Sunday, November 23, 2014

Going Overboard to Protect Subsistence Fisheries

     In light of a changing global economy, the impact of sound fisheries management in both developing and developed nations cannot be underestimated in its value to both current and future populations. For many communities within Southeast Asia, fishing exemplifies much more than a tradition. One particular region of interest is the numerous smaller cities and villages surrounding Indonesian capital of Jakarta.
     The history of the region is interwoven with seafaring; from hauling in mackerel, tuna, and even shark, fish has long been an important part of both Indonesian culture and additionally, the economy. Indonesia is ranked within the top ten global fish producers, and the industry employs over two million people. The nation’s fisheries exports exist at well over a billion dollars, and over 700,000 registered fishing boats dot the shoreline and open water. Additionally, n
early 40% of all Indonesian fishers are engaged, at least partly, in some form of freshwater pond aquaculture. Many individuals rely on the fish for commercial purposes, but approximately 10% of the population is dependent upon subsistence fishing for their daily food intake. Unfortunately, in recent years, much commercial overharvesting has threatened the hauls available to this portion of the population. 
     Within the United States, the largest amount of subsistence fishing is done by communities living in remote/rural Alaska, and amounts to approximately 57,000 people, which, compared to the entire population of the United States, is just about 1%, comparatively. However, when examining just the state of Alaska as a whole, it comes out to approximately 10%. Though the United States’ Alaska and nation of Indonesia both have very different cultural histories and legacies of development, the health of many populations in both regions is largely reliant on their respective governments’ abilities to manage and promote proper usage of fish stocks, and to allocate harvest numbers in a manner that will allow for subsistence fishers to maintain livelihoods, while still encouraging local economic growth.
     However, if such a large part of Indonesia's fishing economy is reliant on inland aquaculture, why does the nation encounter large amounts of controversy surrounding open sea fishing in the region? The answer can be attributed to regimes that have deteriorated in their ability to conserve local fisheries for local populations.
     Subsistence fishing in Alaska is primarily governed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, which determines when it is necessary for larger commercial vessels to restrict harvests, as subsistence fishers are given priority. In Indonesia, it is managed largely by imposing quotas and total allowable catch numbers, as set by the Directorate General of Fisheries, and various provincial managers. Yet open-water fishing in Indonesia exists primarily in the small scale, even from a commercial perspective, and unfortunately suffers due to a lack of effective legal enforcement. Neighboring nations additionally play a large part in depleting open-water fish stocks.
      The Indonesian government is attempting to change this, however, by announcing within the last week that it planned to declare a “war” on illegal fishing. Much of this occurs from fishers in nearby nations such as Malaysia, but results in over $20 million losses. The President, Joko Widido, has advocated sinking the ships (after rescuing crew members) in order to send a message that the nation values and will continue to be strongly protective of its fish stocks. New military (Coast Guard) forces are also planned to assist in ensuring that Indonesia’s fish are captured by Indonesian fishers. This stance may seem overly harsh, yet these drastic steps may be necessary in order to place their marine economy back on track,
     Though Indonesia and Alaska both rely heavily on fish, from both a subsistence and commercial perspective, divergences management regimes have greatly influenced the development of local economies and cultures. Relationships with foreign actors have also played a large part in determining the commercial ventures available, both domestically, and internationally. Following the example of successful management initiatives may offer valuable venues through which developing nations can promote domestic economic growth, but developing nations must prioritize indirect investment in their markets. In conclusion, Indonesia has an obligation -- not only to the portion of its population depending on fishing for subsistence, but also to its economy as a whole-- to ensure accountability and to promote the interests of its people before that of foreign commercial activity. Given the stance it has taken on the issue, it surely seems as if this goal will be achievable.


-  -  -
Sources
-  -  -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-indonesia-fishing-idUSKCN0J318O20141119
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/11/19/jokowi-declares-war-illegal-fishing.html
http://seawildearth.com/tag/sustenance-fishermen/
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21591905-government-tries-preserve-fecund-part-coral-triangle-plenty-more-fish-sea
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/idn/profile.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/travel/jakarta-maritime-travel/index.html

5 comments:

  1. It is interesting to compare and contrast two very different regions in the world that basically function off the same industry and yet work struggle with different issues. How do you think Indonesia can promote domestic economic growth? What kind of regulations or policies do you think would work best to develop economic growth in relation to the country's fishing industry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely think one (general) step that the government could take would be to crack down on corruption within Indonesia's business sector. That would really help improve a lot of local sectors. In terms of policies, I think the fishing industry could benefit from a better established coast guard/naval enforcement. So, in this sense, I feel that the nation is taking a step in the right direction with their plans. Aquaculture could potentially benefit from subsidies to allow for the use of advanced technology, because I do know that many of the farmers use "traditional" methods, so I think that would help improve yields, and therefore help to encourage economic growth.

      Delete
    2. I agree that focusing on the private sector would be the best idea. However, I know that there has been a lot of corruption between the government and big business in regards to deforestation. Maybe, it would be best to introduce a third party that has no stakes in the fishing industry so that we could be sure that corruption would be less likely.

      Delete
  2. I had never heard about the issues in either Indonesia or Alaska, though they are clearly important issues as you point out. Should this be more of a priority on the international stage or kept just to regional governments?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In terms of Eva's point of a third party, do you think that is possible at all? With how tight the government is with big business it may be difficult to find a solution that would work for everyone. Also, it is very uncommon for countries and corporations to let a third party make decisions for them at all. Would it take an international party like the U.N. to make a difference maybe?

    ReplyDelete