Institutional overhaul in marine sphere

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).