Institutional overhaul in marine sphere

Dirhamsyah, Jakarta

The "coming into force" of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) in 1994, clarified Indonesia's status as the world's largest archipelagic state. The total length of the Indonesian coastline is estimated at 81,000 kilometers. Indonesia's coastal and marine resources are also important to the world.

Indonesia is home to lot of fish and marine species, mangroves and coral reefs. Today, however, most of these resources are under great stress and continue to decline at an alarming rate. Inappropriate management of coastal and marine resources is the main cause of the current situation.

It is argued that the degradation of coastal and marine resources in Indonesia is due to social, economic, legal and political problems. This article examines several specific issues and problems with regard to institutional arrangements.

In theory, three main agencies are responsible for fisheries and coastal resources management and conservation. These are the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the Ministry of Forestry and the State Ministry of the Environment. Overall responsibility for the management, development and conservation of fisheries, and other coastal and marine resources lies with the maritime affairs ministry, while coastal environmental protection and management is under the responsibility of the environment ministry and the forestry ministry.

The forestry ministry is also responsible for the management and conservation of mangroves and national parks, including marine parks. However, the Indonesian bureaucratic system is more complicated than it appears. In practice, at least 12 ministries are involved in ocean and coastal management.

Since 1999, the country has made efforts to develop an integrated ocean management policy. The government has ratified various international conventions related to coastal and ocean management, plus the enactment of domestic laws for natural resources management.

Unfortunately, the government has not been able to actually implement well-coordinated policies, or settle the problem of overlapping authority of government agencies.

The establishment of the maritime and fisheries ministry was originally expected to address the problem of coordination in the implementation of coastal and ocean management. This ministry was mandated as the coordinator of several government agencies for coastal management. However, the result has been a failure in coordination among government agencies, both vertically and horizontally at all levels of government. Most of the government agencies remained focused on their sectoral, temporal and spatial mandates.

An example that highlights inter-agency challenges is in the conservation management area, particularly in the establishment of protected marine areas. Previously, the management of some protected areas, including national marine parks, was under the ministry of forestry, however, this management system created conflicts after the establishment of the maritime and fisheries ministry.

The maritime ministry claimed that its duties and functions under Presidential Decree No. 102 of 2001, include marine parks, and therefore requested the forestry minister to transfer the six national marine parks to the maritime and fisheries ministry. Conflict between these two groups of bureaucrats arose when the forestry ministry refused the request. The forestry people argued that, as long as the formal legislation that granted it the mandate to manage these areas had not been repealed, the management of national marine parks should remain under their authority. Several strategies have been tried to solve this dispute, such as a Memorandum of Understanding between the two groups, but the problem has not yet been resolved.

The above quandary is only an example of one of the functional overlaps in mandates. This highlights the failure of the maritime and fisheries ministry to carry out its function to coordinate coastal management. The fragmented management system is caused by the absence of a strong unifying institutional arrangement in this country.

In order to address the institutional problems, a more efficient administrative structure for dealing with marine activities is required. New solutions should be adopted by the government to address the current administrative shortcomings.

Three key options are available to address the problems of overlapping jurisdiction and a lack of coordination among central government agencies.

First, the improvement of coordinating mechanisms can be done through the revitalization of the current inter-ministerial council, such as the Indonesian Maritime Council (DMI). There is however, a growing resistance from bureaucrats, researchers and local politicians to any improvements in coordination via the DMI. Indonesia has a long and sad history with this institution. To date, no significant policy or program has been produced by the DMI.

Second, there needs to be an expansion of the powers and duties of a current agency, or the creation of a "super-agency".

This option suggests that the enhancement of powers and duties of the maritime and fisheries ministry from fisheries and habitat management and marine affairs to all related functions of ocean activities, such as marine transportation, ocean mining, marine tourism, marine conservation, coastal forestry and other ocean activities may merit consideration as a potential solution.

A super ministry system is not new in institutional arrangements for coastal and ocean management. This approach has been used by the Republic of Korea. The Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of Korea has extensive powers and duties for coastal and ocean management activities ranging from the development and coordination of marine and fisheries related policies, promotion of the shipping industry, safe navigation of vessels, port operations and port development, promotion of the fishing industry and integrated coastal management for scientific research and development.

However, it cannot be denied that the enlargement of the maritime and fisheries ministry's power with respect to ocean activities will create a super ministry or super agency. This is a sensitive issue that may create more conflict at the national level, because the formulation of a super ministry absorbing the coastal and ocean mandates of other agencies requires a major restructuring of government.

Third, the establishment of a new coordinating ministry, which is aimed at coordinating all ocean and coastal management activities. The Coordinating Ministry for Ocean Activities, as I would call it, could also act as a mediator for conflict between the national and regional government agencies.

This option may be the best and least costly one, as it does not require a major restructuring of existing government agencies. As a large country with two-thirds of its territory ocean, it is reasonable for Indonesia to create a new coordinating ministry for ocean activities.

Whichever option the government wants to take, the government should consider the roles and responsibilities of local governments and communities for coastal and ocean resources management. The development of a new coordinating ministry or council cannot be allowed to reduce rights and the authority of regional governments.

The writer is a researcher at the Research Center for Oceanography with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).