Institutional overhaul in marine sphere<\/p>\n
Dirhamsyah, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The \"coming into force\" of the United Nations Convention on
\nthe Law of the Sea (LOSC) in 1994, clarified Indonesia's status
\nas the world's largest archipelagic state. The total length of
\nthe Indonesian coastline is estimated at 81,000 kilometers.
\nIndonesia's coastal and marine resources are also important to
\nthe world.<\/p>\n
Indonesia is home to lot of fish and marine species, mangroves
\nand coral reefs. Today, however, most of these resources are
\nunder great stress and continue to decline at an alarming rate.
\nInappropriate management of coastal and marine resources is the
\nmain cause of the current situation.<\/p>\n
It is argued that the degradation of coastal and marine
\nresources in Indonesia is due to social, economic, legal and
\npolitical problems. This article examines several specific issues
\nand problems with regard to institutional arrangements.<\/p>\n
In theory, three main agencies are responsible for fisheries
\nand coastal resources management and conservation. These are the
\nMinistry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of
\nForestry and the State Ministry of the Environment. Overall
\nresponsibility for the management, development and conservation
\nof fisheries, and other coastal and marine resources lies with
\nthe maritime affairs ministry, while coastal environmental
\nprotection and management is under the responsibility of the
\nenvironment ministry and the forestry ministry.<\/p>\n
The forestry ministry is also responsible for the management
\nand conservation of mangroves and national parks, including
\nmarine parks. However, the Indonesian bureaucratic system is more
\ncomplicated than it appears. In practice, at least 12 ministries
\nare involved in ocean and coastal management.<\/p>\n
Since 1999, the country has made efforts to develop an
\nintegrated ocean management policy. The government has ratified
\nvarious international conventions related to coastal and ocean
\nmanagement, plus the enactment of domestic laws for natural
\nresources management.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the government has not been able to actually
\nimplement well-coordinated policies, or settle the problem of
\noverlapping authority of government agencies.<\/p>\n
The establishment of the maritime and fisheries ministry was
\noriginally expected to address the problem of coordination in the
\nimplementation of coastal and ocean management. This ministry was
\nmandated as the coordinator of several government agencies for
\ncoastal management. However, the result has been a failure in
\ncoordination among government agencies, both vertically and
\nhorizontally at all levels of government. Most of the government
\nagencies remained focused on their sectoral, temporal and spatial
\nmandates.<\/p>\n
An example that highlights inter-agency challenges is in the
\nconservation management area, particularly in the establishment
\nof protected marine areas. Previously, the management of some
\nprotected areas, including national marine parks, was under the
\nministry of forestry, however, this management system created
\nconflicts after the establishment of the maritime and fisheries
\nministry.<\/p>\n
The maritime ministry claimed that its duties and functions
\nunder Presidential Decree No. 102 of 2001, include marine parks,
\nand therefore requested the forestry minister to transfer the six
\nnational marine parks to the maritime and fisheries ministry.
\nConflict between these two groups of bureaucrats arose when the
\nforestry ministry refused the request. The forestry people argued
\nthat, as long as the formal legislation that granted it the
\nmandate to manage these areas had not been repealed, the
\nmanagement of national marine parks should remain under their
\nauthority. Several strategies have been tried to solve this
\ndispute, such as a Memorandum of Understanding between the two
\ngroups, but the problem has not yet been resolved.<\/p>\n
The above quandary is only an example of one of the functional
\noverlaps in mandates. This highlights the failure of the maritime
\nand fisheries ministry to carry out its function to coordinate
\ncoastal management. The fragmented management system is caused by
\nthe absence of a strong unifying institutional arrangement in
\nthis country.<\/p>\n
In order to address the institutional problems, a more
\nefficient administrative structure for dealing with marine
\nactivities is required. New solutions should be adopted by the
\ngovernment to address the current administrative shortcomings.<\/p>\n
Three key options are available to address the problems of
\noverlapping jurisdiction and a lack of coordination among central
\ngovernment agencies.<\/p>\n
First, the improvement of coordinating mechanisms can be done
\nthrough the revitalization of the current inter-ministerial
\ncouncil, such as the Indonesian Maritime Council (DMI). There is
\nhowever, a growing resistance from bureaucrats, researchers and
\nlocal politicians to any improvements in coordination via the
\nDMI. Indonesia has a long and sad history with this institution.
\nTo date, no significant policy or program has been produced by
\nthe DMI.<\/p>\n
Second, there needs to be an expansion of the powers and
\nduties of a current agency, or the creation of a \"super-agency\".<\/p>\n
This option suggests that the enhancement of powers and duties
\nof the maritime and fisheries ministry from fisheries and habitat
\nmanagement and marine affairs to all related functions of ocean
\nactivities, such as marine transportation, ocean mining, marine
\ntourism, marine conservation, coastal forestry and other ocean
\nactivities may merit consideration as a potential solution.<\/p>\n
A super ministry system is not new in institutional
\narrangements for coastal and ocean management. This approach has
\nbeen used by the Republic of Korea. The Ministry of Maritime
\nAffairs and Fisheries of Korea has extensive powers and duties
\nfor coastal and ocean management activities ranging from the
\ndevelopment and coordination of marine and fisheries related
\npolicies, promotion of the shipping industry, safe navigation of
\nvessels, port operations and port development, promotion of the
\nfishing industry and integrated coastal management for scientific
\nresearch and development.<\/p>\n
However, it cannot be denied that the enlargement of the
\nmaritime and fisheries ministry's power with respect to ocean
\nactivities will create a super ministry or super agency. This is
\na sensitive issue that may create more conflict at the national
\nlevel, because the formulation of a super ministry absorbing the
\ncoastal and ocean mandates of other agencies requires a major
\nrestructuring of government.<\/p>\n
Third, the establishment of a new coordinating ministry, which
\nis aimed at coordinating all ocean and coastal management
\nactivities. The Coordinating Ministry for Ocean Activities, as I
\nwould call it, could also act as a mediator for conflict between
\nthe national and regional government agencies.<\/p>\n
This option may be the best and least costly one, as it does
\nnot require a major restructuring of existing government
\nagencies. As a large country with two-thirds of its territory
\nocean, it is reasonable for Indonesia to create a new
\ncoordinating ministry for ocean activities.<\/p>\n
Whichever option the government wants to take, the government
\nshould consider the roles and responsibilities of local
\ngovernments and communities for coastal and ocean resources
\nmanagement. The development of a new coordinating ministry or
\ncouncil cannot be allowed to reduce rights and the authority of
\nregional governments.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher at the Research Center for
\nOceanography with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/institutional-overhaul-in-marine-sphere-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}