I

ndonesian waters represent some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Yet many of the country’s fishing communities struggle to compete with widespread illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing — accounting for a loss of nearly half their revenue of roughly US$4 billion.

Considering that 63 million citizens rely on fishing as a source of income, this problem merits serious attention.

To avoid the significant losses associated with illegal fishing, Indonesia must make greater efforts to protect its fishing grounds to prevent overfishing, ensure more revenue for fishermen abiding by the rules and develop a way to manage fishery resources more sustainably.

Indonesia’s large sea territory — nearly 5.8 million square kilometers — makes it particularly vulnerable to illegal fishing. Each year, close to 5,000 illegal fishing vessels operate in Indonesia’s waters. That area is significantly larger if we include the economic exclusive zone.

Consequently, overfishing — a classic example of “the tragedy of the commons” that results from open access — is rampant. In some areas, the illegal fishing vessels are shameless enough to encroach into the 3-mile coastal zone reserved exclusively for traditional fishing.

Without proper management, these publicly available fish stocks are depleted over time. The majority of Indonesian fishermen use traditional methods with non-motorized boats, and they already are experiencing the effects of overfished waters. Their catches have been in steady decline over last two decades, and local fishing communities are becoming progressively poorer as their incomes continue to go down.

Moreover, the Navy, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry (MMAF) and Indonesian Police, who all patrol Indonesian waters, lack the ships and money required to adequately monitor the nation’s vast fishing grounds.

Our lack of sea power for fisheries law enforcement was unpleasantly exposed in an embarrassing incident last year when three Indonesian fishery officers were detained by a Malaysian patrol boat and quick-response helicopter after the officers attempted to confiscate five Malaysian fishing boats operating in Indonesian waters.

Can Indonesia afford the cost of protecting its fishing grounds? A cost benefit analysis stipulates that Indonesia should proceed with investment when the benefits outweigh the cost. In this case, additional yearly spending of less than $2 billion is justified if it means we stop the $2 billion in annual losses to our fisheries revenue. Although we will need to pay for ships, crews, training and operating expenses, the larger economic impact can be a net gain.

The benefits of investing in additional surveillance and patrol boats have been illustrated by a recent case in Natuna Island. After the MMAF introduced light fishery patrol boats there, the size and amount of catches has risen sharply and Regent Raja Amirullah said the income of most local fishermen has increased roughly 600 percent!

Clearly, the elimination of illegal fishing there has created an economic payback. With his community heavily dependent on fishing, Amirullah has requested additional fishery patrol boats to further revive the Natuna economy.

This example demonstrates how the simple act of asserting economic sovereignty by patrolling waters has made an impact on alleviating the widespread poverty in fishing villages. Not only would this provide Indonesia the chance to increase its economic growth by creating greater fishery revenues, it would also revive the local economies where it is needed most.

If this model is followed, Indonesia should consider its tight state budget and only use small and light ships that are more affordable to both purchase and operate. Cheaper ships mean there could be a larger fleet covering more area with greater patrol frequency.

The use of these ships could not only help with the problem of overfishing, but also offer the added benefit of more jobs for the country’s shipbuilding industry — thereby giving an additional boost to the economy.

With the illegal fishing problem under control, Indonesia could exercise sustainable fishery management, a practice designed to help assess fish stocks and adjust the management of fishing operations and licensing to ensure overfishing and depleted stocks do not become an issue in the future.

Smart fishery management principles dictate that Indonesia should reduce fishing activities in some fisheries management areas that have recently been overfished and increase its effort in some other areas that still have additional capacity. Hence, we can increase overall fish production without putting unnecessary stress on our marine resources.

Eliminating illegal fishing could have a big impact on not only Indonesia’s fish industry but also poverty alleviation in fishing communities, and offer renewed meaning for many in the Indonesian Navy’s motto: “Jalesveva Jayamahe” (on the sea we are glorious).

This writer is an economist focused on energy and the environment at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, the US.