Indonesia is a country of rich maritime culture. One of the reasons for this is the  archipelagic nature of the country. Indonesia is a country with 5.8 millions m2 of  its territory is marine water. Our sea is three times larger than the land, which is  only 1.9 millions m2. These waters—located in the tropical zone which support  high biodiversity—is also the location where around 17,000 islands, mostly  small in size, sit. This makes Indonesia as the second longest country in the world  in term of coastline (95.181 km). With these geo-spatial characteristics, it is a  nature call for Indonesians, particularly coastal people to adapt their live and  livelihoods to marine environment. Thus, for us to develop maritime culture is  essential. Further, it is not just a maritime culture but a culture that should be  adapted to tropical waters— with mega bio-diversity—, shallow and deep  water of and between Idian and Pacific Oceans. Hence, it’s logical if our  maritime culture is so rich.

In Indonesia, the discussions of maritime culture should, at least, talk about four  categorical but interlelated cultural groups associated with four types of  communities; (1) the Bajau or Orang Laut (The People of the Sea) or commonly also  called the Sea Nomad, (2) fishing communities, (3) sailing communities, and (4)  coastal communities. In this regard, according to national sensus 2000, Indonesia  was a home to 158.970 Bajau people (Sea Nomad). Although majority of them have given  up living on the boat, most of them still live either in settlement contructed on  the coastal waters— they still live on the water—or in the coastal  land. They are those whom more than 70% of their live and livelihoods depend  on marine ecosystem. They are the very people of maritime culture. Indonesia is also  a home for 2,261,874 fishers (2016). They fish with 625.633 boats of various size  (2014, see Figure 1 for some examples),  majority of which (95,6%) are less than 10 gross tones. The latter means that  they are small scale or traditional fishers. They are those who learn fishing  knowledge and skill from their fellow fishers of older generation or their peers.  So, it is legitimate to say that fishing for them is practicing culture.

On sailing culture, the archipelagic nature of the country has also forced people to  use sailing as a traditional mode of transportation. This is recorded in one of our  songs. When we were little, we used to sing the following song:

Although most of people would think that the song records our historical fact as most  of the sailing traditions, particularly associated with long overseas voyages, have  gone, but some domestics’ intra and inter islands traditional sailing  (pelayaran rakyat) still exists. Kompas noted  that in 2016, we still had 1,384 traditional sailing boats, transporting people and  goods from many islands in the country (see Figure  2 for example of a sailing boat, number and their routes).

Finally, on coastal communities, the statistics are as follows, 140 millions out of  250 millions of Indonesian are living in coastal areas and 297 of 540  districts/cities are aso located on coastal areas. Altought not all coastal  communities has strong maritime culture, studies show that many coastal communities  have developed traditional marine/coastal resource management. Studies also found  that these tradition scatered from the western tip of the country, Aceh to the  eastern most, the Papua (Figure 3).

A comprehenship discussion of Indonesian maritime culture, i.e the Sea Nomads,  fishing and sailing cultures as well as traditional marine resource management is  beyond a scope of a single article or even a book. In fact a comprehenship  discussion on one cultural category alone might deserve many articles or books.  Nonetheless, as an introductory work, this paper would like to cover a discussion on  traditional marine resource management focusing on their characteristics, the state  and various empowerment efforts. In this regard, I would describe two examples from  Papua and Maluku.

The practice of traditional marine resource management in Papua lies in two main  concepts, wilayah adat laut (communal marine territory) and  kiripu¹.  Wilayah adat laut refers to the coastal water that is  subject to communal property right. In Papua, every coastal water is claimed to  be owned by particular social group, generally a keret (clan).  There are at least two different rights attached to communal marine territory,  the hak makan (use right) and hak milik  (property right). The hak makan is the right to access make use  and catch fish in communal marine area. This right is shared to all members of  the community, and those other’s but have some associations with the  community. The second right is called hak milik. This is a  stronger type of right. Hak milik covers hak  makan and the right to manage the waters. These include the right  to exclude others from fishing and determine open-close fishing seasons.  Hak milik is the exclusive rights of the owner, a  particular keret.

In practice, nonetheless, the daily management of the communal marine territory  is led by village government²  that manage village territory generally comprises of several keret  (clan) territory. The fact that keret  waters are managed by village government leads people to generally talk more  about wilayah laut kampong (kampong marine territory), rather  than keret territory (see Figure  4 as an example). Thus, the regulations pertaining to make use of the  village territory (the sum of some keret’s waters) are  decided through the decisions made at the village level. For examples,  prohibition of destructive fishing, or the arrangement of giving permission to  non-village fishers are established through a village level discussion.  Nonetheless, the voice of the marine owner keret’s is  very important.

The second concept is kiripup. This concept refers to the  tradition of temporary closing/opening of the communal marine area for  exploitation. In time of need, coastal people in Papua usually close a  particular part of their village marine territory for exploitation. The closing  season can last for months or a year depending on their need for the fish. When  they need a lot of fish for an important ritual or festival, they will close  bigger plot of the waters for longer period. For example, for a death ritual of  well-known and high ranking traditional leader (Ondoapi), where the ritual would  involve a lot of people, a bigger and longer kiripup would be  exercised. In the ritual of implementing kiripup, the leader of  the keret who owns the marine territory will lead the ritual in  the form of setting the tabom, that is the sign of the  prohibition made by coconut leafs. He will also lead the ritual of uplifting the  prohibition when the time comes for communal fish harvesting. The fish will,  then, be used for the intended ritual/festival.

Similar to the practice in Papua, traditional marine resource management in  Maluku also lies in two main concepts. The first concept is petuanan  laut (sea estate). Similar to the concept of wilayah adat  laut in Papua, petuanan laut is also communally  owned marine area. A slight difference is on the right holders. While in Papua  the main right holder unit is keret, in Maluku it varies. It  starts from a clan, but mostly ranging from settlement (sub-village), village  (Ohoi) up to federation of several villages  (Ratchap). In fact, in Kei Islands, Southeastern Maluku,  there is a unit of petuanan laut belong to the whole of Kei  islands people (an ethnic group).

On types of rights associated with a petuanan unit, the same as in Papua, people  in Maluku recognize hak makan dan hak milik. The hak  makan is shared among all members of the community and associated  individual or social group. The hak milik, is usually the  exclusive rights of a clan (fam), where the  petuanan belongs to a clan, or core clans if the petuanan  is under the control of settlement, village or bigger social groups.

As a sign of their familiarity, a basis of their territorial claim, as well as  for management purposes, in Maluku, people usually develop elaborated  traditional zonation or naming systems to their territory. The followings are  two examples of this. The first one is from Kei Besar (Great Kei) island and the  second is from Dullah Laut Village, Kei Kecil (Small Kei) archipelago in  Southeast Maluku. Figure 5 shows that  people divide marine area into eight different zones, each zone has its own  name, characteristics and use. For example, Ruhan met soin is  part of the inter tidal zone. This is the coastal area where people park their  boat and do some gleaning. Met, still inter tidal zone but  further to the sea, is the location where people anchor their boat, do some bait  fishing and marine-culture activities (usually sea weed culture). As the picture  depicts the zonation goes on until the farest area where people can go.

In Dullah Laut Island on Kei Kecil archipelago, people recognize their marine  area via naming rather than zonation system (see Figure 6). The sea territory (Petuanan Laut) of  Dullah Laut village is the waters surrounding the village’s seven  Islands. People do not make zonation, instead, they put an elaborate names to  many spots in their territories. This naming system, which is unique, is the  source of legitimation for their territorial claim. This will be obvious during  the time of conflict. They will challenge any claim by asking them to names  their territory. Outsiders will have difficulties to recite this as each name is  associated with particular narrative that explains the establishment of the  village or any traditional domain. Wada Iyuhan (No. 3 in Figure 6), for example, a marine spot to the North of Dullah  Island was given the name because that particular spot was the location where  one of their ancestors from Banda (Wada) anchored for the first time in the  village territory. Only prominent local villagers would know this story.

The second concept in the practice of traditional marine resource management in  Maluku is Sasi. This concept refers to system of beliefs, rules and rituals  pertaining to temporal prohibitions on use of a particular resource or  territory³ (Adhuri 2013). Sasi is actually similar to  kiripup, except that the time of opening and closing of sasi are determined more  by the condition of particular resources (object of the prohibition) or the  economic motive of the community. For the former, let me call an example of Sasi  Ikan Lompa (Trissina baelama) in Haruku village on Haruku Island, Central  Maluku. When schools of Trissina baelama come to the village waters and go to  the river for laying their eggs, Kewang (the traditional committee in charge for  surveillance and preforming the opening and closing rituals of Sasi) will  declare the sasi is close (tutup sasi). Thus, the coastal waters and the river  where the fish live will be prohibited for any exploitation. When Kewang  observes that the fish have settled well and laid their eggs, ready to go out to  the sea, they will prepare the ritual of opening the sasi (buka sasi) and invite  people to come for harvesting the fish. The Sasi opening is the festival of Ikan  Lompa (Trissina baelama) harvest, everybody can join, not only villagers.  Elderly people, village traditional leader and orphans who could not take part  in the harvest were usually given some portion of the harvest. For the latter,  we can observe Sasi bia lola (Trochus niloticus) and Tripang (sea cucumber). In  several villages, people use to have Sasi Bia Lola and Tripang. This means that  people decide to close (tutup sasi) some parts of their marine territory for Bia  Lola or Tripang exploitation or other targeted species. Tutup Sasi ritual will  be performed to start the closing season. Since then, no one can harvest the  targeted species until the ritual of opening sasi is carried out as the  declaration of lifting the prohibition. Unlike Sasi Lompa, for Sasi Lola or  Tripang, the harvest is subject to further regulation. In Nolltoh, Central  Maluku, only certain people who are allowed to harvest the Trochus. This people  will be paid or shared the harvest while the whole harvest will be for village  government. The money from selling the harvest will be used, by the village  fovernment, for village development programs. In Watlar, Kei Besar Island, each  household representative is allowed to harvest the Trochus and other target, and  they will receive certain amount of share from the harvest, other portion is for  village government. The money from the selling of the harvest will also be used  for village programs. The use of the share of every household representative is  their own decision. Free can be represented everybody only certain people who  are allowed to fish.

In the former time, before 1970s, the Bia Lola Sasi could last until three years.  Since 1970 an until now people harvest Bia Lola and Tripang every year, usually  close to Christmas time for Christian communities. The driver of implementing  the tradition of Sasi, in this regard, is the income from harvesting the marine  species.

During the Indonesian New Order Regime (1966-1998), particularly after the passing of  the Village Law No. 5/1979, Indonesian traditional world was in crisis; being  marginalized and weakened. As Johannes (1978, 1981) identified in Micronesia, the  weakening of the marine culture was due to government regulations and  intensification of market economy. The New Order Regime looked at tradition and  traditional people as barriers to development. In fact, development was meant to  modernize the Indonesian traditional world. The Village Law No. 5/1979 was an  instrument to create a ‘modern’ village government body and system  that were the same for all Indonesian. Thus there was no room for Indonesian  traditional cultures and organizations. The penetration of market economy has also  eroded traditional social cohesion and institutions. People rushed for cash as they  needed more money for fulfilling their new needs brought about by market economy.  Traditional norms and leaders were no longer important. In fact, tended to be  disregarded.

It was not until 1980s concerns on traditional marine resource management emerged.  Interestingly it started in Maluku with concern on Sasi. Inspired by widespread  environmental and social movements, NGO activists became actively involved in  empowering local leaders to revive and document their tradition (see Kissya 1995; Rahail 1995). A major focus of the initiatives has been identifying the  elements of resource management and the spatial distribution of such practices.  These efforts were formally acknowledged when Kalpataru—the medal for special  achievement in environmental conservation was awarded to village traditional leader  in Central Maluku for practicing ‘sustainable’ traditional resource  management, that is the Sasi Ikan Lompa.

Adopting international discourse on the common pool resource management, academia  also involved in study on traditional marine resource management in Maluku in the  same period. Lokolo (1988, 1994), Bailey and  Zerner (1992) and Nikijuluw (1994)  and (Pannell 1997) are some examples of such  works. They all consider the practice is important for both resource sustainability  and protecting the right of traditional people for managing their own resources and  people.

The formal government support for the strengthening of the traditional marine  resource management came after the collapsed of the Indonesian New Order Regime in  1998. The changing regime has brought decentralization and more autonomy to local  governments. The formal government acknowledgement on the traditional wisdom,  traditional community rights come also as part of the package. Since then, many laws  and other regulations mention explicitly the obligation of government, business  entity to protect and regard the practice of traditional resource management,  including marine resource management. Table  1(p.30) shows some of these laws and regulations.

Reading the laws and regulations in table 1,  we can see that the government empowerment of traditional marine resource management  is more for the purpose of increasing the sustainability and fairness of the  management as well as acknowledging the rights of traditional people. I should also  note that at the practical level, some effort of empowerments are geared toward the  development of secondary use of the practice as tourist attraction. There are some  positive results for this but also some risk from its commodification. Economic  motive might erode the social and cultural values of the practice. For example,  people question the aspect of resource sustainability of Sasi Lompa in Haruku when  so many people were invited to take part in the harvest.

Another revitalization efforts that worth mentioning, other than government  regulation, is the work of conservation NGOs. This is also a relatively new trend,  about a decade long. The difficulties and problems experienced my conservation NGOs  when they apply conventional conservation approach—that is looking at people  as and ‘enemy’ of conservation or people as ‘predators’  of those conserved natural resources and ecosystems—has shifted the paradigm  to embrace the people/ community as collaborator of /for conservation. One of their  strategiey of using people as their collaborators is making use of their tradition  for conservation purposes. In this regard, these NGOs work with the community to  strengthen their traditional marine resource management with some upgrade, that is  putting in conservation concerns in the traditional practices.

One of well-known programs on this is the program developed by the Indonesian Locally  Managed Marine Area (ILMMA). This NGOs have supported more than hundreds villages in  Papua and Maluku to strengthen their traditional marine resource management  practices. The programs include, not exclusively, the formalization of the  traditional into the form of village regulation, adding permanent no take zone to  the tradition of sasi and kiripup. In Tanimbar Kei, they also added access fee to  outsider fishers. This fee is a new element in the tradition, but considered as very  important. The access fee has made the community being able to collect enough fund  to carry out more management activities. In fact, this fee has also made them  possible to provide scholarship for kids to go studying in the city and helping ill  people to have a better treatment in the city.

I would consider this paper as an initial step to record and share the Indonesian  maritime culture. First, I argue that Indonesia has a rich maritime culture as it  is, for a simple reason because we are an archipelagic country. We do not have much  option rather than developing maritime culture as our means of adaptation. Second,  the discussion of maritime culture in Indonesia should cover about the Bajau people  (the Sea Nomad), fishing culture, sailing culture and the culture of coastal  communities, particularly to their traditional marine resource management.

Further, due to space limitation, this paper only focuses on the culture of marine  resource management that is practiced in Papua and Maluku. In regard, this paper  tries to shows that some similarities and differences of the practices are obvious.  While the basis of both practices are the concept of communal marine tenure and the  tradition of closing-opening seasons, the right holder units and motives behind  these practices are different. If the main right holder unit of communal tenure in  Papua is keret (clan) and village community, in Maluku the rights holder unit  ranging from several clans that form the core member of the community up to an  ethnic group. In Papua the motive that drives the opening and closing seasons is  socio-religious, while in Maluku, it is more the condition of the resources and  economy.

This paper has also noted that while during the New Order Regime the tradition tend  to be marginalized and weakened, the reform era (Post-new Order) have brought  empowerment. These involve research and community empowerment on the ground and  discursive level and also government policy support. The later takes the form of the  passing of laws and regulation that acknowledge and protect traditional marine  resource management.

Finally, on the ground or in the sea, the revitalization or strengthening of the  culture of marine resource management is also carried out with the support of NGOs.  Interestingly, this effort is not merely a means of cultural revitalization but also  for environmental conservation.