I

n the follow-up to the maritime doctrine of President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo, problems of transborder fishing have immediately emerged at the center of public discourse. The arrest of around 200 fishers, allegedly Malaysians, near the Natuna and Derawan islands stimulated debate over the government'€™s policy of burning the boats involved in illegal border trespassing.

The Indonesian media inevitably tends to frame the issue in the more nationalistic or patriots sense as part of reviving Indonesian maritime power in defending territorial sovereignty.

On the other hand, the Malaysian media revives the idea of shared nationhood with Indonesia based on shared ancestry, or bangsa serumpun, in condemning the policy.

Furthermore, the threat of boat burning seemingly gains supports from the Indonesian public as expressed in the framing of Indonesian media as well as in social media discussions.

One of the compelling reasons for the discourse is the threat of illegal fishing, which not only was perceived to be harming the Indonesian fisheries economy, but also causing the complexity leading to the stagnant poverty of Indonesian fisher communities.

In the Indonesian Defense White Paper in 2003, following the issuance of the Law on National Defense No.3/2002, illegal fishing was identified as one of the threats to Indonesian security and defense.

Unsurprisingly, in efforts to rebuild Indonesian maritime power, the government re-identifies fisheries as one of its policy priorities. In the current discourse, the pillars of Indonesian maritime power focus on shipping, tourism and recreation and the fisheries.

But in the Australian Fishing Zone, the burning of boats belonging to illegal Indonesian fishers has been blamed for impoverishing small-scale Indonesian fishers. Their illegal actions have been attributed to the high motivation of paying debts, despite the risks.

In Indonesia alone, problems of pollution, the safety of fishers and the budget of the operations are some of the concerns raised by the opponents of this policy.

Through the lens of a security approach, boat burning symbolizes the execution of a state'€™s territorial sovereignty. Some might argue that the act is normal conduct and has been accepted as a part of customary law in security terms. Yet from the socio-anthropology perspective, transborder fishing is far more complex than being solely a violation of a state'€™s territorial sovereignty.

Historically, transborder fishing prevailed long before the concept of a modern nation-state, as well as the undocumented, unreported and illegal (UUI) fishing that is understood today. The word '€œtrans'€ suggests that fishing was already practiced beyond the national space of fishers. It is the location of the fishing grounds that determines the fishing practices.

The livelihood of sea nomads, for example the Bajo people living around the sea border of Indonesia and Malaysia in Kalimantan and the Orang Laut living in the sea border of Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in Riau islands, reveals the idea of fluid national identity or even statelessness in everyday practices.

The Indonesian fishers fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone, such as the Bajon, Makassarese, Bugisnese, Maduranese and Roti islanders, continuously share their strong affiliation to the people of Pulau Pasir (Ashmore Reef), although the island is legally under the sovereignty of Australia.

In their study referring to transborder fishing, Dedi S. Adhuri and Leontine E. Visser underlined the challenge of the Indonesian government in regulating the issue. Its complexity suggests the need to go beyond a state-centrist approach to handling the transborder fishing and look for a trans-disciplinary approach.

Even though sending such strong signals to elevate the capability of maritime border control is needed, it is important for the Indonesian government to consciously understand the complexity of transborder fishing in reality. Careful examination must be conducted before burning boats as a last resort.

The difference between subsistence and greed in commercial fishing must be taken into consideration. The emotional '€œnationalistic'€ framing by both Indonesian and Malaysian media, as well as the immigration authorities'€™ assessment of fishers'€™ citizenship, reveal the limits of using national identity to address the real problem of UUI fishing. There is a need for a shared history and the prevailing notion of transborder identity.

Rampant illegal fishing in Indonesian waters by foreign boats is driven by complex problems, from the depletion of fish stocks off the home coasts of the fishermen, lack of control over fishing permits, the policy of transshipment, the lack of government incentives in developing fish-processing industries, to the lack of surveillance in Indonesian waters.

Improving these conditions is the key to overcoming the problem of UUI fishing in Indonesian waters.

To avoid the repetitive threat of the '€œtragedy of the commons'€ as described by Garett Hardin in 1968, fisheries management must transform from the conventional wisdom of common-property resources to that of common-pool resources to ensure sustainability of the sea resources. Despite treating sea resources as common property, all stakeholders must realize that exploitation by one actor would constrain its allocation for others.

Fisheries management requires transborder governance that depends on multilateral cooperation.

The location of fishing grounds and the nationality of the fishers that are frequently beyond their national space requires the shared responsibilities of authorities from the states-of-origin of the boats and fishers.

Sustainability of marine resources must fall under the shared responsibilities of all beneficiaries. Regulation of fish stocks under the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), for example, has adopted this idea. The principle of reciprocity must be appreciated.

On one hand, Indonesia must take responsibility in '€œfishing out'€ activities or fishing by Indonesian fishers and boats in other states'€™ waters, such as regards the control of fishing permits and improvement of public service to fishers as well as labor conditions in the fisheries.

There is a report of modern Indonesian boats conducting illegal fishing far away in the Pacific while Indonesia does nothing to improve provision of fishing permits.

On the other hand, Indonesia wishes to exercise strict control of '€œfishing in'€, or fishing by other foreign boats and fishers in Indonesian waters. The threat of boat-burning might be necessary in a proportional manner to give a strong message of strengthening Indonesian maritime surveillance.

In such events, boat-burning must consider environmental problems and the deportation of the fishers must be conducted safely.

The writer lectures in international relations at the Paramadina Graduate School of Diplomacy, Paramadina University in Jakarta, and is a doctoral student at the Institute for Asia and African Studies, Humboldt University of Berlin