A quota-based fisheries management system that the Indonesian government introduced earlier this year has already run up against opposition for undermining the role of local authorities and fishing communities, a new study shows.
The study, published in the journal Ocean & Coastal Management, focuses on fisheries management area (FMA) 718, which covers much of the southeastern waters of the country, to review the challenges and potential of the new policy.
The researchers, from the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), conducted focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with local authorities, fishing communities and the private sector in Merauke and the Aru Islands. They found that these local stakeholders were pessimistic about the expected benefits from the new policy as their roles would be reduced.
“The underlying perception is that QBFM policy, as it stands, is driven solely by the ambition to enhance national economic and political stability,” they wrote. “This approach observes the interests of the primary ecosystem health, neglects community-based management, and worsens the potential for local anglers to catch fish.”
The lack of control and management by the local community would likely lead to the new policy only benefiting large-scale investors and commercial fishers, which are perceived to have relatively high negative impacts on the marine environment, the paper adds.
The quota-based fisheries management policy was introduced in March this year, aimed at maximizing state revenue from the fisheries sector. A key policy change from the previous policy is the introduction of quota-based capture for industrial, local and non-commercial fishers in six fishing zones that cover the archipelago’s 11 FMAs.
Study lead author Mukti Aprian said Merauke and the Aru Islands, in FMA 718, were both priority areas for fisheries development and have high potential for fisheries, but they lacked support in realizing that potential.
“The unsuccessful implementation of Indonesia’s previous policy and this policy breakthrough has prompted us to examine the impact on fisheries stakeholders,” the study says. “Additionally, we strive to identify the most suitable approach for marine and fisheries policy in Indonesia.”
FMA 718 in particular is known for various conflicts, ranging from disputes over the use of different types of fishing gear, to border disputes, to social conflicts associated with the arrival to the area since 2017 of commercial trawl fishers competing with local artisanal fishers.
The paper noted that while the quota-based fisheries management policy had lots of potential to address these issues, previous studies had instead revealed its downsides: unequal fishing rights, suboptimal catch and failure to meet quotas, potential dynamics in the fishery product market, and being strongly tied to fisheries market value.
“The main problem in fisheries policy in Indonesia is the consistency and distribution of policies,” the study says. “Fisheries and marine policies in Indonesia still prioritize short-term economic and political interests, even in some cases relying on foreign donor funding. It is these types of conditions that ultimately lead to local communities’ distrust of newly-formed national policies.”