventual decline and discarding of

inadequate modes of fishing in the area.

When the new state of affairs came, the change of the previous structure, the options of

the fisherfolk affected began to dwindle, so the agents reacted, using their means of agency, their

ability to search for other viable means of employment. These means communicate their means

of power, their fishing power, some decided to transfer to an unaffected means of fishing power,

while others decided to fish elsewhere, leaving the fishing in the Sulawesi to other individuals.

In summary, when viewed through the three levels of the structuration framework, one

can first observe the change in the structure brought by the previous state of affairs in the

Sulawesi Sea, namely the implementation of the 2015 Philippine-Indonesian Maritime

Delineation Agreement and the following border protocols.

These protocols, in practice, prohibit any unauthorized access of Filipino vessels into

Indonesian waters, effectively cutting off the Indonesian portion of the Sulawesi Sea to the

Filipino vessels and companies. This cutting off had somewhat negative impact on the fishing

companies who could not cope with the change in situation, and led to many Palangri fisherfolk

losing their means of income. It led to the decline of the more illegal means of income in

smuggling undeclared goods. With that, the fisherfolks options are very limited; some ended up

with jobs in the mainland; others had turned to fishing in the local waters; some others had opted

to become Pukotero fisherfolk. This means of communication, while sanctioned, is not as

flexible in range as the previous state of affairs, but does not go against the new structure.