DECENTRALIZATION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT (Todays Opportunities and Challenges of the Environmental Management)

By : Nasrun Annahar (126030117011002)

Abstract : There are unclear authority of tenure arrangements marine fishery resources between regions, which resulted in the interpretation and practical implementation is not consistent with the intent of laws and overlapping maritime zone management authority arrangements between central and local governments. The mandatte of article 18 paragraph (1) the act of 32 / 2004 give resources management authority in the sea for region has region of the ocean. On praxis domain, then a misunderstanding community fishermen in interpret article 18 the form of a claim management area. The claim inflicts arrogance ownership, which the region will only can be managed or used by fisherman recovered. Management authority the region of the often is understood as granting a possession region of the ocean so happen sea carved up (pengaplingan laut) by an area that raises dispute inter-regional pertaining to management resources utilization ocean fishery in the region. Phenomena the law is a series problem which lead to conflict autonomy mastery resources ocean fishery inter-regional that need to find a way out its completion by the legal structure that drives toward that allows central and local interests accomodation, local community interests and communities outside the region. Decentralization has two very opposite effect on the management of marine resources. Decentralization will lead to over-exploitation and damage in the absence of a good approach. but on the contrary, can maximize the potential of marine resources in mind the aspect of sustainability and continuity. necessary prerequisite for the achievement of community-based marine resource management local / decentralized.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, decentralization of fisheries management is highly considered as an alternative to overcome the problem of resources depletion. As commonly accepted, the resources depletion is because of the practices of the centralization of marine fisheries management. The centralization of fisheries management was characterized by the existence of national policy that all marine waters are state property, to be managed centrally, through the provincial, regency, and village

offices of the central government, for the benefit of the entire nation, 1 such as in Indonesia. This centralization regime was actually derived from Western industrialized nations that neglected common property regimes in fisheries.2 Moreover, in post-colonial societies throughout the world new legislation has been enacted which redefines the right of the state whereas water resources have been nationalized in the interest of the state. Decolonization was often accompanied by the nationalization of resources, and then post-colonial governments continued the centralization policies of the colonist by making stateproperty out of common property.3 The critical matter of the centralized policy is that all waters become de facto open access, even though they were de jure regulated, such as Indonesia in which are regulated through fishing zone based on size of fishing vessel. Certainly, these centralized policies lead to the resources depletion. This happened due to high cost of centralized management enforcement, which means unlikely to conduct fisheries management without role and responsibility of local people in which marine and coastal ecosystem large and widely diverse. Meanwhile, actually many fisheries community management systems (CBFMs), which have amounts of traditional rules or local wisdom, which contains valuable norms how to wisely treat natural marine resources, are found. They are implemented based on defined geographical areas and controlled access. In addition, they are self monitored by local fishers, and enforced by local moral and political authority.4 These are the great strengths of such systems and what they have to contribute to co-management designs.5 Nevertheless due to centralization policy they are being undermined.

Ruddle K. External forces and change in traditional communitybasedfishery management systems in the Asia Pacific region. Maritime Anthropological Studies 1993;6(12):137. 2 Gibbs CJN, Bromley D. Institutional arrangement for management of rural resources: common-property regimes. In: Berkes F, editor. Common property resources: ecology and communitybased sustainable development. London: Belhaven Press; 1989. 3 Berkes F. Cross-scale institutional linkage: perspectives from the bottom up. In: Ostrom E, editor. Drama of the commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. 4 Ruddle K. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropical marine resources andenvironme nt. Nature andResources 1994;30(1):2837. 5 Ruddle K. Formulating policies for existing community based fisheries management systems. The Journal of Policy Studies 1996;1:5564.

Those conditions, which led to create open access regime, pushed the rise of free competition in marine waters among fishermen crossing different economic scale (class), ethnical and cultural background, and others. As a result, resources depletion (such as over fishing, destruction of mangrove and coral reef) and social conflict were inevitable, and it certainly threatens marine fisheries sustainability in the future. However currently in Indonesia, there are political systems changes toward a decentralist pattern that certainly imply marine-fisheries management model. By definition, decentralization is any act in which a central government formally transfers powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a politicaladministrative and territorial hierarchy.6 In Indonesia, decentralization has been proceeded by the establishment of Act No. 22 / 1999 on Local Government, which then called the Local Autonomy Law. By this law, local government has got the bundles of new authorities concerning marine-fisheries management. As mentioned in this law as far as 12 miles water sea area from shoreline is under provincial government authority, and within those 12 miles there are 4 miles under the authority of the local or district government (articles 4 and10). These authorities include: (a) exploration, exploitation, conservation, and marine resources management within the authority water area, (b) administrative management, (c) zone management, (d) law enforcement of local regulation or central government regulations that are deconcentrated to local government. Indonesia, therefore, is still dealing with amounts of agendas how to institutionalize and establish their marine fisheries management in decentralized ways. However, decentralization becomes the most appropriate form of fisheries governance in which enables local governments to fundamentally control local fishing by community based management system.7 Decentralization is also justified as a means for increasing the efficiency and equity of development activities and services delivery, and also for promoting local participation and
6

Ribot JC. Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2002. 7 Ruddle K. The role of local management and knowledge systems in small-scale fisheries. The Journal of Policy Studies 1999;7: 101107.

democracy. The efficiency and equity benefits of decentralization come from the presence of democratic processes that encourage local authorities to serve the needs and desire of their constituents. However, a democratic decentralization is a promising means of institutionalizing and scaling up the popular participation that makes community based natural resources management effective. Concerning democratic values of decentralization, Seddon (1999) argued, sub national governments proximity to their constituents will enable them to respond better to local needs and efficiently match public spending private needs only if information flows between citizens and local government. On the other hand, the process of decentralization can itself enhance the opportunities for participation by placing more power and resources at a closer, more familiar, more easily influenced level of government.8 Accordingly, decentralization theoretically gives more opportunities for local people to participate in a decision making process due to the nearness of social distance between policy maker and the people, who must feel the policy influence. Certainly, because the community participation in the decision-making process theoretically leads to increasing efficiency and equity in natural resources management and use, in terms of marine fisheries management, CBFMs are potentially recognized, revitalized, and developed well. Nevertheless, beside the potential positive impact of decentralization as explained before, decentralization may lead to conflict, particularly when they involve the transfer of natural resources management and use powers. Thirteenth years after decentralization, more precisely the environmental damage occurs even more severe. decentralization is theoretically could increase community participation in resource management, thus giving birth to new problems that damage the environment of rapid and massive. This paper is organized in 2 parts, starting with an analysis from legal perspective and continued by analysis from empirical perspective.

Seddon J. Participation civil society, and decentralization. In: Litwack J, Seddon J, editors. Decentralization briefing notes. Washington, DC: WorldBank Institute; 1999.

THEORETICAL DISCUSSION

Democratization and Decentralization The transition was formalized through the Decree of Peoples Consultative Assembly No. 15, 1999 on The Implementation of Regional Autonomy; Just Resource Setting, Distribution and Utilization; and The Financial Balance Between National and Local Government within The Framework of The Republic of Indonesia. Following this decree, two acts were stipulated, namely Act No. 22, 1999 on Local Government and Act No. 25, 1999 on The Financial Relation between National and Local Government. In principle, these two laws provide the legal and financial framework for governance primarily by local governments (i.e. regencies or municipalities), with assistance from both provincial and central government.9 The most important spirit of these Acts is decentralization, i.e. delegation of some authorities from the national to local government, so that local communities can be arranged and organized through their own decisions, based on their own aspirations (Article 4 of Act No. 22, 1999). According to many authors decentralization can be defined as any act in which central government formally delegate its power to lower level political, administrative and territorial institutions.10 It was expected that decentralization will result in better policies for peoples livelihood, since it shortens the distance between the decision makers and the public, both geographically and politically. With respect to natural resources, decentralization policy is expected to give a better access to local public to control the government policies. The underlying consideration for the shift toward decentralization include among other promotion of democracy, community participation, equitable resource distribution, empowerment of local potential and diversity. The implementation of the Local Government Act (Act No. 22, 1999) required transfer of a number of authorities previously belong to central or
9

Patlis, J.M., R. Dahuri, M. Knight & J. Tulungen (2001). Integrated coastal management in a decentralized Indonesia: How it can work. PESISIR & LAUTAN 4(1): 24-39. 10 Gibson, C.C. & F.E. Lehoucq (2003). The local politics of decentralized environmental policy in Guatemala. Journal of Environmental & Development 12(1): 28-49

provincial

government,

including

environmental
11

policy,

to

the

local

(municipalities or regencies) government.

Environmental management is a

governmental affair that should be carried out by local/municipal government (see article 11 of the Local Government Act, UU no. 22, 1999). Further with the transfer of authority, in 2002 the position of the State Minister of Environment as the Head of National Environmental Impact Management Agency (Bapedal) was dissolved. This has substantially reduced the authority of the Ministry of Environment limited to only coordination function of environmental matters among departments and ministries. Since 1999, environmental and natural resource management in Indonesia was regulated by Environmental Act (Act No. 23, 1997) along side with Local Government Act (Act No. 22, 1999). In 2004, however, Act No. 22, 1999 was replaced by a new Local Government Act, i.e. Act No. 32, 2004. This new act accommodates corrections and improvements of the previous act, especially for ensuring that the wide authority of local government is really implemented under the unity of Republic of Indonesia.12 Replacement of the Local Government Act was triggered by the fact that Act 22, 1999 does not explicitly regulate the hierarchy and relations between different levels of government. This makes local autonomy was implemented based on principles of a federation rather than a united republic. Due to that reason, from 1999 to 2004, the relation between national and local government was limited only to foreign policy, defense and security, court, religion, monetary and fiscal which absolutely belong to national government. The new Local Government Act is expected to ensure that the authority of local government will not be exercised independently without any relations with central government or other local governments.

11

Widianarko, B. (2004). Impact of decentralization on the state of environment at the Kali Tapak, Semarang, Indonesia. In A. Mori (ed.): Impact of Decentralization on Local Environmental Management in Indonesia. Graduate School of Environmental Studies. Kyoto University. p. 69-86. 12 Santoso, I. (2008). Decentralization journey of Indonesias forest resources. International Seminar on Ten Years Along: Decentralisation, land and Natural Resources in Indonesia, Atma Jaya University, Huma, Leiden University, and Radboud University. Jakarta, 15-16 July.

Based on Act No. 32, 2004, Provincial government has six main authorities in environmental management, especially related to cross boundary (inter municipalties/ regencies) environmental problems. The focus of environmental management is therefore at the municipality or regency level. According to Letter of Ministry of Home Affairs No. 045/560, 2002, local governments hold 79 authorities related to environmental management. Implementation of decentralization policy provides space to local government, i.e. regency (kabupaten) and municipality (Kota), to exercise greater autonomy. A higher degree of local autonomy combined with direct local election has shaped the attitude of most local governments to become more revenue oriented. In order to boost their local revenue, municipalities or regencies eagerly produce local regulation. A too strong orientation toward local revenue generation has resulted in exploitation of natural resources, pollution and degradation of ecosystems because each local/municipal government puts the generation of regional income as the top priority.13 Driven by revenue generation attitude, local governments tend to produce local regulations which justify the exploitation of natural resources and environment. Even worse, although the revenue had been generated from natural resources, no return whatsoever is allocated for the conservation. As an illustration, during 2001-2005, a joint team from Department of Finance and Department of Home Affairs has respectively cancelled and revised 404 and 44 local regulations. It is about 10% of the total local regulations enacted during the same period. These regulations were considered biased toward revenue generation and sacrificing the conservation of environment and natural resources.

Local Autonomy and Environmental Conservation Up to now, the general discourse in Indonesia is that the implementation of local autonomy (i.e. decentralization) has exacerbated exploitation of natural resources, pollution and degradation of ecosystems. Unfortunately, this discourse has been supported by a growing number of environmental degradation and

13

Widianarko, B. (2003). Reading a transition toward decentralization: environmental pollution in Central Java 1999-2002. RENAI 3(2): 5-15

natural resource exploitation in Indonesia during the democratic transition from 1998 to present time. In this course of democratic transition, environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources have continuously increased at a threatening level. The following is a brief summary of the present state of environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources in Indonesia. Environmental degradation in Indonesia is mostly caused by pollution and environmental destruction. In 2006, results of monitoring of 35 rivers in Indonesia by 30 Provincial Environmental Impact Management Agencies (Bapedalda) showed that water of these rivers are categorized as polluted based on the criteria of second-class water quality, i.e. drinking water source. Sources of surface water pollution and groundwater include the industry, agriculture, and households.

ANALYIS

Analysis From A Legal Perspective Juridically, there are indications of unclear authority of tenure arrangements marine fishery resources between regions, which resulted in the interpretation and practical implementation is not consistent with the intent of laws and overlapping maritime zone management authority arrangements between central and local governments. The mandatte of article 18 paragraph (1) the act of 32 / 2004 give resources management authority in the sea for region has region of the ocean. On praksis domain, then a misunderstanding community fishermen in interpret article 18 the form of a claim management area. The claim inflicts arrogance ownership, which the region will only can be managed or used by fisherman recovered. Management authority the region of the often is understood as granting a possession region of the ocean so happen sea carved up (pengaplingan laut) by an area that raises dispute inter-regional pertaining to management resources utilization ocean fishery in the region.

Phenomena the law is a series problem which lead to conflict autonomy mastery resources ocean fishery inter-regional that need to find a way out its completion by the legal structure that drives toward that allows central and local interests accomodation, local community interests and communities outside the region.

Analysis From Empirical Perspective Decentralization has two very opposite effect on the management of marine resources. Decentralization will lead to over-exploitation and damage in the absence of a good approach. but on the contrary, can maximize the potential of marine resources in mind the aspect of sustainability and continuity. necessary prerequisite for the achievement of community-based marine / decentralized. Local authorities to undertake the management of marine resources and the presence of local authority accountability is a major prerequisite for the achievement of the management of marine resources within the framework of the implementation of decentralization.14 The first prerequisite is the presence of local authorities in the management of marine resources. The authority contained in the form of the power law in Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law no. 32 of 2004 which states that the county has the authority to manage marine resources. Provisions of this law is a strong legal basis for local governments and local communities to pursue management tailored to the interests and local conditions. The authority contained in article 18 which includes: 1. Exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of marine resources; 2. Administrative arrangements, 3. Spatial arrangement, 4. Enforcement of regulations, 5. Participated in the maintenance of security, and 6. Participate in the defense of the sovereignty of the nation.

14

Rudi. 2006. Desentralisasi: Menuju Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Kelautan Berbasis Komunitas Lokal. Inovasi vol l6/XVIII/Maret 2006 - http://io.ppijepang.org/article.php?id=149

Local authorities in the management of marine resources are present in marine areas as far as 12 miles measured from the outer coastline for the provincial government and one third of the sea area of the provincial local government authority for the district / city. If the sea area between the 2 (two) provinces are less than 24 (twenty four) miles, the authority to manage marine resources in the region shared the same distance or measured in accordance with the principles of the diameter of the region between 2 (two) of the province, and to the District / City of obtaining third (one-third) of provincial jurisdiction in question. Authority of the provincial and district / city is not valid for fishing by fishermen in the sense that the authority given to each region would not limit small fishing businesses in search of livelihood. This provision is expected to eliminate practices for small fishing ban on entering and fishing in marine areas specific areas as it did at the beginning of the implementation of decentralization in Indonesia. The second prerequisite is the accountability of local authorities to the local community. Accountability of local authorities play an important role in this regard. There is no accountability of local authorities who have a perfect, yet strong accountability of local authorities is a prerequisite to successful management of marine resources cored or by decentralized local communities. However, there are various problems in fisheries management by using a decentralized system. Firstly, decentralized maritime sector is still experiencing problems on the rules of the game, where the authority in the management of marine resources is at the sea as far as 12 miles measured from the outer coastline for the provincial government, and a third of the sea area of local government authority for the provincial government district / city. So out of the 12 miles, is the authority of the central government, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As a result, about 50% of marine resources are still managed by the central government, not administered by local governments. Second, the impact of the implementation of decentralized rule of the maritime sector, the waters of Indonesia is prone to deliberate illegal fishing by foreign fishermen in the sea which is rich in fish such as resource potential in the

Banda and Arafura sea. As a result, local governments have no authority to supervise the EEZ under the authority of the central government, which is only a spectator occurrence of illegal fishing. Concerning this problem, for example in the management of fisheries in the province which is the Moluccan islands only as far as 12 miles were a lot of empty territory separated by waters exceeds the specified distance of 12 miles to the management of marine areas.15 So it will go in the area where the empty area? . The consequence will result in no-man's sea areas, so that the empty sea areas prone to illegal fishing. It would require an amendment to Act No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Government. Where the amendment, regarding clauses limiting local authorities, which have the characteristics of a region dominated by the sea. Regions of the ocean so that no man's land, it can be converted into the province, and can be managed in order to improve people's welfare. Decentralization is implemented by the central government should be reaffirmed. However, decentralized memamg is a must in responsible fisheries management. Based on the results of studies in the Thousand Islands shows local fishermen unrest since the practice of "submarine nets Underpants" (a type of purse seine) fishing in areas they are not far from the settlement and the island is a traditional use zone.16 Large fishing vessels from outside the area to operate at night, using the 'spotlight' that attract the fish to gather closer. Clearly the use of more sophisticated tools than the local fishing gear would deplete the fish in the water. Local people themselves are helpless to repel the ships. While surveillance by the authorities was very weak. Case above is just one example of a kink in marine resource management system for this. Marine understood as belonging together so anyone can catch fish anywhere. But if so the rules are not applicable? Thus, with the centralization of the rules difficult to apply because all of a central authority, and supervision was carried out by the central government with all the limitations that ultimately unable to prevent the violations occurred at sea. Public complaints in various
15 16

Susen, DR. 2007. Menuju Perikanan Berkelanjutan. Pustaka Cidesindo. Jakarta Anggraini, Eva. 2006. Mempertegas Kembali Desentralisasi Perikanan. Artikel. Harian Sinar Harapan. http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita /0405/31/opi01.

areas could not be addressed quickly. Hence it becomes necessary to make effective decentralization of the management and supervision of marine resources, and eliminate the marginalization of the interests of local communities. From the above discussion we clearly see that the decentralized fisheries management actually has more advantages compared to systems management is centralized. With a decentralized system, the area can find out what their problem and how to resolve the problem. However, all require time in order to run the new system to function properly. Local governments certainly play an important role in the

implementation of the decentralization of fisheries management, in addition to the central government, the public and other interested stakeholders in the fisheries sector, of course. They should be ready to face the challenges of managing the fisheries sector with huge potential, so there is no longer a matter of policy harmful fishing communities. So that the fisheries sector is able to become the backbone of the country to eradicate poverty, injustice government policy towards fishermen, and able to be foreign exchange earner for Indonesia.

Embodiment of decentralization needs to be affirmed if the nation wants to get a good result in the development process. Decentralization still feels half-hearted, so the issues there has not improved.

CONCLUSSION

Decentralized nature of authority in the management of natural resources, including fisheries resources boils down to the right country to natural resources and wealth contained in it to the people's prosperity. The position of the country in the right control (in the broad sense), the three holder of State power (Trias politica - legislative, Executive, and judiccative), not just the Government or Executive but also people/ community. In conjunction with Earth, air, and space, including natural resources contained therein, the State acted in its position as the nation's workers and Indonesia's power. In carrying out the task of the State is an organization of people's power. Thus, involved, as well as operationally, as a

nation is not only the legislative and executive authorities, but also the judicial authorities. Decentralized nature of authority in the management of fish resources is a national development projects based on insight into the archipelago. Management of fish resources as well as possible needs to be done based on justice and equity in utilization with emphasis on the expansion of employment opportunities and improved living conditions for fishing, fish farmers, and / or parties related to fishing activities, sustainable and equitable through fisheries management, surveillance, and optimal law enforcement system and realization of sustainability of fish resources and the environment. On the basis that it would require special regulation regarding the decentralization of authority to manage fish resources.

REFERENCES

Anggraini, Eva. 2006. Mempertegas Kembali Desentralisasi Perikanan. Artikel. Harian Sinar Harapan. http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita /0405/31/opi01. Berkes F. Cross-scale institutional linkage: perspectives from the bottom up. In: Ostrom E, editor. Drama of the commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. Gibbs CJN, Bromley D. Institutional arrangement for management of rural resources: common-property regimes. In: Berkes F, editor. Common property resources: ecology and communitybased sustainable development. London: Belhaven Press; 1989. Gibson, C.C. & F.E. Lehoucq (2003). The local politics of decentralized environmental policy in Guatemala. Journal of Environmental & Development 12(1): 28-49 Patlis, J.M., R. Dahuri, M. Knight & J. Tulungen (2001). Integrated coastal management in a decentralized Indonesia: How it can work. PESISIR & LAUTAN 4(1): 24-39. Ribot JC. Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2002. Ruddle K. External forces and change in traditional communitybasedfishery management systems in the Asia Pacific region. Maritime Anthropological Studies 1993;6(12):137. Ruddle K. Formulating policies for existing community based fisheries management systems. The Journal of Policy Studies 1996;1:5564. Ruddle K. Local knowledge in the future management of inshore tropical marine resources andenvironme nt. Nature andResources 1994;30(1):2837. Ruddle K. The role of local management and knowledge systems in small-scale fisheries. The Journal of Policy Studies 1999;7: 101107. Rudi. 2006. Desentralisasi: Menuju Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Kelautan Berbasis Komunitas Lokal. Inovasi vol l6/XVIII/Maret 2006 - http://io.ppijepang.org/article.php?id=149 Santoso, I. (2008). Decentralization journey of Indonesias forest resources. International Seminar on Ten Years Along: Decentralisation, land and Natural Resources in Indonesia, Atma Jaya University, Huma, Leiden University, and Radboud University. Jakarta, 15-16 July. Seddon J. Participation civil society, and decentralization. In: Litwack J, Seddon J, editors. Decentralization briefing notes. Washington, DC: WorldBank Institute; 1999.

Susen, DR. 2007. Menuju Perikanan Berkelanjutan. Pustaka Cidesindo. Jakarta Widianarko, B. (2003). Reading a transition toward decentralization: environmental pollution in Central Java 1999-2002. RENAI 3(2): 5-15 Widianarko, B. (2004). Impact of decentralization on the state of environment at the Kali Tapak, Semarang, Indonesia. In A. Mori (ed.): Impact of Decentralization on Local Environmental Management in Indonesia. Graduate School of Environmental Studies. Kyoto University. p. 6986.