『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

Social Issues in the Aceh Post Tsunami Rehabilitation:
Some Notes from Project Experience 7
Dedi Supriadi Adhuri 8

Abstract
In the morning of the 2004 boxing day, Aceh was struck by a very strong earthquake (inits center, the magnitude of the earthquake was 9.2 Richter) followed a devastating tsunami.
Around 176,000 people were killed or disappeared, all coastal cities in the province,
particularly in the West coast, were leveled to the ground.

The response to this tragedy wasa global wide. Within days, international aid communities reached Aceh and started to save
injured people, cleaned the debris and tried to make Aceh re-habitable.

Within a year andlasted for a decade or so, local, national and international communities involved inrehabilitating and reconstructing Aceh in all sectors.

Although we might still see someproblems, these works have re-established proper life for most of the Aceh people and its
environment.
Reflecting from my own experiences for four and half years working in post-tsunami
rehabilitation in Aceh, this paper will highlight some socio-cultural issues in the projects andsee how Anthropological perspectives can help to identify these issues. This understanding, I
will argue, is very important not only for identifying the problems but also for creating
solutions and, in fact, for mobilizing people’s support to optimize the outcome andsustainability of the rehabilitation projects. In so doing, this paper will look at the importanceof local knowledge and practices, social structure and participation/collaboration in post
tsunami rehabilitation efforts.

Keywords : Disaster, Post tsunami rehabilitation, social issues, Anthropology
A. INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is one of the biggest archipelagic countries in the world. Geographically itcovers about 5,193,250 km², 1,919,440 km² of which is land of more than 17,000 islands andtheir surrounding waters. This huge area which is rich in its natural resources offers great
7

Paper presented at International symposium on Disaster and the role of Anthropologist: Effort in AsianCountries. November 1, 2016, Nanzang University, Nagoya, Japan.
8 Maritime Study Group, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia.

15

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

opportunities for the people and government to live in good living condition. Nonetheless,the challenges to reach the status of a welfare nation are also great. One of the challenges isthe fact that Indonesia is a hot spot of natural disaster. Indonesia, particularly the southernarch of the archipelago is part of the Asia pacific Ring of Fire (Figure 1). That is the networkof volcanoes around the Pacific Ocean that result from subduction of oceanic plates beneathhigher continental plates. This network is a source of earth quake and volcanoes eruption.
The fact that Indonesia archipelago is surrounded by two oceans—The Indian and Pacificoceans- adds the hazard from earth quake as it can create tsunami.

In addition, climatechange and mis-or lack of natural resource management have added the types of disaster suchas flood, drought and land slide as well as number of incidences in Indonesia

Figure 1. The Pacific Ring of Fire

Source:https://ecsforum5.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ring-of-fire-and-globalvolcanoes1.jpg(downloaded 28th August 2017)

The record of natural disaster in Indonesia (1907-2004) found that there were 235
incidents of various natural disasters (cyclone, drought, earthquake, flood and volcano) which
killed 55,418 people and totally impacted 12,688,833 (Table 1). If we put in Aceh tsunamithat taken place in December 2004, we could add around 176,000 people killed and millions
Table 1. The Incident of Natural disaster in Indonesia (1907-2004)

Source: https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/research/profiles/pdfs/indonesia_profile1.pdf

16

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

more impacted 9. These are huge number of people, and we should also remember that thesedisasters can produce long term impacts to the environment and the people.
As our earth is getting old and our pressure on her intensified, some are carried out badly,
it should be no surprise to see the increasing trend of disaster. This is happening in many
places including Indonesia. A week before my travel to this seminar (1 November 2016), a
day long heavy rain had caused serious flood and land slide in Garut, West Jawa. This incident
had killed 20 people, 14 people were missing, possibly dead. Similar incident also took placein many other parts of the country and this happens almost every rainy season.
With the above challenges, Indonesia needs to improve her efforts in disastermanagement which includes disaster mitigation, preparedness, emergency handling and postdisaster reconstruction. This paper is an attempt to share some experiences in post disasterrehabilitation.

Reflecting from my own experiences for four and half years working in Aceh,

this paper will highlight some socio-cultural issues in the projects and see how
Anthropological perspectives can help to identify these issues. This understanding, I willargue, is very important not only for identifying the problems but also for creating solutions
and, in fact, for mobilizing people’s support to optimize the outcome and sustainability of therehabilitation projects. In so doing, this paper will look at the importance of local knowledge
and practices, social structure and participation/collaboration in post tsunami rehabilitation
efforts.
B. THE PROJECTSThe Framework
The projects that this paper referred to were a series of projects that aimed at establishinga sustainable community-based integrated coastal management through a balance activities
between habitat restoration/conservation and livelihoods development. We developed our
implementation activities

by adapting a conceptual framework designed for the diagnosis

and management of small scale fisheries (SSF) (Andrew et al. 2007). The framework of
Andrew et al. (2007) consists of (1) identification of the elements external to the coastal
environment, (2) diagnosis of the internal elements to identify increased benefits and potential
constraints, (3) recognition of the management constituencies, (4) development of amanagement process and indicators of the status of elements benefiting the community, and(5) generation of community benefits (i.e. outcomes) that flow from the SSF system.
Feedback loops at each stage provide opportunities for adaptive management as internal andexternal conditions change throughout the development cycle.
At a practical, level we translated this conceptual framework into four distinct phasesof activities (Figure 2). The first phase was conducting a detailed diagnosis of challenges,
9

The exact number of people killed in the Aceh tsunami could not be established until now. Various
estimations point to a range between 176,000 and 280,000 people.

17

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

opportunities and management options in the context of post-tsunami rehabilitation.

In thisregard, we conducted several survey and participatory analysis of the dynamics of the socioecological systems (SES) before and after the tsunami. The information collected in the firstphase was used to feed the work of the second phase that was establishing the management
plan. The management planning process addressed outcomes desired (SES configuration),actions needed (tested responses or management options) to achieve the outcomes andindicators to evaluate success of the actions. Phase three was testing the management
options/intervention which covered habitat restoration, livelihood rehabilitation andmanagement arrangement that were environmentally sustainable and socio-economically
viable. It should be noted that we carried out all these phases with participatory method
involving relevant stakeholders (community, local government offices and various NGOs
working in the site). Community participations were increased as the phases moved along.
We developed this strategy as part of the exit strategy with the expectation that as the project
ended, the community could carry on the management activities independently.

Figure 2.

Project Implementation Activities/Strategy

Surveys/Mapping:

Stakeholder Consultations:

Socioeconomic

WorkshopFisheries

Phase I

Diagnosis

Aquaculture feasibility
Institutions

FGD
Key Informant

Habitat restoration

Phase II

Coastal Management
Planning&
Setting of Indicators(resource condition & community
needs)

Phase III

Testing & adoption ofmanagement plan
Output(sustainable
livelihoods, food, income, education)

Source: Fieldwork

18

Phase IV
(feedback)『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

The Site
These projects were implemented in four coastal villages of Sampointet sub-district,Aceh Jaya. These villages were Pulau Raya, Lhok Kruet, Menasah Kulam and Blang Monlung
villages. These villages located about 80-90 km to the East of Banda Aceh, the capital city ofthe province (Figure 3). During the project implementation period (2006-2010) it took aboutfour to five hours driving, about half of the route, the condition of road was still damaged orbeing repaired.
Geographically, three villages are located close between each other (Figure 3). Lhok
Kruet and Meunasah Kulam are situated in the Lhok Kruet embayment. Blang Monlung
located further inland but connected by a road and a river to Meunasah Kulam and Lhok Kruet.
Pulo Raya is a village on the island that bears the same name. The island of Pulo Raya is
located around 500 meter to the west off Lhok Kruet village. The total area of these villages
is around 4699 Ha, consisting of settlement and other buildings (264 Ha), agricultural land
(845 Ha), plantation (215 Ha), forest (700 Ha), and others (including inter tidal and swamparea) 2676 (Ha).

(Table 2)

Figure 3. Site Location

Source: Fieldwork and Google-earth

19Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

The population characteristics of these villages are as follows. Total population was
1,304 people. They were distributed in 401 households. The main livelihoods of villagers
were fishing, faming, plantation, petty trade, construction, government employee, etc. In
terms of fishing, Pulo Raya was the most sea oriented village. Around 70% of its adult
population involved in fisheries related work as their primary occupation. Additional 5%
work as part time fishers. Other villages had less people work for fishing as their primary job;
only 20%, 32%, and 10% for Lkok Kruet, Meunasah Kulam and Blang Monlung respectively.
But, 90% of Meunasah Kulam villages involved in river fishing as their secondary job. We
also found that coastal area did not only provide fishery resources but also many others suchas agro forestry resources. These were sources of livelihood for some of the community
members. For example, some women had exploited Nypa leafs for making traditional hat andcigarette cover. These products were for sale. Coconut and short-lived agricultural cash cropand vegetables also provided jobs for some more people.
Challenges and Opportunities
The Environmental Lost and Livelihoods Devastation
Before tsunami, the coastal areas of Pulo Raya, Lhok Kruet and Meunasah Kulam(Figure 3) are relatively green and productive. Similar condition could also be observed along
the river that connects the coastal area of Meunasah Kulam and Lhok Kruet with Blang
Monlung villages (Figure 3).

From the google earth satellite image, we could observe that

Cemara (Casuarina sp.), Pandan (Pandanus sp), Ketapang (Terminalia catappa Nypa (Nypasp.), Bakau (Mangrove), Kranji (Dalium sp.), Nibung Palm (Oncosperma

tigillarium),

Siron/Waru (Hibiscus tiliaceus) and Beringin (Ficus benjamina) grew along the coast andriver of these villages. Other than their biology and ecological functions --such as the function
as wind breaker for pine trees that protected paddy from falling down before the rice wasready for harvesting and fish spawning area for mangrove along the river – these coastal
forest and agricultural land were source of people’s livelihoods.

For examples, they usedketapang (Terminalia catappa), Siron/Waru (Hibiscus tiliaceus), and Kranji (Dalium sp.) formaking the beam of their boats. For the last, people also constructed fish aggregating device
with its branches and leafs. Additionally, there was about 25 Ha paddy field in Pulo Raya that
supplied rice --the main staple of the villagers-- sufficiently.
Besides the use of these trees for people’s own consumptions, some of them were
exploited for selling. Rhizopora spp and Nypa leafs, for instances, were exploited for charcoaland cigarette cover (also hat) respectively. It was also the case with coconut which was soldin the form of copra or cooking oil. We should also add that swamp and river supported theavailability of some exploitable resources such as fish, shrimp, shells and crabs. People madeand still make use of these resources both for subsistence needs and commercial purposes.
Tambak (brackish fond) was also constructed in Pulo Raya, Meunasah Kulam and Lhok Kruet
villages.

Although the scale was still small with traditional and semi-intensive operation,

20

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

these tambak provided some additional income to the community.
Tsunami on the boxing day of 2004 destructed almost all of the ecosystem and thecoastal resources. The coast along the settlement of Pulo Raya village was washed away andso all the trees, tambak, and even village settlements (Figure 4).

One settlements in Lhok

Kruet has become part of the sea of 0-2 meters deep as the coast line moved inland for about
50-80 meter (FAO, Forestry Consultant report). The coast line of Meunasah Kulam village aswell as the area along Blang Monlung river suffered of the same destruction (Figure 5). All
Cemara (Casuarina sp.), Ketapang (Terminalia catappa), Pandan (Pandanus sp), Nypa
(Nypa sp.) Bakau (Rhizopora spp.), Kranji (Dalium sp.), Nibung Palm (Oncosperma
tigillarium), Siron/Waru (Hibiscus tiliaceus), Beringin (Ficus benjamina) and tambak on the
coast of Lhok Kruet and Meunasah Kulam were destroyed. Most of the trees along the rivertoward Blang Monlung village faced similar devastation. In fact, tsunami has changed thecourse of the river flow. A new river mouth was created in the middle of the coastal line of
Lhok Kruet village. The original mouth of the rivers was in Meunasah Kulam on its borderwith Lhok Kruet.

The tsunami also converted some dry land, including paddy field into aswamp or an inter tidal zone. Like in Pulo Raya village, all the settlements of these villages
were also wiped out.
On capture fishery, we did not get any convincing information on how tsunami had
impacted marine resources, but the destruction of people’s livelihood was obviously severe.
Actually, for the former, we acquired some information on the catch trend in the last five
years. However, except for inter tidal zone and river-based resources, there was no consensus
on the condition of marine resources. For example, Pulo Raya villagers thought that the catchof lift net was the same for the last five years except within a year after tsunami. Lhok Kruet
villagers considered the harvest of lift-net decreased. Pulo Raya and Blang Monlung villagers
also suggested that the harvest of the net operated with outboard engine boat was mostly thesame. In fact, it increased for line fishing.

For Lhok Kruet and Meunasah Kulam villagers,

the catches of net and line operated by the same type of boat declined. The catch of line
operated with small inboard boat was considered the same by both Pulo Raya and Lkok Kruet
villagers but Meunasah Kulam villagers argued it shrank. On the catch of net using small
inboard boat, Lhok Kruet and Meunasah Kulam villagers shared the same perception that it
declined. Pulo Raya villagers thought differently. They believed that the catch of net, operatedby small boat was the same.

Again, for the catch of gear operated by bigger inboard boats(3-5 GrossTonnes), Pulo Raya villagers had different opinion with Blang Monlung. The
former observed that the catch increased, while the latter suggest it was the same. It was only
for river fishing that all three villages agreed that the catches increased. They observed thatboth in terms of quantity and quality, river resources raised, particularly after the tsunami.

21

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

BeforeAfter

BeforeAfter

People’s different opinions on understanding the resources was not only about thecatch rate but also their explanation on why and consequences of the changes. For example,
Pulo Raya villagers believed that the natural changes, in this regard it referred to the logs thatwere brought by the tsunami to the bottom of the sea had added new shelters to fish which,then, increased the catch of line fishing. To the contrary, for Lhok Kruet villagers, it was thenatural change that caused the decline of the catch of the same fishing technology.
The destruction of the fishing vessels was very obvious. People reported that the lostof all type of boats were more than 80%. In fact, Meunasah Kulam and Blang Monlung losttheir entire fishing boats. Pulo Raya also suffered the same for most type of their boats. Only
lift net that 17% was still intact, other type of boats were destroyed or missing.
Similar level of devastation of fishing gear was apparent. The destruction of jermal,that is the net used in lift net operation, was obviously the same as the destruction level ofthe fishing vessel since the nets were attached to the gear. Various nets (gill net, trammel net,

22

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

cast net, etc.) fishing line, crab-trap, etc would be similar, since most, if not all, of them werestored on the boats, coastal areas or home which all were totally or, at least heavily damaged.
The damage to the fisheries infrastructure was also serious. A dock, fish auction placeand some constructions used for post-harvest processing were totally destroyed. Adding tothis was the breakdown of road which was very important for the distribution of ice to fishers
and the marketing of the catch out of the village.
For the people, these destructions were not only a lost of natural resources andenvironment but also the lost of associated livelihoods. More than hundreds households
whose their economy depended on capture fishing; whether they were fishers, post-harvest
processors, or fish traders, were in peril. For fishers, having no fishing vessel or gear meantno fishing. Then, there would be no fish to sell or to process for fish seller and post-harvest
worker.

Traditional hat, roof and cigarette cover productions, the activities that provided

additional income for women, had gone since Nypa was cleared by the tsunami. Tambak
farmers were, of course, had nothing to work for as their tambak was totally destroyed.
Additionally, agricultural activities associated with cash crops ceased as paddy field, andother dry lands were converted into inter tidal zone or swamp.
Nonetheless, the conversion of dry land into aquatic zone had opened the possibility
for aquaculture development. Thus, if before tsunami the most possible tambak construction
was only along the river, more area was now suitable for aqua-culture development. The
development of aquaculture would yield at least two benefits. First, it would generate newsources of income and protein. Second, it might reduce the pressure on marine resources. Thiswas because the development of aquaculture might prevent the involvement of more people
in capture fisheries in which the resources were indicated to have been in the status of heavily
exploited if not over exploited already. The development of aquaculture might even attract
capture fishers to leave their fishing activities.
In this regard, the challenge for creating the management plan was how toaccommodate the needs of environmental and livelihood rehabilitations. This challenge washuge not only because the devastation of both environment and people’s livelihood wereserious but it was also due to the fact that the environmental rehabilitation was not always inline with livelihoods development. In fact, they could be contradictory because environmental
rehabilitation was strongly associated with conservation or environmental protection, while
livelihood development concerned more on making use of or exploiting the environment. Thiswas particularly true in reference to Aceh.

The development of brackish fish pond (tambak)

was considered as a main cause of mangrove deforestation (Meldrilzam et al. 2005;
Kanagaratnam at. al. 2006; Griffin C, D. Ellis, S. Beavis, D. Zoleta-Nantes 2013).
In this circumstance, it was impossible to develop any plan that could maximize its
value to the environmental protection as well as livelihood development. There should besome negotiations that facilitate the compromise of the achievement of environmental andlivelihood development goals. On the conceptual level, this could be calculated. The
implementation on the ground, however, was not easy. There was segregation between

23Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

agencies or departments that worked for environmental issues and livelihood developments.
With this, there was a tendency that a particular institution created and implemented
development program that did not really take into account the interest of other sector. This
created problem with other institution that had different plan in the same location. The
problem became more complicated if community had different interest and priorities. The
following section will, among others, discuss an example of this complication.
C. THE SOCIAL ISSUES
Rehabilitation: ‘Competitive Humanitarianism’ or Coordinative Support?
The site of our project, the four villages in Sampoinet, received support from several
institutions. Government agencies such as Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR)
for Aceh and Nias, UN organizations, international, national and local NGOs and local
communities have involved in various rehabilitation programs in the four villages. These
programs ranging from distributing basic needs up until the construction of houses, sanitationand other infrastructures. While the former were part of emergency relief programs, the latter
were more for long term development goals. In coastal and fisheries sectors, these includes
greenbelt project,aqua culture (brackish fish fond and fish cage), boat and fishing gear

distributions, post harvest related aid, and the construction of a new fish auction place.
Looking at the variety of these programs, they clearly covered most aspects of coastal andfisheries rehabilitation. With these, it should have been logical if we expected that recoveryof coastal and fishery sector would be fast. Nonetheless, there was a ‘competitive
humanitarianism’ (Stirrat, 2006) that had constrained coordination between institutions
involved in rehabilitation programs. In fact, conflicts broke out as the product of conflicting
interest and implementations of these projects. The following was a rather detailed accountof these conflicts.
In early 2006, FAO Forestry Division developed an Integrated Coastal Management
Programme, focused more on the plan of establishing coastal greenbelt. In March-April ofthe same year, they sent a mangrove expert to access the condition of the coastal area and to
calculate the need for coastal replanting. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) training and fieldappraisal assistance were also conducted in Lhok Kruet around the same time.
Representatives from Pulo Raya, Lhok Kruet, Meunasah Kulam, Crak Mong and Krueng No
participated in the PRA since the establishment of the greenbelt covered the coastal area ofthese villages. The objectives of the PRA were two. The first was for socialization of FAO
forestry programme to the potential beneficiaries and local stakeholders, second was for
initial activities in selecting

potential local trainer and facilitator for village appraisal andstart building local potential leaders for implementing

future programme and activities anda follow up planning after the village appraisal.
Although there were some concerns form PRA participants that the communities were24

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

actually more interested in livelihood related program rather than conservation focused
activities, there was not strong resistance from the community toward the FAO’s plan. 10 FAO
forestry division pursued the plan by bringing the seeds of various trees (coconut, mangrove,etc.) to the temporary nursery area closer to these villages.
FAO was almost ready to implement their plan when BRR came to these villages
implementing a tambak (re-)construction project. A backhoe was brought and started digging
the land for fish pond on the same area where FAO had planned to establish the greenbelt.
Conflict was inevitable. FAO protested BRR. Some negotiations took place, but all were deadlock. One unresolved problem was that, the work of FAO should always in accordance withformal regulation, one if which stipulated that 200 meter from coast line should be allocatedfor greenbelt. The area of tambak construction was within the limit of greenbelt allocatedzone. Thus, for FAO, unless there were some changes in the regulation, they could not do any
support for non greenbelt related activities in the area. For BRR, there was no point of return,the proposal was approved and the money was granted. Cancellation of the work, by theIndonesian government standard, would be considered as the fail of executing the granted
work. This would influence the flow of future grant. Additionally, abortive termination oftambak project would also upset community ‘tambak group’ who were the beneficiaries of
BRR project. Finding no possible compromise, FAO put off the plan, except in a village where
BRR tambak project did not cover. BRR tambak construction was pursued. 11
The syndrome of ‘competitive humanitarian’ was also apparent in the rehabilitation of
capture fishing. In the early stage of rehabilitation process, there was a rush of aid distribution.
This was basically because donors were very keen to help local community to rebuilt theirlivelihood. NGOs and other institutions involved in ‘competitive humanitarian’ raced forshowing off that they were among the first agencies helping local people.

In Stirrat’s words,

it is said:‘From the beginning the pressure was on the agencies not only to e effective
but to be seen to be effective. They had to try to justify the vast investment thatmillions of stakeholders had made in the relief effort. And they had to intervene inways which these ‘stakeholders’ would recognize as being ‘relief.’ So from the
beginning there was a certain bias in the sorts of interventions favored by the relief
agencies towards those which were highly visible, photogenic, and focus on the10

One of the reasons, as it is stated in the appraisal report, was that the community would consider
the project from the short term gain that was taking the labour money from the planting activities(cash for work) (Ibid. 12).
11
Ironically, there were some technical and managerial problems in the implementation of the BRR
project. The field coordinator of the project was one of local village head who had limited experienceon tambak. This, among other, resulted the physical construction of tambak was not done properly.
Only one or two plots, around 2-3 Ha, out of 45 Ha of construction, was ready for operation when thetime limit of the project ended.

25

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

poor ....’ (2006, 12. italic is in the original)This tendency creates so many problems. In fishery, these include 'improper
construction and the distribution of unsuitable boat type, un-even distribution, wrong target
group, etc. (Janssen 2005). In the short run, this ineffectiveness resulted the waste of a hugeamount of money and the delay of fisheries rehabilitation since many of distributed aid were
unusable or incomplete. It also created conflicts between actors at various levels. In the longrun, even those useable boats and gear might create problems to the community and fisheries
resources since they were mostly small size vessels operating on limited inshore area (Tewfik,
A et. al 2010).
Nonetheless, at the later stage of the rehabilitation some coordination efforts were
initiated. Facilitated by a UN agency, sub-district government office took charge as
coordination point at local level. Monthly meeting was organized to evaluate the developmentof all the programs in the districts. Problems were identified and solutions were discussed.
Some agencies were also aware that they could not work alone, so they looked for partner orwelcome the invitation for collaboration.

For example, the Australian Indonesia Partnershipfor Reconstruction and Development (AIPRD) which run a project on Local Governance andInfrastructure for Communities in Aceh (LOGICA) project, was happy when we approachedthem for a collaboration. This was because their project prepared a general village
development plan; they believed that our project aiming at creating an integrated coastalmanagement plan would complement their work. Caritas Czech, an International NGO who
run some fishery livelihood development projects out side our village sites, would also
support us by bringing their resources to the villages to involve in the implementation of, atleast, partly our management plan.
These examples showed that at a particular time the presence of so many supporting
agencies could create so many problems since they have different interest, priorities, culture,etc. But, their presence could open new options for a better result of the programs. Certainly,
these agencies brought funds, expertise and other sources that would be complementary. The
challenge was how to create a good coordination and collaboration. It was difficult but
possible.
Community Strengths and Weakness
Community-base management: The Panglima Laot
Although there was a fear that even before tsunami, marine resources in Aceh had beenheavily or even over exploited (Abu Thalib, Isa, Ismail, & Yusof 2004),

from the beginningof the rehabilitation process up until currently, the focus of fisheries projects were on
livelihood development with little, for not saying not at all, attention given to the management
aspect. Additionally, although rural appraisals were carried out, the projects were mostly took
the form of top down; the intervention programs were decided on the project plan.

26

As noted

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

earlier, this often created problems.
Since our project was implemented

as a collaborative work, by which community wasan important element, the project could identified the presence of a traditional marine
resource management practice, locally called

The Panglima Laot (lit. The Sea commander).

The following is the general characteristics of the Panglima Laot in Lhok Ktuet:(1)

Institutional arrangement. Panglima laot is the organization as well as

the name of its leader that manages the sea territory and fishing activities, and coastalmanagement in general. The organization consists of some advisors, the Panglimalaot and vice Panglima laot, Secretary, Treasurer and Panglima Teupin (Figure 6).
Advisors function as the supervisors for the Panglima laot. Normatively, supervisors
monitor and evaluate as well as support Panglima laot in his works. Advisors consistof sub-district head and traditional leaders in the communities. Panglima laot andvice Panglima laot are in charge for the daily management of the fisheries and thecoast, supported by other functionaries such as a Secretary and a Treasurer. In
communication with fishers, Panglima laot is also assisted by a fishers’s leader ineach village, called Panglima Teupin.
According to some informants, before tsunami one of the main characteristicsof this institution was the spirit of togetherness. This was not only indicated by theappointment of all functionaries though an election, but also by the decision making
process in the daily management practice. They said that the decision of all importantmatters usually made though a meeting of all the functionaries of the Panglima laot
and some other relevant parties. For example, if there was a serious conflict between
outside and local fishers, a meeting would be organized to solve the problem attended
by all Panglima laot functionaries and the conflicting parties.
(2)

The territory and its tenure.

The sea territory under the Panglimalaot Lhok Kruet management covers an area from the boundary of Sampoinet with
Jaya sub-districts on the North end to a point called Aloe Lhok to the South (Figure7) and the water surrounding Pulo Raya village. Toward the sea, it goes up to two
miles 12 from the coastline. The whole management area of Panglima Laut Lhok
Kruet covers the waters of five villages (Pulo raya, Lhok Kruet, Meunasah Kulam,
Crak Mong and Krueng No).
Within the management territory, people identify and name main fishing spots.
The naming seems to follow the association of a particular spot with a land mark on
the inland area, the association between the spot with the ‘founder,’ and resources, orthe special function of the spot. There are some regulations on the allocation of thesefishing spots to particular fishing gear (Figure 7).

12

The two miles is calculated as the length of two traditional nets (jaring darat)

27

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

People do not claim ownership to the territory under the Panglima laot
management. They believe that the sea and associated resources belong to nobody.
Thus, everyone can access and exploit the resources. However, Panglima laot holds
the management right over the territory and resources. Meaning that all parties andactivities within the territory should be in accordance with all regulations set by the
Panglima laot.
(3)

General regulations and the reasoninga. It is forbidden to use destructive fishing technologies or techniques such asbomb (explosive), cyanide, and trawl in all management territory of
Panglima laot.
b. It is forbidden to dive using compressor for lobster and other resources inall management area.
c. Fishers should observe the regulation on fishing spot allocationd. Out-side fishers, particularly those who use more advance technology,
should ask permission to Panglima laot before they involve in any fishingactivities.
e. It is forbidden to go fishing on Friday
f. It is forbidden to disturbed coastal forest

The reasons behind these regulations are as follows:a. People believe that destructive fishing will cause the damage to theenvironment and resources, which at the end will threatened the dependent
livelihoodsb. Fishing with compressor is strongly associated with cyanide use. Thus, toprevent cyanide use they prevent the use of technology associated with it.
Additionally, they believe that the use of compressor for lobster fishing is
too effective. This means that if it were allowed, lobster would be mainly
caught by the compressor users. Fishers using other gear, such as trammel
net, would get very little or nothing. Thus to insure a fair distribution of theresource, compressor diving is totally prohibited.
c. One of the reasons for fishing spot allocation is to avoid conflict between
fishers using different gear, particularly between net and line operators. It
is believed that particular spots are good for line fishing and line fishing isless effective rather than line fishing. Thus to accommodate the need ofline fishers to particular fishing spots, they are given priorities to use thespots.

28

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

d. The requirement of permission for outsider fishers using more advancetechnology is meant to protect the interest of local fishers. The bottom lineof this regulation is the same as regulation c, that is the fairness of resource
distribution. And, it is also a means to avoid conflict between outsider andlocal fishers.
e. Prohibition to fish on Friday is more associated with religion. All Muslim
should perform Friday mid-day prayer. This prohibition is to stimulate
people go praying on the day.
f.

Coastal forest was considered as the wind barrier for paddy field locatedinland. Thus, to protect the paddy, particularly when they are ready forhaving the rice, the coastal forest should be protected.
Figure 6. The Organizational Structure of Panglima Laot

Advisors

Panglima laot

Vice Panglima laot
Secretary
Treasurer

Panglima Teupin(village fishermen’s leader)
Fishermen.

Source: Fieldwork

The finding of the presence of community-based fisheries/coastal management had
helped us to identify proper channel to discuss about fisheries and coastal rehabilitation/
management and also a potential institutional agency that could continue our project activities.

29

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

Figure 7. The Panglima Laot Management Area and Regulations (In Indonesian Language)

Source: Fieldwork

Elite capture and the decal of community cohesion
The criticism directed to the early stage of aid distribution was responded by, among
others, more community consultation and involvement in project planning andimplementation. In fishery sectors, these included the creation of farmer groups for tambak
program and the involvement of Panglima laot. Interestingly, this had also generated new
problems. One serious problem was community resentment which, at the end, eroded
community cohesion. The community resentment was caused by, at least, the accusation ofelite capture. In tambak project for example, BRR staff appointed a village leader as the
project field coordinator. Tambak group members complained on this not only because thevillage head had limited, for not saying not at all, knowledge and experienceon tambak,

but also the fact that he run the project with ‘closed’ management practice. No one from thegroup knew how much money was or would be spent for the tambak construction and fishculture operation. Added to this, he could not finish the construction on time. People accused30

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）him and his BRR superior had corrupted the money. Other reported problem was that the
project only benefited a limited number of people. This was due to the fact that the recruitmentof tambak group member was decided by a limited people (leaders) who only selected theirrelatives or close friends. In fact, according to some villages, one or two tambak groupmembers had more than one plot of tambak. This caused resentment from those who thoughtthat their land was suitable for tambak but were excluded from the aquaculture rehabilitation
project.
Similar case happened in the distribution of boats and fishing gear. Aid agencies
approached panglima laot and asked his assistance for the construction of boats anddistributing gear. Fishers were happy with this since panglima laot turn himself to be a boat
builder who, because his deep local knowledge, knew well the proper boat type and goodmaterial for the construction. However, they were also upset because they observed thatpanglima laot, took it as a ‘personal’ matter rather than institutional. If it were institutional,
he should have consulted all important matter to the advisers of the institution as well as
discussed with fishers under his management authority. None of them were consulted. People
accused his as playing a ‘favor game’ meaning that the boats and gear were only given to
those he liked which mostly his owned family and relatives or associates. Again, this alsofabricated resentment within the community. At one point, some fishers tried to mobilize
other fishers to arrange a ‘coup’ so panglima laot would be replaced by their own preferredman. A fundamental issue that the two cases show was the development of community
mistrust to their leader due to the accusation of elite capture. It was also a reflection of the
decay of community cohesion. As Thorburn (2008) has shown in his article on ‘Drivers of
Recovery: Tsunami Reconstruction in Aceh, Indonesia, Three Years On,’ leadership is a key
factor for the success or fail of post tsunami rehabilitation. I believe it applies to any
community development, included in Sampoinet.
Community Compromises
Our discussion with community representatives revealed that, if community’s opinions
were heard, they should have been compromise solutions for every problem in the coastal andfisheries rehabilitations. Explaining the greenbelt vs tambak conflict, they told us that they
actually accepted both programs. For them, although livelihood related project was preferred,
coastal and riparian replanting were also important. However, they did not agree if the wholearea were allocated for greenbelt. The area should be shared between greenbelt and tambak
activities. They would agree to involve in coastal replanting for the coastal line, the area along
the river in their villages as well as on the dike of their tambak. So, for them combination of
re-greening and tambak development was the best solution. This was the compromise they
offered.
On issues regarding the accusation of elite capture and project mismanagement, they
asked for a better coordination between aid agencies, with a larger community representatives
and a more transparent management of aid distribution. The former was to avoid a further

31

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)accusation of elite capture and a better aid distribution. The involvement of more people in
the implementation of the project might also stimulate a better and more transparent project
management. 13 In essence, this was a request of the community for a better understanding of
their social structure and the alignment of the project implementation to this.
At the end, these compromises brought about a set of management plans with a balanceof activities between habitat rehabilitation and livelihoods development. These included
coastal and riparian re-greening, aqua culture development, post-harvest women group
activities, and the revitalization of traditional marine/coastal resource management that is the
Panglima Laot. Adding to this was the establishment of collaboration among local
communities, government agencies and several NGOs. These agreed arrangements were moreor less a collaborative management with an angle of ecosystem based approach (EBM) or
integrated coastal management/livelihoods.
D. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Post natural disaster rehabilitation should be a multidisciplinary work this is because it
commonly involves the rehabilitation of both socio and ecological systems. So what is therole of Anthropology(ist) in that interdisciplinary work or initiative? From my experience
getting involved in the post-tsunami rehabilitation discussed above, I noted several roles.
First, the concepts of ‘emic and ethic’ in Anthropology equipped us with an awareness of thepresence of multiple rationales or logics. With this, when we met different groups of people,
particularly in the disaster context, we were aware for the possibilities that each group had its
own understanding on things, different interest, priorities and norms. This awareness put us
in a better position to understand the differences and similarities or even conflicting situationof different stakeholders. In turn, this knowledge could be used to facilitate connections,collaboration, and negotiation of the different groups of people or stakeholders. Second, I
believed that these concept—emic and ethic— stimulated empathy to the marginalized group.
This was because we understood more about their way of thinking, their experiences andcircumstances. In the post disaster circumstance, this feeling stimulated us to support theempowerment of the marginalized group, usually local people and to echo their voice to beheard by other group, particularly government and NGOs.
Third, the work of post disaster rehabilitation as reflected in the case in Aceh, should
deal with resource management and livelihoods development. Anthropology played an
important role in the theoretical and practical development of these two approaches. Looking
at the common pool resource management for example, it was anthropological studies oncommunal resource tenure (see Johannes 1981, A Ruddle, K. and T. Akimichi
13

1984 onThis suggestion was accommodated in one of our stakeholder workshops by inviting BRR tambak
program manager and panglima laot to explain their project and reporting the development of aid
distribution. Although not all problems were discussed this has opened a better communication
between various actors involve in the projects. Community members were also happy, at least part oftheir wishes were fulfilled.

32

『人類学研究所 研究論集』第 5 号（2017）

traditional marine tenure)that had corrected the mistakes of the Hardinian’s notion of thetragedy of the commons ( Hardin 1968). At the practical level, these anthropological studies
had also promoted the practice of community-based resource management as an alternative
to the centralized resource management supported by Hardin theory of the commons.
Although the latest discourse on resource management argues that collaborative management
was the most desired form of resource management, the role of tradition, local knowledge
and communities in resource management were still considered as important element of comanagement.

In fact, marine tenure and local community are the most important elementof the co-management (McCay and Jentoft 1996; Jentof et al. 1998).
Another important approach to resource management is ecosystem-based andlivelihood approaches (Aswani at al. 2012; Allison, E.H. and F. Ellis, 2001). The basic
assumptions of the Ecosystem-based approach

are that elements of ecosystem areconnected to each other and human being is an integral part of the ecosystem. Resource
management should take into consideration about these connections.

Anthropology hascomparable concept to this assumption that is the concept of holistic or holism. This concept,
as I experienced it in Aceh post tsunami rehabilitation, helped us to work better withcolleagues from other disciplines. The integration of human into the ecosystem in theecosystem-based approach highlight the important of community in the resource management.
In this regard, Anthropology is also in the best position to contribute.

References
Abu Talib A., M.I. Mahyam, M.S Ismail and S Yusof.
2004. “Status of Demersal Fisheries Resources in Malaysia.” pp.83-136.
Allison, E.H. and F. Ellis,
2001. “The Livelihoods Approach and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries.” Marine
Policy.25:377–388
Andrew, N.L., Be´ne´, C., Hall, S.J., Allison, E.H., Heck, S., and Ratner, B.D.
2007. “Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries.” Fishand Fisheries 8:227–240.
Aswani, S., Christie, P., Muthiga, M.A., Mahon, R., Primavera, J.H., Cramer, L.A., Barbier,E.B., Granek, E.F., Kennedy, C.J., Wolanski, E., Hacker, S.
2012. “The way forward to ecosystem-based management in tropical contexts: reconcilingwith existing management systems.” Marine Policy 36:1–10
Hardin, G..
1968. ‘The Tragedy of the Commons.’ Science 162:1243–1248.
Jentoft, S.
1989. ‘Fisheries Co-Management: Delegating Government Responsibility to Fishermen’s
Organizations.’ Marine Policy 13:137–154.
Johannes, R. E.

33

Research Paper of the Anthropological Institute Vol.5 (2017)

1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
McCay, B.J. and S. Jentoft,
1996. ‘From Bottom Up: Participatory Issues in Fisheries Management.’ Society andNatural Resources 9:237–250.
Medrilzam, P., M. Nizhar, A. Erik, S. Joko, Afwandi, D. Indra, Y. Vivi, S. Herry, R. Nono, S.
Anwar, I. Halim.
2005. Rancangan Rencana Induk Rehabilitasi dan Rekontruksi Masyarakat Aceh dan Nias,
Sumatera Utara. Buku II: Rencana Bidang Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan
Hidup. Unpublished BRR document.
Griffin C, D. Ellis, S. Beavis, D. Zoleta-Nantes.
2013. Coastal resources, livelihoods and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia.
Ocean & Coastal Management 71:176-186.
Kanagaratnam, U., Schwarz, A.M., Adhuri, D., Dey, M.M.
2006. Mangrove Rehabilitation in the West coast of Aceh. NAGA 29:10-18.
Ruddle, K. and T. Akimichi (eds),
1984. Maritime Institutions in the Western Pacific. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Stirrat, J.
2006. Competitive humanitarianism: Relief and the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Anthropology
Today 22: 11-16.
Tewfik, A., Bene, C., Garces, L., Andrew, N.L.
2008. Reconciling poverty alleviation with reduction in fisheries capacity: boat aid in posttsunami Aceh, Indonesia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 15:147–158.
Thorburn, C.
2008. ‘Drivers of Recovery: Tsunami Reconstruction in Aceh, Indonesia, Three Years On.’
i-Rec information and research for reconstruction, Building resilience achieving
effective post-disaster reconstruction.

34