Protecting Indonesia's vital marine resources
Protecting Indonesia's vital marine resources
Mark Erdmann, Contributor, Manado, North Sulawesi
In recognition of the importance of Indonesia's vast marine
resources to its future, I've been invited to write an
Environment Day perspective on the current status of marine law
enforcement.
Reflecting upon the last 10 years in Indonesian coastal
management, I believe there is reason for cautious optimism, yet
a tremendous amount of improvement is still needed in this field.
Much as the country's policymakers have belatedly realized the
importance of enforcement against illegal logging to protect
state assets and prevent ecological and human tragedies caused by
rampant deforestation, illegal exploitation of marine resources
is finally beginning to receive attention as well.
Over the past decade, the hard work by local and international
conservation NGOs and a range of donor-funded coastal management
projects have succeeded in broadly exposing the damage wrought by
destructive fishing practices such as blast and cyanide fishing
-- to the point that these practices are now widely recognized as
illegal by most fishing communities.
In some of the best-known protected marine areas, including
the Komodo, Wakatobi and Bunaken national parks, strong
enforcement systems have largely curtailed these destructive
practices. Moreover, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries has prioritized enforcement against illegal,
unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, resulting in a dramatic
increase over the past several years in the arrests of foreign
vessels poaching in Indonesian waters.
Unfortunately, these bright spots are overshadowed by a range
of problems that continue to hamper local marine enforcement.
Many in the country's legal system, from police officers to
the judiciary, seem to regard marine resource crimes as
unimportant, and even when offenders are captured, they are often
released within hours with nothing more than a reprimand.
Ironically, many local environmental NGOs blindly champion the
"rights" of blast and cyanide fishers, seemingly oblivious to the
rights of the 99 percent of the Indonesian traditional fishermen,
whose livelihoods are destroyed by the destructive and lucrative
activities of a tiny minority. These NGOs are also often harshly
critical of any attempts to enforce law and order on Indonesia's
extensive, but highly threatened, reefs.
These problems and resistance to stronger marine enforcement
seem to stem from continuing misperceptions regarding marine
resource crimes -- perhaps in part because the majority of the
population does not see what is occurring beneath the waves on a
daily basis. Below, I address four of the most egregious of these
misperceptions:
First, perhaps the most serious misperception is that marine
resource crimes are "inconsequential fishing infractions" that
are not worthy of serious treatment by the judiciary. Nothing
could be further from the truth: Indonesia relies on fish for
over half of its animal protein, and destructive and illegal
fishing practices directly threaten food security.
Reefs that are bombed and cyanided become barren, lifeless
fields of rubble that produce a tiny fraction of the over 20
metric tons per square kilometer of fish that a healthy reef will
yield annually.
Moreover, illegal fishing in the country's network of marine
reserves greatly compromises their effectiveness as "fish banks",
where fish stocks are allowed to recover, reproduce and "export"
larval fish to surrounding areas.
A second misperception is that blasting and cyaniding are done
by poor fishers with no other alternatives. To the contrary,
these illegal methods are highly lucrative and are often backed
by powerful businessmen. Given the profitability of these crimes,
minimal sanctions are simply considered a cost of business and
are not a true deterrent.
A frequent suggestion from local NGOs is that increased
environmental awareness of fishers will "empower" them to police
their own reefs.
Third, a related misperception is the belief -- or perhaps
hope? -- by government agencies in charge of funding enforcement
that the need for expensive waterborne patrols will decrease as
marine conservation awareness increases.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. As Indonesia's reefs
continue to degrade and fish become scarcer and more expensive,
the incentive to fish illegally -- and hence the need for
professional enforcement regimes -- only increases. Even the most
environmentally aware fishers are largely powerless against those
using bombs and cyanide.
In Komodo, for example, blast fishing was largely perpetrated
by well-organized and heavily armed deer poachers from outside
the park, who would not hesitate to shoot or bomb any boat that
attempted to apprehend them. Enforcing the law against such
dangerous criminals is hardly a task for local fishers.
Finally, there is a continuing misperception by policymakers,
NGOs and donors alike that coastal fishing villages are opposed
to stronger marine enforcement -- so much so that many coastal
management programs avoid the "thorny issues" of enforcement in
favor of more cuddly initiatives that will be readily accepted by
fishing communities.
In my experience, this resistance to enforcement is largely
imaginary; most fishing villages openly welcome stronger
enforcement, as long as it is evenly applied. Nothing angers
fishers more than when they are expected to obey the law, while
well-connected individuals disregard it with impunity.
Experience at Bunaken and Wakatobi clearly shows that once
villagers see that enforcement efforts are serious, they quickly
become the first line of defense in reporting all illegal fishing
activities to authorities. These folks fully understand the
seriousness of marine resource crimes and the threat caused to
their livelihoods.
Not surprisingly, the above situations are not unique to
Indonesia. Last year, I chaired a session on marine enforcement
at the 2nd International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management
Symposium. The 60 marine managers from across the tropics who
participated in this session unanimously reported similar
frustrations, and formulated a series of recommendations that
centered upon the need for policymakers and judiciaries, NGOs and
donors, to finally get serious about marine enforcement.
Specific recommendations include training programs for police
and legal system professionals through which to show them the
devastating impacts of marine resource crimes firsthand,
provision for special environmental courts with trained judges to
handle marine crimes cases, and dramatically increased budgets
for those agencies in charge of protecting coastal ecosystems.
Given the grave importance of protecting Indonesia's marine
resources for the livelihoods of its future generations, it is
clearly time to recognize the severe consequences of illegal
fishing practices and declare war upon them.
Dr. Mark Erdmann has worked as a marine biologist in Indonesia
since 1992. He is the North Sulawesi advisor to the USAID Natural
Resources Management Program and a 2004 Pew Fellow in marine
conservation.
Mark Erdmann, Contributor, Manado, North Sulawesi
In recognition of the importance of Indonesia's vast marine
resources to its future, I've been invited to write an
Environment Day perspective on the current status of marine law
enforcement.
Reflecting upon the last 10 years in Indonesian coastal
management, I believe there is reason for cautious optimism, yet
a tremendous amount of improvement is still needed in this field.
Much as the country's policymakers have belatedly realized the
importance of enforcement against illegal logging to protect
state assets and prevent ecological and human tragedies caused by
rampant deforestation, illegal exploitation of marine resources
is finally beginning to receive attention as well.
Over the past decade, the hard work by local and international
conservation NGOs and a range of donor-funded coastal management
projects have succeeded in broadly exposing the damage wrought by
destructive fishing practices such as blast and cyanide fishing
-- to the point that these practices are now widely recognized as
illegal by most fishing communities.
In some of the best-known protected marine areas, including
the Komodo, Wakatobi and Bunaken national parks, strong
enforcement systems have largely curtailed these destructive
practices. Moreover, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries has prioritized enforcement against illegal,
unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, resulting in a dramatic
increase over the past several years in the arrests of foreign
vessels poaching in Indonesian waters.
Unfortunately, these bright spots are overshadowed by a range
of problems that continue to hamper local marine enforcement.
Many in the country's legal system, from police officers to
the judiciary, seem to regard marine resource crimes as
unimportant, and even when offenders are captured, they are often
released within hours with nothing more than a reprimand.
Ironically, many local environmental NGOs blindly champion the
"rights" of blast and cyanide fishers, seemingly oblivious to the
rights of the 99 percent of the Indonesian traditional fishermen,
whose livelihoods are destroyed by the destructive and lucrative
activities of a tiny minority. These NGOs are also often harshly
critical of any attempts to enforce law and order on Indonesia's
extensive, but highly threatened, reefs.
These problems and resistance to stronger marine enforcement
seem to stem from continuing misperceptions regarding marine
resource crimes -- perhaps in part because the majority of the
population does not see what is occurring beneath the waves on a
daily basis. Below, I address four of the most egregious of these
misperceptions:
First, perhaps the most serious misperception is that marine
resource crimes are "inconsequential fishing infractions" that
are not worthy of serious treatment by the judiciary. Nothing
could be further from the truth: Indonesia relies on fish for
over half of its animal protein, and destructive and illegal
fishing practices directly threaten food security.
Reefs that are bombed and cyanided become barren, lifeless
fields of rubble that produce a tiny fraction of the over 20
metric tons per square kilometer of fish that a healthy reef will
yield annually.
Moreover, illegal fishing in the country's network of marine
reserves greatly compromises their effectiveness as "fish banks",
where fish stocks are allowed to recover, reproduce and "export"
larval fish to surrounding areas.
A second misperception is that blasting and cyaniding are done
by poor fishers with no other alternatives. To the contrary,
these illegal methods are highly lucrative and are often backed
by powerful businessmen. Given the profitability of these crimes,
minimal sanctions are simply considered a cost of business and
are not a true deterrent.
A frequent suggestion from local NGOs is that increased
environmental awareness of fishers will "empower" them to police
their own reefs.
Third, a related misperception is the belief -- or perhaps
hope? -- by government agencies in charge of funding enforcement
that the need for expensive waterborne patrols will decrease as
marine conservation awareness increases.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. As Indonesia's reefs
continue to degrade and fish become scarcer and more expensive,
the incentive to fish illegally -- and hence the need for
professional enforcement regimes -- only increases. Even the most
environmentally aware fishers are largely powerless against those
using bombs and cyanide.
In Komodo, for example, blast fishing was largely perpetrated
by well-organized and heavily armed deer poachers from outside
the park, who would not hesitate to shoot or bomb any boat that
attempted to apprehend them. Enforcing the law against such
dangerous criminals is hardly a task for local fishers.
Finally, there is a continuing misperception by policymakers,
NGOs and donors alike that coastal fishing villages are opposed
to stronger marine enforcement -- so much so that many coastal
management programs avoid the "thorny issues" of enforcement in
favor of more cuddly initiatives that will be readily accepted by
fishing communities.
In my experience, this resistance to enforcement is largely
imaginary; most fishing villages openly welcome stronger
enforcement, as long as it is evenly applied. Nothing angers
fishers more than when they are expected to obey the law, while
well-connected individuals disregard it with impunity.
Experience at Bunaken and Wakatobi clearly shows that once
villagers see that enforcement efforts are serious, they quickly
become the first line of defense in reporting all illegal fishing
activities to authorities. These folks fully understand the
seriousness of marine resource crimes and the threat caused to
their livelihoods.
Not surprisingly, the above situations are not unique to
Indonesia. Last year, I chaired a session on marine enforcement
at the 2nd International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management
Symposium. The 60 marine managers from across the tropics who
participated in this session unanimously reported similar
frustrations, and formulated a series of recommendations that
centered upon the need for policymakers and judiciaries, NGOs and
donors, to finally get serious about marine enforcement.
Specific recommendations include training programs for police
and legal system professionals through which to show them the
devastating impacts of marine resource crimes firsthand,
provision for special environmental courts with trained judges to
handle marine crimes cases, and dramatically increased budgets
for those agencies in charge of protecting coastal ecosystems.
Given the grave importance of protecting Indonesia's marine
resources for the livelihoods of its future generations, it is
clearly time to recognize the severe consequences of illegal
fishing practices and declare war upon them.
Dr. Mark Erdmann has worked as a marine biologist in Indonesia
since 1992. He is the North Sulawesi advisor to the USAID Natural
Resources Management Program and a 2004 Pew Fellow in marine
conservation.