CHAPTER II. Indicators, Weights, and Ranking in Social Domains

The domains that are considered in the social aspects of inland fisheries include: i) community participation; ii) fisheries conflict; iii) utilization of local knowledge; iv) character roles; and v) The education level, which is described as follows:

The definition of community participation in this technical guide is the community's active role in sustainable fisheries management. Forms of community participation include (1) carrying out sustainable and responsible fishing, (2) recording fishing results, (3) monitoring fish resources (including reporting violations), (4) managing fish resource-protected areas, or ( 5) carrying out the recovery of fish resources. Community participation indicators are measured to determine the frequency of community/fisherman participation in managing sustainable fisheries.

In measuring indicators of community participation, the parameters measured include the number of people/fishermen who actively catch fish, the type of local participation, and the number of people/fishermen who use sustainable fish resources.

Evaluation of community participation indicators uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3. As for the value criteria for community participation indicators, namely, if there is no participation, the community is given a value of 1. If community participation in the form of carrying out non-destructive fishing is given a value of 2, and if participation in the community in the form of fishing that is not destructive, maintaining environmental conditions, recording/reporting fish catches, and/or recording, recording and reporting destructive fishing activities is given a value of 3 (highest).

2.2. Fisheries Conflict

The definition of conflicts over the use of aquatic resources in this technical guide is the intersection of fisheries interests within a community. It includes conflicts caused by differences in resource utilization (resources conflict), differences in policies/rules applied (policy conflicts), or differences in fishing operations (fishing conflict), including tools, methods, and fishing areas. In addition to the fisheries sector, several sectors that exploit water resources include the public works/water resources/spatial planning sector, the agricultural sector, the energy and mineral resources sector, the tourism sector, and the transportation sector. Measuring indicators of conflicts over the use of aquatic resources are carried out to determine the potential for counter-productivity and overlap in managing aquatic resources, failing to implement sustainable fisheries management policies.

In measuring indicators of conflicts over the use of water resources, the parameters include the diversity of interests in the use of water resources and the diversity of rules that are applied related to the use of water resources.

The assessment of conflict indicators using aquatic resources uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3. The value criteria for indicators of conflict in using aquatic resources consider the type of conflict. If there is a vertical conflict (with the government) and horizontal (with fellow fishermen/equal stakeholders), a value of 1 (lowest). If there is a vertical conflict (with the government) or horizontal (with fellow fishermen/equal stakeholders), a score of 2 is given. Then, if there is no conflict, either vertically or horizontally is given a value of 3 (highest).

2.3. Local Agreement

The definition of local agreements in fisheries management can be interpreted as local wisdom produced through interactions between communities to achieve agreed goals jointly. In the culture of fishing communities, fishery resources are open access so that all parties can utilize them. Resources with open-access characteristics tend to be overused. It can cause havoc, as stated by Garret Hardin in 1982 regarding the theory of the Tragedy of the commons. In the EAFM PD assessment in this social domain, the information to be obtained is whether or not the agreements produced in the community support sustainable fisheries management.

In measuring indicators of local agreement, the emphasis is on the availability agreement at the local level that supports efforts to manage sustainable fisheries.

The assessment of indicators for utilizing local agreements uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3. The highest score (3) is given if a local agreement supports sustainable fisheries management efforts to conserve fish resources. The moderate value (2) is given if no local agreement supports efforts in sustainable fisheries management. The lowest score (1) is given if a local agreement conflict with efforts to manage sustainable fisheries.

2.4. Character Role

The definition of the role figures in this technical guideline is the influence of community/customary leaders in managing sustainable fish resources in their area. Measurement of indicators of the role of leaders is measured to determine the influence of community/traditional leaders in making decisions regarding the utilization of fish resources in their area. The influence of community/traditional leaders can be positive or negative. It can be positive if community/traditional leaders are dominant in determining decisions on the use of fish resources sustainably. On the other hand, it can be negative if community/traditional leaders do not influence decisions on the sustainable use of fish resources or even direct/allow destructive fishing activities.

In measuring indicators of the role of figures, the parameters measured include the status of community/customary leaders, types of decisions related to the utilization of fish resources, and community compliance.

The character's role indicator assessment uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3. As for the value criteria for the figure's role indicator, namely, a low score (1) is given if there are no community leaders; a moderate score (2) is given if there are community leaders but have no/lack of a role in sustainable fisheries management; and a high score (3) is given if there are community leaders and have a dominant role in sustainable fisheries management.

2.5. Education Proportion

The definition of the education proportion indicator in this technical guide is to determine the composition of people who still have low education. The educational proportion indicator is measured to determine fishermen's human resource capacity in utilizing fish resources in inland waters by absorbing/adopting fishery-related science/technology/business.

In measuring the education proportion indicator, the parameter measured is the percentage of the proportion of people with low education at the location where the assessment was conducted.

The assessment of the education proportion indicator uses a Likert scale using a value of 1 to 3. The value criteria for the education proportion indicator are a low score (1) given if the percentage of people with low education is> 60%; moderate value (2) given if the percentage of people with low education is 30-60%; and a high score (3) is given if the percentage of people with low education is <30%.

2.6. The Experience as a Fisherman

The definition of the Experience of Fishermen in the Social Domain indicator in this technical guide refers to the number proportion of people who work as fishermen. So, their role and contribution to sustainable fisheries management at the assessed location can be identified.

In measuring experience indicators as fishermen, the parameter is the proportion of total fishermen with 10 years of experience.

Assessment of the experience indicator as a fisherman uses a Likert scale of 1 to 3. The value criteria for the experience indicator as a fisherman are a low score of (1) given if the experience as a fisherman is over 10 years (> 60%); a moderate score of (2) is given if the experience as a fisherman is more than 10 years (30-60%); and a high score (3) is given if the experience as a fisherman is over 10 years (<30%).