In continuation of the previous Section 3, this section also deals with the above subject, limited to the 1973 fishery sample census. Census questionnaires hereafter always refer to those which were used for an interview with a fishing establishment/fishing operator's household and a fishing labourer's household, i.e., H2 and H4 as given in Appendix 3.
4.1 BASIC PRINCIPLE FOLLOWED IN THE DESIGN OF CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE
A particular feature of the 1973 fishery census was that census questionnaires were designed in close connexion with the tabulation programme, which indicates what is needed by the various users of census data. In other words, in the 1973 fishery census both the design of census questionnaires and the preparation of the tabulation programme were made more or less simultaneously, taking into account various requirements of the users of census data.
As seen in Appendix 4, the tabulation programme prepared for the 1973 fishery census was a complete list of statistical tables, which would become available. The tables presented are based on data collected in census questionnaires. Needless to say, whether such a tabulation programme is usefully prepared or not will determine the extent of the success of the fishery census taken. For this reason, for each statistical table the layout was drawn by giving relevant classifications for both column and stub. In this way, the useful- Less of every statistical table was examined and justified, although no figure was available at this stage. Appendix 4 gives some statistical tables extracted from the tabulation programme, which may facilitate an easy understanding of this idea.
4.2 BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES
In the 1973 fishery census two different questionnaires were used, i.e., H2 for marine fishery and H4 for brackishwater fish culture. Each questionnaire consists of two divisions. For example, in the case of H2, ‘I’ is for Fisheries Management and ‘II’ for Socio-Economic Characteristics of Fishing Households.
The 1973 fishery census was undertaken with three objectives, which are reiterated in Table 3. It is clear that the first two objectives are directly related to fishing/ fish culture activities of fishing establishments/households. The last objective is related to socioeconomic characteristics of fishing operator's and fishing labourer's households. These were the reasons why census questionnaires needed to establish two distinct divisions.
However, as seen in Table 3, two such divisions were also needed for the convenience of census interviews with different types of survey objects, viz., when an interview was made with a fishing establishment such as a fishing company, fishery cooperative society, partnership, etc., the survey was limited to Division I. When an interview was made with a fishing operator's household, the survey covered both Divisions I and II, whereas, when an interview was made with a fishing labourer's household, the survey was limited to Division II.
Corresponding to two divisions established in the census questionnaires, the tabulation programme is also divided into two parts, as seen in Appendix 4.
4.3 STATISTICAL ITEMS COVERED IN CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES
A fishery is undertaken by an economic unit, which is known as fishing establishment/ fishing operator's household. For carrying out its fishing operations, at least one fishing boat, gear and crew are required. For acquiring a fishing boat a certain amount of capital is invested. When a fishing economic unit is a fishing operator's household, fishermen are recruited from its family members. However, with the enlargement of size of fisheries management, fishermen are also hired from a fishing labourer's household. As a technical unit to catch fish, a fishing unit is formed composed of fishing boat, fisherman and fishing gear. Such a fishing unit operates in fishing and produces catch. Such an economic mechanism of a fishery is illustrated in Table 4.
| Objectives of Fishery Census | Divisions Established in Census Questionnaire | Survey Object |
| (1) To clarify the basic economic structure of marine fishery and brackishwater culture (2) To clarify various economic characteristics of marine fishery/brackishwater culture activities | I. Fishery Management/ Fish Culture Management | Fishing company Fishery cooperative Partnership Fishing operator's household (own account) |
| (3) To provide data concerning socioeconomic nature of fishing household and fishermen | II. Socioeconomic characteristics of Fishing/ Fish Culture Household | Fishing operator's household (own account) Fishing labourer's household |
The 1973 fishery sample census tried to clarify all aspects of such an economic mechanism in terms of fishing economic unit. In Table 4 statistical items covered by the 1973 fishery census are indicated by surrounding these items by a rectangular frame. Only “fishing unit” was not covered in the fishery census due to a technical difficulty to let census enumerators understand its meaning.
With the exception of catch items, all statistical items covered by the fishery census were called inventory items, the statistical data of which are easily obtainable by means of an interview with the head of a fishing household. In terms of census methodology only “catch” was the most difficult statistical item to obtain reliable data, as it referred to catch caught during the past one year.
However, one of the major objectives of the 1973 fishery census was to clarify the basic economic structure of the marine fishery. To achieve such an objective, it was necessary to disclose the economic structure of the marine fishery not only in terms of the number of fishing establishments/households but also in terms of catch in quantity and value. To disclose such a basic economic structure of the marine fishery, the 1973 fishery census provided three important tables, as listed under ‘l’ of Part I of its tabulation programme. A sample of actual formats of these statistical tables with figures obtained by the fishery census can be seen in Appendix 4. From these tables it can be understood that catch data obtained in the census questionnaire were used mainly to assess the relative importance of the fishing economic units among different sizes of fisheries management.
Cost and earning data were also obtained to study roughly the total operational cost as well as the size of gross profit of the surveyed fishing units. Types of categories applied to each statistical item can be seen in the census questionnaire. Statistical tables compiled for this objective are listed under ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘7’ of Part I of the tabulation programme.
To obtain data of the socioeconomic characteristics of the fishing households, every statistical item under Division II of the census questionnaire was grouped into relevant categories. Statistical tables compiled for this objective are listed under ‘7’ and ‘8’ of Part II of the tabulation programme.
The foregoing are described mainly referring to the 1973 sample census of the marine fishery. However, it may be noted in questionnaire H4 for brackishwater culture and its tabulation programme for the 1973 sample census that the same ideas as mentioned for the marine fishery were followed.
4.4 BASIC CLASSIFICATION USED FOR TABULATIONS AS WELL AS DATA ANALYSIS
As is seen in many countries, a fishery is undertaken by various sizes of fishing establishments/households, which range from those not using any boat to those using a large inboard-powered boat. This fact may well imply that there must be a great difference in the size as well as nature of economic activity, socioeconomic conditions, etc., among these different sizes of fishery management.
Such differences can best be portrayed if all statistical tables are compiled with the use of common classifications, in which each class is established in accordance with the different sizes of fishery management. For this purpose, “classification on the size of fishery management” was established for marine fishery and brackish water separately. The size of fishery management for marine fishery is determined by the size of boat used and that for aquaculture by the area of fish pond used. With this in mind, the size classes for the marine fishery were established in terms of the size of fishing boat used. Whereas, the size classes for brackishwater culture were established in terms of the area of fish pond used. As a result, 13 and 8 size classes were established for the marine fishery and brackishwater culture, respectively.
Table 4
SURVEY ITEMS COVERED BY 1973 FISHERY CENSUS
1, 2, 3, 4 For brackishwater culture these will be BWFC household, fish pond, fish farmer and yield, respectively
The detail of such size classes is seen in Table 1-(1) Appendix 4; the classes for both the marine fishery and brackishwater culture are also given in Appendix 4. For the determination of the size classes of a brackishwater culture household the total area of fish pond in use was given. The majority of marine fishing establishments/households have one boat owner. In such a case, the size classes were determined simply by referring to the size of that boat only. However, for marine fishing households with two inboard-powered boats or more, the total tonnage of boats in use was referred to. When a fishing household uses two nonpowered boats or more, its size classes were determined by referring to the larger size of boat out of the total number of boats in use.
As seen in the tabulation programme for both the marine fishery and brackishwater culture, such a classification on the size of management was applied to almost all statistical tables except statistics on fishing boats and fishermen. In this way the difference of economic activity among different sizes of fisheries management was studied with a great success.
All statistical tables listed under Part II of the tabulation programme were compiled not only for the fishing operator's household but also for the fishing labourer's household. Therefore, as seen in Table 8-(1) of Appendix 4, a class of “labourer's household” was added below the classification on the size of management which was applied to “operator's household”.
As mentioned earlier, the number of classes established for the classification on the size of management came to 13 for the marine fishery and 8 for brackishwater fish culture. No doubt, such detailed classes are useful when an in-depth study is made for certain sizes of management. It was, however, felt that such detailed classes were not always convenient for macro-analysis of a marine fishery, as given in Section 5.
Therefore, a broad classification of marine fishery was established by grouping individual size classes of fisheries management. As a result, the marine fishery was classified into only three classes: small scale, medium scale and large scale. As the definition of “small scale fishery” was established so as to cope with the real meaning of a small scale fishery, the outcome of analysis made for the marine fishery brought a great advantage to the planner of national fisheries development programmes. Further details on the broad classification of the marine fishery can be seen in Appendix 5.
4.5 DATA PROCESSING
During the early stages of planning of the 1973 fishery census, the question of whether the data processing should be done by electronic computer or manual tabulation was one of the main issues. It was finally decided that data processing be done manually, because the fishery census was taken simultaneously with the agriculture census and the processing of the agriculture census received high priority for the use of the CBS electronic computer. Therefore, as seen at the first and second page of the census questionnaire H2, special entries were inserted for the convenience of manual tabulation. During the editing stage of census questionnaires most of data recorded in the body of the questionnaire were transferred to these special entries. This made it easy to sort out the questionnaires according to certain characteristics. In this way in many instances a sample total was obtained simply by counting the number of questionnaires with the same characteristics.
The first estimates of vessels of the 1973 fishery census for the marine fishery were issued in December 1974, although data were of provisional nature and it was not possible to say much about the character of the medium scale fishery due to its poor coverage. As a matter of fact, the first release of the results of the 1973 fishery census was much earlier than that of the 1973 agriculture census.
For the estimation of the magnitudes calculated in the first release, a sample total was obtained by summing up all respective figures collected by the census questionnaires. Then, the sampling interval was calculated by dividing the total number of the census blocks with marine fishery (N), this number was obtained through the complete enumeration of the 1971 population census, by the actual number of sample census blocks (n'), for which actual enumeration of the 1973 marine fishery sample census took place. Then, every surveyed total estimate was calculated as a product of the sample total and the calculated sampling interval. At this stage such a crude estimation procedure ought to have been followed because the total number of the fishing establishments/households based on the complete enumeration of the 1973 agriculture census was still not available.
Final estimates were calculated by means of a simple estimation procedure. The sampling interval was obtained by dividing the total number of fishing households obtained through the complete enumeration of the 1973 agriculture census by the actual number of sample fishing households, for which an interview in the survey was made. Estimates were calculated as a product of the sample total and calculated sampling interval.
The total number of fishing operator's households estimated by the former way was 143 000 throughout the three islands. Whereas, for the same area that obtained through the complete enumeration of the 1973 agriculture census after eliminating some errors was 192 000. This may well indicate that estimates obtained by the former method were heavily underestimated. As seen in Table 1a of Appendix 2, this was mainly due to an incomplete identification of the census blocks with marine fishery, which occurred in the complete enumeration of the 1971 population census.
As for the marine fishery, tabulation was done at provincial level, coastal level, major island level, i.e., Sumatra and Java, and the three island level. At first, estimates were made at provincial level. However, when a province faced two different coasts, estimates were made for each coast separately. Since Sumatra was divided into three coasts and Java into two coasts, the above estimates at provincial level were at first aggregated to respective coasts. Then, estimates at coastal level were further aggregated to island level. Finally, overall totals for the three islands were derived as a sum of the island totals. For brackishwater culture, tabulation was done at district level, provincial level, major island level and throughout three islands.
The data processing for brackishwater culture was based on the completed questionnaires obtained in the 1973 CBS sample census only, since there was no additional fishery census taken by the DGF for this subsector of a fishery. The data processing for the marine fishery, however, was done by combining questionnaires obtained from both the 1973 CBS sample census and the 1974 DGF sample census. To eliminate any overlapping of data of a similar nature, all questionnaires of fishing establishments/fishing operator's households with powered boats which were obtained through the 1973 CBS sample census were excluded from the data processing.
As may be noted from the foregoing, there was one year's time difference between the 1973 CBS sample census and the 1974 DGF sample census. It was, however, assumed that the above procedure might not affect the analysis of the marine fishery very much since the economic structure of the marine fishery should not change substantially within such a short period of time.
