On July 11, 2017, about 10,000 fishermen staged a rally at the State Palace, Jakarta. They complained about the impacts of the current policies of the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministry, which they considered to be detrimental to them.
This is quite interesting because so far the policies of the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministry (KKP), especially during the term of Minister Susi Pudjiastuti, have been considered to be in favor of the Indonesian economy, especially for fishermen. The policies on illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, for example, have reaped significant praise because they have been deemed to defend state sovereignty.
Environmentalists have also paid close attention to the efforts of the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Minister to preserve the environment through the prohibition of certain fishing gear.
However, the media rarely discusses the other impacts of KKP’s policies, which are actually significant. At the beginning of 2015 it was estimated that there were eight fishery-processing companies in Bitung, which were unable to continue their operations. At the beginning of this year it was estimated there were 15 surimi-manufacturing factories, which faced closure of their operations. This was caused by the lack of supply of raw materials as a direct impact of the KKP\'s policies.
Policies on fishing gear prohibition
One of the policies, which directly impacts fishermen is the prohibition of several items of fishing equipment. The objective of this regulation is to preserve the marine environment and fish resources and to organize which types of fishing equipment are permitted or prohibited in certain areas in Indonesia.
A policy to ban the use of a modified type of trawl net, known locally as cantrang, is one of the things, which has stirred controversial recently, especially because many fishermen in Java use this tool.
A discourse on the prohibition of cantrang has been ongoing for a long time and has been socialized since the 2000s. The device is considered potentially damaging to underwater ecosystems as it is dragged along the seabed by ships. Moreover, 49-54 percent of cantrang catches are dominated by fish species, which have no significant economic value.
The government has provided assistance to replace such fishing equipment, such as gill nets and fishing rods. However, fishermen feel disappointed because the replacement tools are less effective than cantrang and because of the difficulty in switching to other fishing methods. Moreover, the cantrang ban is applied in all parts of Indonesia, regardless of the fishing conditions or skills of fishermen in the regions.
Each type of fishing equipment has the potential to damage the marine environment, depending on how they are used and where they are utilized. Therefore, the complete ban on cantrang in all territories of Indonesia is not appropriate. Before conducting the ban, the government should have conducted a study on the use of cantrang so as to determine more precisely the areas where the tool is indeed threatening the sustainability of fisheries.
It is also important to examine thoroughly the ways cantrang can be better used in order to maintain marine ecosystems and resources. The ban needs to be applied more flexibly and pay greater attention to the fates of fishermen. Even if it is necessary to ban and replace the fishing device, the government has an obligation to provide training to improve the skills of fishermen impacted.
Use of ships
Another policy, which has also greatly impacted fishermen and the fisheries industry, is the prohibition of transshipment activities in the middle of the sea. Even though the goal was to prevent IIU fishing activities, the ban has impacted the length of time a fishing crew can remain at sea. Arthatiani (2015) states that the operational time for tuna fishing vessels can reach eight months to a year.
This means the removal of catches from fishing vessels to collector ships is badly needed to ensure that products can be sold fresh. However, the prohibition has forced fishermen to immediately return to base to sell their catch in a shorter time frame, or bear the risk of damage. Even if the cooling facilities available on board are good, the quality and prices of the catch will still decrease. This will certainly drive production down and make the costs of shipping and catching increase.
This condition was also exacerbated by the temporary removal of permission for fishing boats produced overseas. The results were very detrimental to the fish-processing industry because it reduced supply. The majority of boats used for fishing activities are produced overseas. Moreover, foreign-made vessels are usually those with larger capacities. Even though the policy has been revoked, the fish-processing industry is yet to recover from the losses it has suffered.
Economic impacts
Data has shown that fish catches increased by around 2 percent per year in the 2014-2017 period. This shows that the policies have not decreased production. However, this figure is lower compared to the previous period, which saw a growth rate of about 5 percent.
Indonesia\'s fishery exports also declined both in terms of value and quantity. The value of exports in 2015, for example, decreased 14.9 percent from the previous year. If we look at regional data, there was a very sharp decline in many areas, such as in North Sulawesi, which dropped by up to 12 percent.
A lesson, which can be learned from all of this is that fishery policies have many dimensions. The current policies of the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Minister emphasize the environment and IIU fishing, which are indeed necessary. However, the policies have had negative impacts on the economy, the lives of fishermen and also the fishing industry. Therefore, the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministry must begin to pay attention to the various requests and complaints from various parties who have been harmed.
Prohibition policies are very easy to make, but the task of the government is help facilitate community activities. Good policies must be able to capture the interests of various parties in a balanced way, not simply favor one side or merely satisfy public perception.
YOSE RIZAL DAMURI
Head of Economic Department of CSIS