Policy needs to improve marine capture fisheriesmanagement and to define a role for marineprotected areas in Indonesia

P . J . MOUS & J . S . P ET

The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia

Z . AR I F IN

Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi, LIPI, Jakarta, Indonesia

R . DJOHAN I

The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia

M. V . ERDMANN

Natural Resources Management Program, Jakarta, Indonesia

A . HAL IM

The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia

M. KN IGHT

International Resources Group, USAID Indonesia Coastal Resources Management Project, Jakarta, Indonesia

L . P ET - SOEDE

The World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia – Marine Program, Jakarta, Indonesia

G . W IADNYA

The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia

Abstract Management of Indonesia’s marine capture fisheries faces a huge dilemma: evidence suggests that most,if not all, of Indonesia’s capture fisheries are fully or overexploited, but the fishery sector is still expected tocontribute to the increase of Indonesia’s gross national product (GNP) through an increase in total catches.Furthermore, the current practice of using catch-effort data and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) models toinform Indonesia’s fisheries policies is flawed, putting sustainability and long-term profitability of Indonesia’sfisheries at risk. It is argued that the following shift in capture fisheries management policy must be achieved toensure the survival of Indonesia’s fish stocks and fisheries:

Correspondence: Dr Peter J. Mous, The Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Jl. Pengembak No. 2, Sanur –

Bali, Indonesia (e-mail: pmous@tnc.org)

Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 259

1 a shift in fisheries policy from development-oriented management towards management for sustainability;2 acceptance by fisheries managers that �untapped resources� may not exist or cannot be exploited profitably;3 acceptance by fisheries managers that any transfer of fishing effort between fishing grounds may contribute tocollapse of local fisheries;4 a shift in fisheries management from MSY models to eco-system based management, wherein Marine ProtectedAreas should play an important role.

KEYWORDS : fisheries management, Indonesia, Maximum Sustainable Yield, overexploitation, policy.

Introduction

It is the responsibility of the Government of Indonesiato manage its natural resources for the greater benefitof its citizens (cf. Article 33 in Indonesia’s Constitutionof 1945 and Law No.6 of 1996), while ensuring long-term sustainability from its management approaches.This also holds for Indonesia’s living marine resources,such as fish, lobster and shrimp, sea cucumber, andshellfish such as clam (kima) and pearl oysters. All ofthese living resources are renewable, unlike naturalresources such as oil or copper, and can be replenishedif exploited in a sustainable manner. Overfishing willlead to resource degradation, resulting in lowerreplenishment, in turn resulting in further resourcedegradation, and ultimately, in the complete loss(collapse) of the resource.

Unfortunately, this collapse scenario has become areality for many of the world’s fisheries: the Food andAgricultural Organization of the United Nationsestimates that 75% of the world’s marine fisheries arefully exploited, overexploited or already depleted –only 25% of the world’s fisheries are under-exploited(FAO Fisheries Department 2002). Total catch fromthe world’s marine fisheries in 2000 was 5% lower thanduring its peak in 1995 (excluding China, because ofuncertainties in its fishery statistics). Once depleted, itmay take a long time for fish stocks to recover, evenafter cessation of fishing – for example haddock,Melanogrammus aeglefinus (L.), redfish Sebastes spp.,and cod, Gadus morhua (L.) in the north-west AtlanticOcean are still not showing signs of recovery after theimplementation of a near-complete ban on fishing inthe 1990s (FAO Fisheries Department 2002). Theglobal picture is that the world’s total catch isdecreasing, and that fishing activities are movingfarther a field to deeper waters because of dwindlingfish stocks.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheriesis aware of the problem of overexploitation in theWestern part of Indonesia’s seas, notably the seasaround Java. Driven by a public expectation that thefishery sector must contribute to increasing Indonesia’s

gross national product (GNP) through increased totalcatches, the Ministry is now looking for �untappedpotential� in Indonesia’s eastern seas (Widodo 2003).The question is to what extent Indonesia’s eastern seascan sustain further intensification of their currentfisheries. Are the seas of East Indonesia among the25% of the world’s fisheries that, according to FAO,can be developed further?

Indonesia seems to be heading for further inten-sification of its marine capture fisheries. A recentarticle in the Jakarta Post (2004) reported how oneof Indonesia’s fishing companies is investing IRP 2trillion (US$235 million) to exploit Papua’s seas –offering a 5% share in the project to the Papuaadministration. Another article in Kompas (Hakim2004) explained how some areas in Indonesia areoverexploited, whereas other areas are underexploi-ted. The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries iscurrently taking issue with this problem by facilita-ting transmigration of fishers (press releases of 29August 2003 and 20 January 2003). Furthermore, thegovernment is actively attracting foreign investors toexploit so-called �untapped resources� in Indonesia:the website of the British Embassy (2004) in Indo-nesia invites the British fishing industry to takeadvantage of this opportunity, �by supplying usedfishing vessels, possibly with crews, fishing gear, gillnets, trawling, pole and line, purse seining, consult-ancy services and technology transfer�. A sign atinternational arrivals at Bali International Airportfrom the Investment Board East Java Provinceinvites foreign investors to take advantage of theuntapped potential of the fisheries industry in eastJava. It should be noted that not only large-scalefishing operations contribute to overfishing: artisanalfisheries in Fiji were found to depress fish stocks tosuch an extent that lower levels of reef ecosystemsincluding reef-building corals themselves are impac-ted through cascading effects in the ecosystem(Dulvy, Freckleton & Polunin 2004).

In this paper, the potential for Indonesia’s fishstocks to support higher exploitation rates and howIndonesia’s fishery development policy is guided were

P. J. MOUS ET AL.260

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

investigated. The role of Marine Protected Areas(MPAs), traditionally thought of as an instrumentfor biodiversity conservation, as a tool for manage-ment of Indonesia’s fisheries was also examined.

Maximum Sustainable Yield

The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries bases itsestimates of Indonesia’s fishery potential on a calcu-lation method that can be traced back to the 1930s,when the Norwegian fisheries biologist Hjort intro-duced his theory of equilibrium fishing – catching anamount of fish that is equal to the amount of fish thatis added to the population through growth andreproduction. Hjort also stated that the amount offish that can be caught is maximum if the fishpopulation is fished down to about half of its pristine(i.e. unexploited) biomass. It follows that to providemanagement advice, fishery scientists must monitorboth the fish stock and the number of fishing vessels.Once the fish stock has decreased to half of its pristinesize, the total number of vessels (or nets) should bekept constant and no more new licenses should beissued. Of course, monitoring fish stocks is expensive,and even now, 70 years later, it is almost impossible toget good estimates for the amount of fish in the sea.Schaeffer attempted to solve this problem in the

1950s through a method that is based on analysis ofannual catch and effort data (Smith 1988). It is thismethod that the Ministry, as many other fisherymanagement agencies all over the world, uses toestimate the potential catch. In essence, the Ministrycollects information on the number of fishing vesselsand the total fish landings, and estimates potentialcatch as well as the size of the fleet that would berequired to realise this potential catch. This potentialcatch is often referred to as the Maximum SustainableYield (MSY) (Fig. 1).In Indonesia’s fishery policy, management objectives

are determined by MSY. In consideration of theprecautionary principle, the management objectivefor Indonesia’s fishery has recently been set at 80%of MSY (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries,Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, personalcommunication). As the total yield of maximumeconomic return is lower than MSY (Gulland 1983),including the precautionary principle in this caseappears both sensible and financially sound.The Ministry estimated that the MSY for Indone-

sia’s capture fisheries amounts to 5 million t, (Ministryof Marine Affairs and Fisheries 2003a,b,c). There arefour earlier studies on MSY: (a) DGF/CRIFI review ofdata from late 1980s by Martosobroto; (b). DGF 1995

review of data from early 1980s; (c). Indonesia/FAO/DANIDA 1995 review of all available data (Venema1996); and (d) a review by Pacific Consultants Inter-national (PCI 2001c). PCI presented six different MSYestimations that varied between 3.67 and 7.7 million t,the most recent estimate dating from 1997 amountingto 6.26 million t. On 25 March 2003, the Committeefor National Fishery Stock Assessment decided toreview this estimate for MSY (Widodo, Wiadnyana &Nugroho 2003).

The conclusion was that MSY estimates varied asmuch as a factor two, whereas the most recent estimatefor the MSY is somewhere in the middle of the lowestand highest estimate, at 5 million t yr)1. According tothe most recent fishery statistics, Indonesia’s produc-tion of marine capture fisheries was 4.4 million t in2002 (Widodo et al. 2003). The question arises as towhether this difference between the MSY and therealised catch means there is a scope to expandIndonesia’s capture fisheries?

Three important problems with the estimation ofMSY should be considered. First, the outcomes of thederivation are only as good as the quality of the fisherystatistics that are being used as inputs. Secondly, themethod is based on a number of assumptions that arerarely met, the two most important being that the fish

Figure 1. Relationship between total annual yield (Y-axis) and total

effort to realise that yield (X-axis) of a hypothetical fishery over a 10-

year period (black dots). The Schaeffer model (a) is a parabola (yield ¼ax effort + bx effort2), where a and b are constants, a ¼ 0.53 and b ¼)1.15 · 10)5. The fishing effort needed to achieve MSY is Maximum

Sustainable Effort (MSE). It follows that MSE ¼ )a/(2b) ¼ 23 007,

whereas MSY ¼ 6100 t. Underexploitation is where the effort is

<MSE, whereas overexploitation is the area where effort is >MSE; in

both under- and overexploitation, the yield is lower thanMSY. The cost

of fishing (b) is assumed to increase linearly with effort. The economic

return of the fishery, i.e. the difference between the yield (a) and the cost

of fishing (b), is maximum at an effort level lower thanMSE (compare c

with d). Graph adapted from Sparre & Venema (1992) and Gulland

(1983).

IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN INDONESIA 261

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

stock is in equilibrium and that the catch-per-unitfishing effort (catch per fishing vessel per day) is a goodindicator for the size of the fish stock. Finally, andunfortunately true for Indonesia, the output is oftenmisinterpreted.

Quality of fishery statistics

Statistics are very difficult to collect, especially inIndonesia’s dispersed multigear and multispecies fish-eries – it is impossible to collect statistics on everycatch that is landed along the 80 000 km of Indonesia’scoastline. A sampling system for collecting fisheriesstatistics was designed nearly 30 years ago. It is basedon measuring some of the daily catches at the villages,after which the average daily catch is multiplied by thenumber of vessels and the number of fishing days to getan estimate for the yearly catch (Yamamoto 1980 inPet-Soede, Machiels, Stam & Van Densen 1999). Var-ious studies demonstrated weaknesses in the fisheriesstatistical system, and these weaknesses are com-pounded by the Ministry’s lack of resources toproperly implement the system (Dudley & Harris1987; Venema 1996). Furthermore, the Ministryacknowledges that there is a huge problem of illegal,unregulated and unreported fishing. Catches realisedthrough illegal, unregulated and unreported are notaccounted for in the statistics. The FAO study repor-ted by Venema (1996) specifically mentions lack ofdata from eastern Indonesia.

A study commissioned by the Ministry (PCI 2001b)recommended: �In viewof the questionable quality of thedata and statistics on fisheries presently being compiled,arising from the reliance of an obsolete data collectionsystem based on a sampling framework and methodo-logy developed about 30 years ago, the governmentshould set up an independent or autonomous data andinformation centre solely responsible for the collection,compilation, analysis, interpretation, reporting anddissemination of fisheries statistics.� The conclusionmust be thatMSYestimates from these flaweddatamustbe treated with extreme caution. This caution is unfor-tunately lacking in current management.

Equilibrium of fish stocks

Schaeffer’s MSY calculation assumes that the fishstocks are in equilibrium, meaning that if the fishingeffort remains constant, the catch and the exploitedfish population will remain constant as well. However,in a developing fishery (a fishery where the fishingeffort is gradually increasing), a fish population willneed time to adjust to the higher fishing effort,

meaning that if the increase in effort would cease, thefish population would continue to decrease over someyears until equilibrium is reached. The time periodneeded to reach equilibrium is unknown. Researchsuggests that many fish stocks have been continuouslydecreasing since they were first exploited, with the fishpopulation being depleted by 80% in the first 15 yearsafter onset of exploitation (Myers & Worm 2003). Thismeans that many fish stocks have never reachedequilibrium. Consequently, applying Schaeffer’s calcu-lation to these catch and effort data would haveseverely overestimated the MSY.

Another example that shows that current catch levelsrarely represent a fishery that is in equilibrium is thefishery for live reef food fish supplying markets in HongKong. This fishery rapidly expanded as fishing groundsaround Hong Kong became depleted (Bentley 1999;Sadovy, Donaldson, Graham, McGilvray, Muldoon,Phillips, Rimmer, Smith &Yeeting 2003). Only after thedamage has been done can it be concluded that thefishing effort in the areas (including in Eastern Indone-sia) that are now depleted of target species, must havebeen too high, i.e. after the stocks have collapsed can itbe concluded that the catch was not from a stock inequilibrium, but froma stock thatwas still declining. It islikely that many of Indonesia’s fisheries are exploitingstocks that are declining instead of being in equilibrium.Therefore, there is a serious risk that current MSYestimates are much higher than the catch that can besustained over the long-term by Indonesia’s fish stocks.

In an equilibrium fishery, a catch higher than MSYis a contradiction in terms. In reality, however, catcheshigher than the estimated MSY sometimes occur (seefor example the two yield observation >MSY inFig. 1), and often these are interpreted as a sign ofoverexploitation. Although catches higher than MSYare certainly a matter of concern, such differences aremore likely to be a result of errors in the data on whichthe MSY estimates were based or of natural variationsin the fish stock, which are common in short-livedpelagic species such as Sardinella longiceps (Val.) orSardinella fimbriata (Val.). Therefore, if the catch turnsout to be higher than earlier MSY estimates, thisshould be understood as evidence that the assumptionsunderlying the MSY estimation were not met, and thatthe MSY should be interpreted with care.

Catch-per-unit-effort as an indicator for stock size

Throughout the world, catch-per-unit-effort data areused to assess the status of the stock. By doing so, it isassumed that as the stock is decreasing gradually smallercatches are landed. The assumption equates fishing to a

P. J. MOUS ET AL.262

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

lottery: if there are fewer prizes in the pot, then there willbe fewer wins. By making this assumption, the adaptiveskills and resourcefulness of fishers are grossly under-estimated. For example, once a fisher is unsatisfied withhis daily catch, he will probably move to other sectionsof the reef where fish is still plentiful. At some time, hemay even switch tomore effective gears, or hemay targetother species that are more plentiful. Fishing continuesunder this scenario until the stocks have been reduced toa level when the fisheries show signs of collapse. Thecollapse of the Canadian Atlantic cod fishery inthe 1990s is such an example, and it resulted in one ofthe worst social and economic catastrophes in Canada’shistory (Walters & Maguire 1996).

Interpretation of Maximum Sustainable Yieldestimates

Another common problem is the interpretation ofMSY estimates, and how current catch levels areused to generate management advice (Gillett 1996).Indonesian fisheries managers have in the pastinterpreted a total catch below the MSY as a signthat there is still scope for further expansion of thefishery. It seems that the difference between Indone-sia’s realised catch of 4.4 million t (2002) and theMSY of 5.0 million t is currently also interpreted inthis way. Policy makers in Indonesia fail to under-stand that the difference may well be an indicationfor overexploitation.Overexploitation means that the effort is so high

that fish do not get the time to grow and reproduce,resulting in a catch that is lower than could havebeen realised with a lower fishing effort (Fig. 1).Hence, an evaluation of the status of the fishery isonly meaningful with consideration of the fishingeffort, and MSY by itself is not suitable as amanagement target. Management should considercurrent effort levels in comparison with the Maxi-mum Sustainable Effort (MSE), i.e. the estimatedeffort at which MSY is achieved. Most analysis forindividual fisheries showed that MSE was alreadysurpassed and that these fisheries therefore wereyielding reduced catches because of overexploitation(i.e. Widodo et al. 2003).The lack of consideration of Indonesia’s fishery

managers for MSE resulted in the lack of a well-defined strategy on how to limit access to Indonesia’sfishery. The current licensing system could be used tolimit access by restricting the number of licenses issued,but so far a limit in terms of fishing capacity has notbeen defined, nor is a procedure in place to stopissuance once such a limit would be reached.

Other indicators on the status of Indonesia’sfisheries

The status of five Indonesian fisheries was assessed bythe Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (Widodoet al. 2003, summarised in Table 1) as showing signs ofoverexploitation. Experts recommended restrictivemeasures (closing of fishing grounds, limiting issuanceof licenses, lower total allowable catches) and reduc-tions in the capacity of the fleet (Widodo 2003).However, after concluding that there was a discrep-ancy between the biological production of Indonesia’sfish stocks and the country’s expectation for highercatches, it was decided that the earlier estimate forIndonesia’s MSY (6.4 million t according to Widodoet al. 2003, which is close to the estimate of 1997) couldstill be achieved by exploring and intensifying fisheriesin waters outside the study area and by exploringunconventional resources, such as deep sea fish stocks.Another was to keep the total effort at its present level.Although the challenged status of Indonesia’s fisherieswas acknowledged by Ministry of Marine Affairs andFisheries (Widodo et al. 2003), the recommendationsand findings were ambiguous: restrictive managementvs further exploration and intensification, and anunfounded belief in the existence of underexploitedstocks, while most if not all studies show that the statusof those fisheries in Indonesia that are assessed is eitheroverexploited or uncertain. Additional recommenda-tions to increase fish production include improvementof post-harvest techniques and technology-basedaquaculture, including genetic manipulation. The Min-istry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (Widodo et al.2003) also recommended that management shouldconsider ecosystems rather than single species, and theneed for better monitoring of fish stocks, habitats andecosystems.

Discussion

Future of fishery management in Indonesiaand the role of Marine Protected Areas

The importance of the issues outlined above washighlighted by a policy document commissioned by theMinistry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (PCI 2001b)that devoted an entire chapter to �De-emphasizingMSY�.Despite this policy recommendation theMinistrystill uses MSY in its communications; potential inves-torsmay be unaware of the uncertainties in the estimatesandmay evenperceive the difference between the currentannual catch and the estimated MSY as an encourage-ment for further investment in capture fisheries.

IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN INDONESIA 263

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

Table

1.Main

conclusionsfrom

theassessm

entoffivemajorIndonesianfisheries(W

idodoet

al.2003)

Fishstock

Statusindicators

Conclusionbyauthors

TunastocksoftheIndianOcean

Hookrate

decreasedfrom

2.2

fish

per

100hooksin

1977to

0.60fish

per

100hooksin

2000.

Individualbodyweightofcatchdecreasedfrom

37kgin

1973

to27kgin

2002.

Effort

increasedfrom

207longliner

unitsin

1971to

619in

2001

Fishersstart

exploitingwaters

outsideIndonesia’sEEZ.

Merta,Susanto

&Prisantoso

(2003)advisethatnonew

licensesshould

beissued

untilthestatusofthestocks

hasbeenclarified.

Red

snapper

intheArafura

andTim

orSeas

Highannualcatch(2000–4000t)ascomparedwiththeestimated

fish

biomass

in1990(6500t).

Badrudin

&Blaber

(2003)advisethatthisfisheryshould

be

closedforatleast

10years.

Dem

ersalfish

stocksoffKalimantan

(South

ChinaSea)

Abundance

indicators

from

trawlsurveys(sweptareamethod)decreased

from

2.4

tkm

)2in

1975,1.8

tkm

)2in

1978,and1.0

tkm

)2in

2002.

Averagebodylength

ofsomespeciesin

thecatchdecreasing

DecreasingCPUEwithincreasingeff

ort

forcommercialgillnetsover

theperiod1991–2001.

Sumiono,Badrudin

&Widodo(2003)concludethatthe

fish

stocksare

fullyexploited,probably

even

overexploited.

Dem

ersalfish

stocksoftheJavaSea

Abundance

indicators

from

trawlsurveys(catchweightper

hourtrawling)

decreasedfrom

171kgper

hourin

1976to

43kgper

hourin

2001.

Speciescompositionin

survey

trawlcatches

ischanging:economically

importantspeciesgroupssuch

asLutjanidae(snappers)

are

being

replacedbyless

valuable

LeiognathidaeandNem

ipteridae.

Atm

adja,Nugroho,Suwarso,Hariati&

Mahisworo

2003

concludethatthisfisheryisfullyexploited.

Pelagic

fish

stocksoftheJavaSeas

Statusofpelagic

fish

stocksuncertain,butpresentlyfishersrealize

catches

thatare

only

60%

ofthecapacity

ofthefleet.

Atm

adja

etal.2003concludethatthisfishery

maybefullyexploited.

P. J. MOUS ET AL.264

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

The concept of MSY has proven to be ineffective inguiding fisheries management, not only in Indonesia,but in many other of the world’s fisheries. It is almostimpossible, or at least prohibitively expensive, to getthe high quality data that are necessary for theestimation of MSY, especially in Indonesia’s multigearand multispecies fishery, and if these data wereavailable then it is likely that the calculation wouldgive overly optimistic estimates of the catch that fishpopulations can sustain over the long-term. It is indeedtime to de-emphasise MSY as a management objective.The policy document commissioned by the Ministry

was also very clear about the status of Indonesia’smarine capture fisheries: �With fisheries facing certaindepletion and imminent collapse, not only in Indonesiabut also throughout the world a continuing emphasis onuncontrolled or unmanaged development and expandedproduction as had been pursued in the country over thelast 30 years is clearly ill advised. To check furtheruncontrolled expansion and reverse over-fishing, adifferent set of fresh policies and strategies is needed�(PCI 2001b). The policy document further recommen-ded to �Create, build and arouse awareness to change theperception and mindset of the people to stop romanti-cising that the country’s seas have over-abundant oroverflowing resources, in particular fisheries resources�(PCI 2001a). In this light, the announcement of the plansto invest in the marine capture fishery around Papua(Jakarta Post 2004) and any other plans to intensifymarine capture fisheries in any part of Indonesia canonly be regarded with the greatest concern.Fishery management is in a crisis, not only Indone-

sia’s fisheries, but elsewhere in the world. Whereasmost (if not all) credible stock assessments concludedthat the status of Indonesia’s fisheries is either uncer-tain or overexploited, the Ministry of Marine Affairsand Fisheries is expected to manage the fishery in sucha way that its contribution to an increase in GNP issomehow realised by ever-increasing catches from alimited resource. Restrictive measures by definitionresult in a short-term decrease in total catch andtherefore in an immediate failure to contribute to theoverall goal of the Ministry. It is unlikely that short-term losses from restrictive management can be offsetby expansion of aquaculture, which requires significantcapital investment, or by exploration of untappedresources, which may not exist or which may not beeconomically viable (as is the case for the fishery forsmall demersal species in some areas, cf. Venema1996). The only way to break through this impasse isby creating an understanding in Indonesian societyand in the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries,that development in capture fisheries should not be

measured by ever-increasing production figures, butrather by a credible effort towards building a profit-able, socially responsible and environmentally soundindustry that sustains livelihoods of present and futuregenerations of coastal communities.

A powerful alternative to MSY-oriented manage-ment is fishery management based on establishingnetworks of MPAs. The International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources defi-nition of a Marine Protected Area is: �an area of tidalor sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying watersand associated flora, fauna and historical and culturalfeatures, which has been reserved by law or othereffective means to protect part or all of the enclosedenvironment�. Besides their function as an instrumentfor biodiversity conservation, MPAs are increasinglyadvocated as a fishery management tool that should beintegrated into coastal zone management plans(Roberts & Hawkins 2000; National Research Council2001; Ward, Heinemann & Evans 2001; Gell &Roberts 2002).

Scientific evidence that MPAs with substantialno-take zones result in higher fish biomass, larger-bodied fish, and a more natural species composition isalready strong (27 studies reviewed in Roberts &Hawkins (2000)). Scientific evidence is growing for themore difficult to demonstrate commercial benefits ofno-take areas (three studies reviewed in Roberts &Hawkins (2000)). Roberts, Bohnsack, Gell, Hawkins &Goodridge (2001) reported that a network of five smallreserves in St Lucia increased adjacent catches oftraditional fisheries by between 46% and 90%,whereas reserve zones in the Merritt Island NationalWildlife Refuge (Florida) supplied increasing numbersof world record-sized fish to adjacent recreationalfisheries since the 1970s. After studying the effects ofclosed areas on the fishery on spiny lobsters in NewZealand, Kelly, Scott & MacDiarmid (2002) concludedthat emigration of juvenile and adults lobsters from theclosed area into adjacent fishing grounds may greatlyreduce the long-term losses of local fishers from lostfishing opportunity. The main reason for the scarcityof field studies that scientifically prove commercialbenefits of MPAs is the difficulty of experimental,replicated research on ecologically meaningful scalesthat includes fisher’s response to closing fishinggrounds. However, the mechanisms that can bededuced from the proven effects on fish populationswithin no-take areas are compelling.

Mechanisms of how increased biomass and bodysize of commercially important species within no-takeareas can provide benefits for commercial fisheries are(cf. Roberts & Hawkins 2000): (i) spill-over of adults

IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN INDONESIA 265

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

and juveniles from no-take areas into surroundingfishing grounds; (ii) export of planktonic eggs andlarvae from no-take areas into surrounding fishinggrounds; (iii) prevention of complete collapse of thestocks of exploited species in case fishery managementin surrounding fishing grounds fails, providing a basisfor population recovery after more effective fisherymanagement in surrounding fishing grounds has beenput in place. Furthermore, MPAs provide a tool forprotection of sensitive sites, such as spawning aggre-gation sites for reef fish (Johannes 1998). Anotheradvantage of MPAs over other fishery managementtools, such as effort, gear and quota regulations, is thatthe effect of closed areas within MPAs may be morestraightforward to explain to stakeholders, especially ifthe closed area includes spawning or nursery grounds.Although costs for establishing and managing net-works of MPAs are substantial, benefits far outweighcosts. A global network of MPAs covering 20–30% ofthe seas globally would cost $5–19 billion per year, butit would increase sustainability of a global marine fishcatch currently worth $70–80 billion annually andsuch a network may help sustain unseen ecosystemservices worth $4.5–6.7 trillion each year (Balmford,Gravestock, Hockley, McClean & Roberts 2004). Theamount needed to establish and manage a globalnetwork of MPAs is less than the amount spent bydeveloped world economies on harmful subsidies toindustrial fisheries ($15–30 billion per year) (Balmfordet al. 2004).

The policy document commissioned by the Minis-try of Marine Affairs and Fisheries recommendeddeclaration of at least 10% of Indonesia’s seas asMPA (PCI 2001a). Recently the Directorate Generalof Coastal Areas and Small Islands showed aninterest to develop a strategy for the establishment ofMarine Protected Area networks in Indonesia and itestablished a forum of governmental and non-governmental agencies, the National Committee onMarine Conservation in Indonesia (Decree 43/P3K/III/2004). This forum comprises a steering committeeand a technical committee with three working groupsthat provide technical input for draft policies focus-ing on development of a National MPA strategy,development of sustainable fisheries management,and development of policies for species and geneticconservation. At the interface of the MPA strategyand sustainable fisheries topics, one of the main rolesand greatest challenges of the technical committeewill be to formulate policy advice to develop moresustainable fisheries through incorporation of MPAnetworks as tools in national as well as local fisheriesmanagement.

In conclusion, the future of Indonesia’s marinecapture fisheries depends on:1 a shift in the Ministry of Marine Affairs andFisheries policy from development-oriented manage-ment towards management for sustainability, wherestabilisation of catches may be acceptable or evendesired and where a decrease in fishing effort may benecessary;2 acceptance in the Ministry of Marine Affairs andFisheries and in Indonesian society as a whole that�untapped resources�, at least in capture marine fisher-ies, may not exist or cannot be exploited profitably;3 acceptance by fisheries managers that any transferof fishing effort from overexploited fisheries to areaswith so-called �untapped resources� is ill-advised andmay contribute to further collapse of local fisheriesrather than to a sustainable increase in GNP;4 a shift in fishery management from relianceon oversimplistic MSY models to ecosystem-basedmanagement, wherein MPAs should play an importantrole.

The National Committee on Marine Conservationin Indonesia will be an important tool to achieve theabove-mentioned necessary policy shifts, if this Com-mittee succeeds in maintaining strong relations withIndonesia’s fishery managers, providing timely, clearand practical policy advice on the basis of currentlyavailable information, avoiding any perception thatMPAs are only suitable for biodiversity conservation,and making a strong case for MPA strategies inecosystem-based management of capture fisheries.

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Gillett and Prof. Hasyim Djalal, Memberof Indonesian Maritime Council and Special Advisorto the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries fortheir valuable comments.

References

Atmadja S.B., Nugroho D., Suwarso, Hariati T., and Ma-

hisworo. (2003) Pengkajian stok ikan di Wilayah Pen-

gelolaan Perikanan (WPP) Laut Jawa [Review of the fish

stocks and fishery of the Java Sea Fishery Management

Area]. In:Widodo J., WiadnyanaN.N. &NugrohoD. (eds)

Prosiding Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut di Perairan Indonesia,

Jakarta, 23–24 Juli 2003. Jakarta: PUSRIPT-BRKP, Min-

istry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, pp. 67–90.

Badrudin A. & Blaber S. (2003) Pengkajian stok sumberdaya

ikan kakap merah di perairan Laut Arafura dan Laut

Timor [Review of red snapper stocks and fishery in the

Arafura and Timor Seas]. In: Widodo J., Wiadnyana N.N.

P. J. MOUS ET AL.266

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

& Nugroho D. (eds) Prosiding Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut

di Perairan Indonesia, Jakarta, 23–24 Juli 2003. Jakarta:

PUSRIPT-BRKP, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fish-

eries, pp. 47–56.

Balmford A., Gravestock P., Hockley N., McClean C.J. &

Roberts C.M. (2004) The worldwide costs of marine pro-

tected areas. Ecology, PNAS 101, 9694–9697.

Bentley N. (1999) Fishing for solutions: can the live trade in

wild groupers and wrasses from Southeast Asia be managed?

Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: TRAFFIC Southeast

Asia, 143 pp.

British Embassy (2004) Fisheries Industry Sector. Available

at: http://www.britain-in-indonesia.or.id/commer6.htm,

accessed on: 4 February 2004.

Dudley R.G. & Harris K.C. (1987) The fisheries statistics

system of Java, Indonesia: operational realities in a

developing country. Aquaculture and Fisheries Manage-

ment 18, 365–374.

Dulvy N.K., Freckleton R.P. & Polunin N.V.C. (2004) Coral

reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator removal

by exploitation. Ecology Letters 7, 410–416.

FAO Fisheries Department (2002) The State of the World

Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Rome: FAO, 150 pp.

Gell F.R. & Roberts C.M. (2002) The Fishery Effects of

Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. Washington, DC:

WWF-US, 89 pp.

Gillett R. (1996)Marine Fisheries Resources and Management

in Indonesia with Emphasis on the Extended Economic Zone.

Workshop Presentation Paper 1, Workshop on Streng-

thening Marine Resource Management in Indonesia,

Jakarta, 23 April 1996, TCP/INS/4553. Rome: FAO, 37 pp.

Gulland J.A. (1983) Fish Stock Assessment. A Manual of

Basic Methods. Chichester: Wiley and Sons, 223 pp.

Hakim A.L. (2004) Perlunya Mereorientasi Paradigma

Pembangunan Kelautan. Kompas, 21 January 2004.

Jakarta Post (2004) Marine firm invests Rp 2t in Papua,

January 14.

Johannes R.E. (1998) Tropical marine reserves should

encompass spawning aggregation sites. Parks 8, 53–54.

Kelly S., Scott D. & MacDiarmid A.B. (2002) The value of a

spillover fishery for spiny lobsters around amarine reserve in

Northern New Zealand. Coastal Management 30, 153–166.

Merta I.G.S, Susanto K. & Prisantoso B.I. 2003. Pengkajian

stok di Samudera Hindia (WPP 4) [Review of fish stocks in

the Indian Ocean (Fishery Management Area 4)]. In:

Widodo J., Wiadnyana N.N. & Nugroho D. (eds) Pro-

siding Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut di Perairan Indonesia,

Jakarta, 23–24 Juli 2003. Jakarta: PUSRIPT-BRKP,

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, pp. 13–29.

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2003a) DKP

Gandeng MPN kaji ulang stok sumberdaya ikan nasional,

March 27, News Release. Available at: http://

www.dkp.go.id/, accessed on: 4 February 2003.

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2003b) DKP

Relokasi Nelayan Pantura. (DKP Relocates Pantura

Fishers), August 25, News Release. Available at: http://

www.dkp.go.id/, accessed on: 4 February 2003.

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2003c) Fact sheet

attached to news release October 13 2003. Presiden Can-

angkan Gerakan Nasional Pembangunan Kelautan dan

Perikanan �GerbangMinaBahari�, NewsRelease. Available

at: http://www.dkp.go.id/, accessed on: 4 February 2003.

Myers R.A. &Worm B. (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of

predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280–283.

National Research Council (2001) Marine Protected Areas.

Tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 272 pp.

PCI (2001a) Study on fisheries development policy formula-

tion, Vol. I. White Paper. Pacific Consultants International

under Jakarta Fishing Port/Market Development Project

(Phase IV: JBIC Loan No. IP-403). Jakarta: PCI, 234 pp.

+ Annexes.

PCI (2001b) Study on fisheries development policy formula-

tion, Vol II. Review and Analysis of Policies and Perform-

ances and Recommendations. Pacific Consultants

International under Jakarta Fishing Port/Market Devel-

opment Project (Phase IV: JBIC Loan No. IP-403).

Jakarta: PCI, 659 pp + Annexes.

PCI (2001c) Study on fisheries development policy formulation.

Volume III. Database for Analysis of Study. Pacific Con-

sultants International under Jakarta Fishing Port/Market

Development Project (Phase IV: JBIC Loan No. IP-403).

Jakarta: PCI, 138 pp.

Pet-Soede C., Machiels M.A.M., Stam M.A. & Van Densen

W.L.T. (1999) Trend in an Indonesian coastal fishery

based on catch and effort statistics and implications for the

perception of the state of the stocks by fisheries officials.

Fisheries Research 42, 41–56.

Roberts C.M. & J.P. Hawkins (2000) Fully-protected Marine

Reserves: A Guide. York, UK: University of York;

Washington, DC: WWF, 131 pp.

Roberts C.M., Bohnsack J.A., Gell F., Hawkins J.P. &

Goodridge R. (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent

fisheries. Science 294, 1920–1923.

Sadovy Y.J., Donaldson T.J., Graham T.R., McGilvray F.,

Muldoon G.J., Phillips M.J., Rimmer M.A., Smith B. &

Yeeting A. (2003) While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food

Fish Trade. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank,

146 pp.

Smith T.D (1988) Stock assessment methods: the first fifty

years. In: J.A. Gulland (ed.) Fish Population Dynamics.

The Implications for Management. Chichester: Wiley and

Sons, pp. 1–33.

Sparre P. & Venema S.C. (1992) Introduction to Tropical Fish

Stock Assessment. Part I – Manual. FAO Fisheries Tech-

nical Paper, Vol. 306/1, 376 pp.

IMPROVING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN INDONESIA 267

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268

Sumiono B., Badrudin & Widodo A. (2003) Pengkajian

kelimpahan dan distribusi sumberdaya ikan demersal di

perairan laut Cina Selatan [Review of the abundance and

distribution of demersal fish stocks in the South China

Sea]. In: Widodo J., Wiadnyana N.N. & Nugroho D. (eds)

Prosiding Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut di Perairan Indonesia.

Jakarta, 23–24 Juli 2003. Jakarta: PUSRIPT-BRKP,

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, pp. 57–66.

Venema S.C. (ed.) (1996) Report on the Indonesia/FAO/

DANIDA Workshop on the assessment of the potential of

the marine fishery resources of Indonesia. GCP/INT/575/

DEN. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Vol. 338, 42 pp. +

Annexes.

Walters C. & Maguire J.J. (1996) Lessons for stock assess-

ment from the northern cod collapse. Reviews in Fish

Biology and Fisheries 6, 125–137.

Ward T.J., Heinemann D. & Evans N. (2001) The Role of

Marine Reserves as Fisheries Management Tools: A Review

of Concepts, Evidence and International Experience.

Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Rural Sciences, 192 pp.

Widodo J. (2003) Pengkajian stok sumber daya ikan laut

Indonesia tahun 2002 [Review of Indonesia’s marine

fishery of 2002]. In: Widodo J., Wiadnyana N.N. & Nu-

groho D. (eds) Prosiding Forum Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut

di Perairan Indonesia. Jakarta, 23–24 Juli 2003. Jakarta:

PUSRIPT-BRKP, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fish-

eries, pp. 1–12.

Widodo J., Wiadnyana N.N. & Nugroho D. (2003) Prosiding

Forum Pengkajian Stok Ikan Laut di Perairan Indonesia.

Jakarta: PUSRIPT-BRKP, Ministry of Marine Affairs and

Fisheries, 99 pp.

P. J. MOUS ET AL.268

� 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 259–268