Indonesia
and the problem of illegal fishing
Ibrahim Almuttaqi ; The ASEAN Studies
Program coordinator
at The Habibie Center, Jakarta
|
JAKARTA
POST, 05 April 2014
In
recent months, Indonesia has found itself drawn into a number of serious
maritime disputes with its neighbors.
The
decision to name an Indonesian Navy corvette as “KRI Usman-Harun” drew
criticism from Singapore, which decried Jakarta’s perceived lack of
sensitivity. Jakarta was on the other side of the coin when it earlier
criticized Australia’s lack of sensitivity over Operation Sovereign Borders.
More
seriously — though with less coverage — there were incidents involving Papua
New Guinea and Thailand. In the case of Papua New Guinea, media reports
stated that five Indonesian fishermen went missing after their fishing vessel
was stopped and set alight by Papua New Guinean forces, with the fishermen
left to swim back to shore.
In the
case of Thailand, two Indonesian sailors were killed after they boarded a
Thai fishing vessel that had been operating in Indonesian waters.
While
the topic of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is often
dismissed as being of little interest to the general public, the cases of
Papua New Guinea and Thailand demonstrate the important and sensitive
implications that IUU fishing has on political and security matters.
With
countries such as China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and
Vietnam conducting IUU fishing in Indonesia’s Arafura, Celebes and Natuna
seas, there exists a regional element to IUU fishing.
The
Habibie Center recently held a “Talking ASEAN” public discussion on that
issue, inviting experts from the government, academia and the private
sector.
There,
it was revealed that the global fishing industry not only drew US$80 billion
in fisheries revenue but moreover, it went on to generate $240 billion for
the global economy.
Interestingly,
31.4 million metric tons of fish products (or 21 percent of global
production) was sourced from the ASEAN region with Indonesia supplying 33.8
percent of the region’s fish products.
Worryingly,
IUU fishing meant Indonesia was losing $2-5 billion annually.
Such
costs did not yet take into account the environmental consequences of IUU
fishing, which not only resulted in pollution but also caused 71 percent of
mangrove and 70 percent of coral reefs to suffer degradation.
As such,
it is clear that IUU fishing is a major issue that covers political,
security, regional, economic and environmental concerns for Indonesia.
Yet, as
the country enters crucial legislative and presidential elections, one can
hardly find IUU fishing mentioned in any political debate or campaign rally.
This is
demonstrative of the lack of political will cited by experts as contributing
to Indonesia’s difficulties in addressing IUU fishing. This in turn resulted
in lack of funding, a lack of capacity and a lack of coordination.
Exacerbating
this problem is what some refer to as the “changing fashion” of fisheries
management.
Over the
decades, Indonesia has adopted poor, inconsistent fisheries management — a
problem seen elsewhere in ASEAN. For example, the 1970s saw Indonesia’s fisheries
policy orientated toward economic growth.
While
the focus was still on growth, by the 1980s and 1990s there was an increasing
awareness of the need to rationalize the level of fishing in Indonesian
waters.
In the
21st century, Indonesia witnessed the mixed policies of industrialization on
the one hand and a ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) on the
other, or marine protected areas (MPA) on the one hand and regionalization on
the other.
With the
current government coming to an end, it will be interesting to see what
direction the next government takes in terms of fisheries management.
Will the
country’s new leaders bring about another change of policy? Will these new
policies be of a good quality? Will they attach to IUU fishing the level of
importance that it deserves?
Noting
the soft and hard structural approaches taken by the Indonesian authorities
to tackle IUU fishing, one suggestion offered at The Habibie Center’s public
discussion was to introduce an economic structure approach.
Such an
approach meant addressing the current situation, whereby the expected
benefits of IUU fishing far outweighed the expected punishments if caught.
Subscribing
to the economics of crime and punishment theory, it is unsurprising if IUU
fishing continues to take place in Indonesian waters if adequate economic
disincentives are lacking (or are poorly enforced).
Beyond
adopting market and trade controls such as financial penalties, taxation
policies and incentives, it was recommended that cost recovery be introduced
to create a sense of responsibility for all players in the fishing industry
to reduce IUU fishing.
This
would help generate a change in mindset, whereby IUU fishing would no longer
be seen as a problem for the authorities alone, but would instead force
fishing product companies to also make their own efforts.
Lastly,
it was also suggested that the benefit and cost of IUU fishing be
incorporated into the country’s macroeconomic indicators so as to convince
policy makers, especially the new government and legislature, to care more
about the problem of IUU fishing.
IUU
fishing is a major issue covering political, security, regional, economic and
environmental concerns. It is high time Indonesia recognized it as such and
took action. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar