STELINA, the Foundation of Indonesia's Fisheries Competitiveness

Major destination countries such as the United States, the European Union, and Japan are increasingly demanding traceability, sustainability, and social compliance for every product entering their markets. In this context, traceability is no longer an added value but a ‘ticket to entry’ into the global market.

This shift is not without consequences. Various regulations, from the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) in the United States to traceability policies in the European Union, are tangibly altering the way fisheries product trade operates.

Compliance is no longer merely administrative but has become part of production cost structures. Several international studies even indicate that implementing digital traceability systems can increase production costs by 2-5 per cent, while the need for certifications and routine audits can add annual operational burdens of tens of thousands of dollars for businesses.

Amid this new landscape, Indonesia has little choice but to adapt. An integrated traceability system has become an urgent need to ensure that every exported fish can be tracked from its origin, distribution process, to the hands of consumers. This is the context in which the National Fish Traceability and Logistics System (STELINA) was born.

However, viewing STELINA merely as a digitalisation project is too narrow a perspective. At its core, STELINA is an effort to transform the fisheries ecosystem comprehensively, from upstream to downstream.

The system not only changes how data is recorded but also how businesses interact, how supply chains are managed, and how trust is built in global markets.

In practice, STELINA integrates various stages in the supply chain, starting from fish capture by fishermen, aquaculture by farmers, distribution, to processing at fish processing units (UPI).

Each stage is expected to generate electronically documented and interconnected data. With this approach, transparency no longer relies on claims but on a verifiable real-time system.

For global markets, this approach is highly relevant. International regulations demand clear evidence that fishery products do not originate from illegal practices, do not damage the environment, and meet social standards.

Without a system capable of addressing these demands, the competitiveness of Indonesian products will be eroded by other countries that are better prepared.

At this point, it is important to learn from competitor countries. Countries like Vietnam and Thailand, for instance, have adapted earlier to global traceability demands, particularly after facing pressure from the European Union regarding illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices.

They have strengthened electronic logbook recording systems, improved data integration between businesses and regulators, and promoted supply chain consolidation to make oversight easier.

In the shrimp sector, Ecuador has gone even further by building an export-based traceability system integrated directly with major buyers, thereby accelerating verification processes while increasing market trust.

The experiences of these countries show one thing: traceability is not just about technology but about ecosystem readiness.

Nevertheless, this transformation does not come without challenges. From the perspective of businesses, particularly fish processing units (UPI), implementing traceability systems introduces new dynamics that are not simple.

UPIs have traditionally been in a strategic position as connectors between upstream and downstream, as well as the parties responsible for ensuring compliance with export market standards. In practice, UPIs often have to bridge data gaps from upstream sources that are not fully well-documented.

For example, UPI raw material sources come from many fishermen and farmers with highly diverse business scales. Data on fish origins, pond locations, feed usage, to harvest histories are often not recorded consistently.

In such conditions, the demand to provide complete and accurate data potentially shifts the verification burden to UPIs. Not infrequently, downstream businesses must perform manual re-validations to ensure the submitted data meets buyer standards.

Additionally, there is concern that if not designed simply and integrated, STELINA could add new administrative burdens. Layered data input obligations, differences in formats between systems, and potential duplication of reporting with other platforms could reduce operational efficiency. In the short term, this risks lowering competitiveness, especially for medium-scale businesses with relatively limited margins.

On the other hand, upstream conditions still face fundamental challenges. Recording practices are still largely manual, digital literacy is uneven, and data standards are not fully uniform. This fragmentation makes system integration a major task that cannot be solved solely through a technological approach.

This is where it is important to view STELINA more realistically. The system cannot stand alone as a digital solution but must run alongside capacity building for businesses, simplification of data standards, and harmonisation with existing systems. Without that, the emerging risk is what is known as ‘compliance burden shifting’, where the compliance burden is concentrated at one point in the supply chain.

The government recognises that this process requires a gradual approach. STELINA implementation is designed to start with businesses that already have digital readiness and are export-oriented, so they can serve as examples of best practices. This approach also provides room for adjustments based on feedback from businesses before wider implementation.

In addition, efforts