IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16273-d1287121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Paradox of Privatization in Inland Fisheries Management: Lessons from a Traditional System

Author

Listed:
  • Irkhamiawan Ma’ruf

    (Study Program of Natural Resources and Environmental Management Science, Postgraduate School, IPB University, Kampus IPB Baranangsiang, Bogor 16151, Indonesia
    Study Program of Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang, Palembang 30263, Indonesia)

  • Mohammad Mukhlis Kamal

    (Department of Aquatic Resources Management, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia)

  • Arif Satria

    (Department of Communication Science and Community Development, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia)

  • Sulistiono

    (Department of Aquatic Resources Management, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia)

  • Alin Halimatussadiah

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia)

  • Yudi Setiawan

    (Department of Conservation of Forest Resources and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia)

Abstract

Privatization, often proposed as a means to regulate natural resource use, sometimes paradoxically leads to overexploitation and social exclusion. Within the unique context of Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI) Regency, Indonesia, the privatization of swamp floodplains and rivers via the “Lelang Lebak, Lebung, Sungai” (L3S) system is a testament to this dilemma. L3S grants auction winners exclusive rights to fish, thereby privatizing common-pool resources. This study delves into the intricacies of the L3S mechanism, highlighting its significance in guiding inland fisheries’ management. Through stakeholder analysis, we pinpoint the crucial actors, as well as their interests, influence, and interrelationships. Our investigation revealed 20 distinct stakeholders, each playing different roles within the L3S framework. Based on their influence and vested interests, these stakeholders are categorized as key players, subjects, context setters, and crowds. This classification aids in discerning potential conflicts, cooperation, and synergies. Effective L3S execution hinges on collaboration, especially with pivotal entities such as fishery services, village and district heads, and village-owned enterprises. Insights gathered during the study indicate that while privatization has streamlined resource distribution, it intensifies overfishing and deepens socioeconomic divisions. This study calls for a harmonious blend of historical insights and modern governance, with a central focus on stakeholder collaboration and community involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Irkhamiawan Ma’ruf & Mohammad Mukhlis Kamal & Arif Satria & Sulistiono & Alin Halimatussadiah & Yudi Setiawan, 2023. "The Paradox of Privatization in Inland Fisheries Management: Lessons from a Traditional System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16273-:d:1287121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16273/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16273/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinkerton, Evelyn & Davis, Reade, 2015. "Neoliberalism and the politics of enclosure in North American small-scale fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 303-312.
    2. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    3. Eranga K. Galappaththi & James D. Ford & Elena M. Bennett, 2020. "Climate change and adaptation to social-ecological change: the case of indigenous people and culture-based fisheries in Sri Lanka," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 279-300, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    4. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Shirvani Dastgerdi, Ahmadreza & Sargolini, Massimo & Broussard Allred, Shorna & Chatrchyan, Allison Morrill & Drescher, Michael & DeGeer, Christopher, 2022. "Climate change risk reduction in cultural landscapes: Insights from Cinque Terre and Waterloo," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    6. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    7. Song, Andrew, 2018. "Reconstructing Governability: How Fisheries Are Made Governable," MarXiv zavwc, Center for Open Science.
    8. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    9. repec:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:153-176 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    13. Edossa, D. C. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele, 2005. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H038765, International Water Management Institute.
    14. Cécile Barnaud & Annemarie van Paassen, 2013. "Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management," Post-Print hal-01386409, HAL.
    15. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    16. Segadlo, Nadine, 2021. "Navigating through an external agenda and internal preferences: Ghana's national migration policy," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    17. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    18. Philip A. Loring, 2022. "Regenerative food systems and the conservation of change," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 701-713, June.
    19. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    20. Hjorthen, Sofie L. & Sund, Erik R. & Skalická, Věra & Eikemo, Terje Andreas & Getz, Linn Okkenhaug & Krokstad, Steinar, 2022. "Trends in absolute and relative educational inequalities in health during times of labour market restructuring in coastal areas: The HUNT Study, Norway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    21. Edossa, D. C. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele & Namara, Regassa E. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A., 2007. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H040692, International Water Management Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16273-:d:1287121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.