Hot Water Rising, World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Fisheries and Coastal Communities

The Impact of Climate Change on Indonesia’s
Hot Water Rising
HOT WAT ER RI S I NG
© 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Rights and Permissions

Development / The World Bank The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The
1818 H Street NW World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this
Washington DC 20433 work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial
Telephone: 202-473-1000 purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.
Internet: www.worldbank.org
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights,
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank, the should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA;
Indonesia, and the University of British Columbia. The findings, fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not
necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Suggested Citation:
Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. Kaczan, D, Nurhabni, F, Cheung, W, Frölicher, T, Kuswardani, A,
Lam, V, Muawanah, U, Puspasari, R, Reygondeau, G, Sumaila,
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, U, and Teh, L (2023). Hot Water Rising: The Impact of Climate
completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and Change on Indonesia’s Fisheries and Coastal Communities. The
does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or World Bank, Washington, D.C.
discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the
use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or
conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations,
and other information shown on any map in this work do not
imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning
the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or
acceptance of such boundaries.
Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to

be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities
of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.
A collaborative partnership: Supported by:
2
H OT WATE R R ISING
Table of Contents
Foreword 6
Acknowledgments 8
Acronyms 9
Executive Summary 10
Summary of Policy Options for Resilience 18
1 Introduction 22
2 Indonesia’s Fisheries
2.1. A Complex and Critical Sector
2.2. Fisheries’ Foundation: Marine and Coastal Assets
28
28
31
3 The Climate Challenge

3.1. Impacts on Indonesia’s Oceans
3.2. Implications for Indonesia’s Fisheries
36
36
39
3.3. Economic Effects of Climate Change on Fisheries 43
4 The Vulnerability of Coastal Communities 50
5 The Path Forward

5.1. Possibilities for Indonesia’s Fishing Future
5.2. Strategies for a ‘Blue-Fish’ World
56
56
57
5.2.1. Protected Ecosystems 60
5.2.2. Climate-Resilient Fisheries 62
5.2.3. Empowered Communities 66
5.3. Financing a Resilient Ocean Economy 69
5.4. An Integrated and Community-Focused Approach 70
6 Conclusion
References
76
79
Annex 1: Focal Species Used in Analysis 84
3
Figures
Figure 1. E.S The projected catch of fish species in Indonesian waters under climate change 13
Figure 2. E.S Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors 13
Figure 3. E.S Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP 14
Figure 4 Estimated climate impacts on fisheries and dependence on fisheries for food security globally 23
Figure B1.1 Indonesia’s vulnerability to climate impacts 25
Figure B1.2 Indonesia’s readiness for climate impacts 25
Figure 5 Global marine capture production by major producer countries 29
Figure 6 Fisheries as a proportion of GDP versus regional peer countries 29
Figure 7 Spatial variation in Indonesia’s catch 29
Figure 8 Status of Indonesia’s fisheries, 2017-2022 29
Figure 9 Key concentrations of marine and coastal ecosystems across Indonesia 32
Figure 10 Temperature increase in Indonesia’s oceans 37
Figure 11 Hotspots of warming in Indonesia’s oceans 37
Figure 12 Projected physical and chemical changes in Indonesia’s oceans 38
Figure 13 Change in habitat suitability for fish species in Indonesia’s waters 42
Figure 14 The projected catch of fish species in Indonesian waters under climate change 43
Figure 15 Projected change in economic returns to Indonesia’s fisheries by region 44
Figure 16 Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors 46
Figure 17 Regional comparison of vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries 51
Figure 18 Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP 53
Figure B6.1 Coastal flood risk map for Indonesia 53
Figure 19 A stylized depiction of Indonesia’s future under a ‘Blue-Fish’ world 57
Figure B7.1 Perceived most important adaptation actions 59
Figure B13.1 Integrated and complementary activities: The example of the Oceans for Prosperity 71
(LAUTRA) Project
4
H OT WATE R R ISING
Tables
Table 1 Focal species at the highest risk of disappearance from Indonesian fisheries 41
Table 2 Projected change in catch, fishing revenue, costs, and economic returns 44
Table 3 Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors 45
Table B7.1 Risks perceived as associated with climate adaptation strategies 60
Boxes
Box 1. E.S Objectives of this Report 11
Box 2 Indonesia’s Climate Vulnerability and Readiness: A Global Comparison 25
Box 3 Climate Scenarios used in this Report 39
Box 4 Climate Impacts on Fisheries: A Summary of Modeling Methods 40
Box 5 Quantifying Climate Vulnerability at National and WPP scales 51
Box 6 Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Indonesia’s Coastal Communities 53
Box 7 Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Adaptation Strategies 58
Box 8 What Makes Climate-resilient Fisheries Management Different? 63
Box 9 Extreme Weather and Fishing Safety 65
Box 10 Short-term Forecasts for Climate-resilience: The Case of Australian Bluefin Tuna 66
Box 11 The Coastal Resilience Village Development Program (Pengembangan Kawasan 67

Pesisir Tangguh)
Box 12 Social Protection and Formalization for Small-Scale Fishers: The Moroccan Experience. 68
Box 13 Building Resilience in ‘Packages’: Leveraging Complementarities between Investments 71
5
Foreword
Victor Gustaaf Manoppo

Director General for Marine Spatial Management
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
As a tropical country, Indonesia would face more severe We expect that this study can support the mainstreaming
climate change impacts than other regions, particularly the of climate change control actions in the implementation of
fisheries sector. Climate change will adversely impact our Indonesia’s blue economy policy. This policy includes five
fishery resources, threatening food security, fishers’ safety, priority programs: (1) expansion of marine protected areas;
conservation and biodiversity, and will affect the economy (2) quota-based capture fisheries; (3) development of coastal,
generated by the marine and fisheries sector. Therefore, marine, and inland aquaculture; (4) sustainable management
Indonesia needs effective management strategies to reduce of coastal and small islands; and (5) marine plastic
climate change impacts in the fisheries sector. Specifically, waste management.
we need management that is based on science and considers
broader socioeconomic and ecosystem components. Ultimately, this report is a tangible manifestation of the
Government of Indonesia’s commitment to encouraging the
Unfortunately, only a few studies are intended to address inclusion of ocean issues in climate change (ocean-climate
climate change impacts on the fisheries sector in Indonesia. nexus) towards achieving the Indonesian Nationally Determined
Recognizing such issues, this report provides assessment and Contribution (NDC) adaptation target. Specifically, the report
policy recommendations to tackle climate change impacts on can provide input for stakeholders in implementing climate
fisheries and coastal communities in Indonesia. Specifically, it change adaptation actions and contribute to improving the
finds that the maximum catch potential in 2050 is projected resilience of coastal and small island communities, especially
to decrease by 20-30 percent under a high-emission scenario fisheries communities.
and by 5-20 percent under a low-emission scenario compared
to 2010. Consequently, economic income from fisheries is I express my utmost appreciation to the team from the
projected to decline by 15 to 26 percent in the absence of Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the
adaptation measures. This study also provides a vulnerability University of British Columbia (UBC), and the World Bank,
assessment of Indonesia’s coastal communities based on with support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
an analysis that integrates fisheries modeling results with for this study.
socioeconomic indicators. A series of policy options to support
resilience in Indonesia’s fisheries and coastal communities are
presented to complement these analyses. Victor Gustaaf Manoppo
Jakarta, October 2022
6
H OT WATE R R ISING
We need management that is

based on science and considers
broader socioeconomic and
ecosystem components to
reduce climate change impacts
in the fisheries sector.
7
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by a joint research team from the World Bank, the
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia (MMAF), and
the University of British Columbia (UBC), with the support of the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation (Packard) and the PROBLUE Multi-Donor Trust Fund.
The report’s authors are David Kaczan (Senior Economist, World Bank), Fegi
Nurhabni (Deputy Director for Disaster Mitigation and Climate Change Adaptation,
MMAF), William W. L. Cheung (Professor and Canada Research Chair, UBC),
Thomas Frölicher (Professor, UNIBE), Anna Kuswardani (Head of Delivery Unit for
the Minister, MMAF), Vicky W.Y. Lam (Research Associate, UBC), Umi Muawanah
(Senior Researcher, BRIN), Reny Puspasari (Senior Researcher, BRIN), Gabriel
Reygondeau (Research Associate, UBC), U. Rashid Sumaila (University Killam
Professor and Canada Research Chair, UBC), and Lydia Teh (Research Associate,
UBC). The authors received valuable support from Januar Putra (Advisor, Packard),
Chad English (Program Officer, Packard), John Claussen (Program Officer, Packard)
and Mathias Aschwanden (PhD Student, UNIBE).
Reviews were gratefully received from Yadranka Farida (Natural Resources

Management Specialist), Andrew Harvey (Senior Fisheries Consultant),
Charlotte De Fontaubert (Sr. Fisheries Specialist), Diji Chandrasekharan Behr (Sr.
Environmental Specialist), Gunilla Greig (Sr. Fisheries Specialist), Julien Million
(Sr. Fisheries Specialist), Berengere Prince (Lead Natural Resources Specialist),
and Jacqueline Alder (Sr. Marine and Fisheries Consultant) all of the World Bank..
Additional technical input was provided by Zahra Didarali (Climate Change
Consultant), Neel Inamdar (Blue Finance Consultant), and Stephanie Tam (Senior
Climate Specialist). Sandra Sari (Program Assistant) and Shella Adelina (Team
Assistant) provided team support. Report preparation and finalization was by
Zubair Qamar (Editor), Reidinar Wardoyo (Communications Specialist), and David
Irianto (Visual Designer).
From the MMAF, the team thanks Muhammad Yusuf (Director of Coastal and Small
Islands Utilization), Barnard Ceisaro Purba (Sub Coordinator of Climate Change
Adaptation), Rini Widayanti (Climate Change Adaptation Analyst), Marselius
Fransiskus Talahatu (Climate Change Adaptation Analyst), and Eko Wibisono
(Climate Change Adaptation Analyst) for their support. The team also would
like to thank Muhammad Firdaus Agung Kunto Kurniawan (Director of Marine
Conservation and Biodiversity) for his review.
From the World Bank, the team thanks Satu Kristiina Kahkonen (Country Director,
Indonesia), Bolormaa Amgaabazar (Operations Manager, Indonesia), Ann Jeannette
Glauber (Practice Manager), Giovanni Ruta (Lead Environmental Economist), Andre
Rodrigues Aquino (Program Leader) and Ambroise Brenier (Senior Natural Resource
Management Specialist) for guidance and support.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation provided the primary funding for this
work. Additional funding was provided by the PROBLUE Multi-Donor Trust Fund
administered by the World Bank. This product was developed in support of the
Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan Sejahtera, LAUTRA) project, an investment by MMAF
in Indonesia’s coastal ecosystems and communities in Eastern Indonesia, with the
support of the World Bank, PROBLUE, and the Government of Canada.
Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
8
H OT WATE R R ISING
Acronyms
AMDAL Environmental Impact Assessment

BLU Badan Layanan Umum
BMKG Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika
BRIN Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional
CCDP Coastal Communities Development Project
CIMP6 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6
CMMAI Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Investment
COAST Caribbean Ocean and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility
COREMAP Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program
DTKS Data Terpadu Kesejahteran Sosial
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
FAD Fishery Aggregating Device
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FMA Fisheries Management Areas
FPAT FAO Fishery Performance Assessment Tool
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIA Geospatial Information Agency
GPS Global Program on Sustainability
IFC International Finance Corporation
LAUTRA Oceans for Properity Project
LPP Lembaga Pengolaan Perikanan
MCP Maximum Catch Potential
MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry
MoF Ministry of Finance
MPA Marine Protected Area
MPWH Ministry of Public Works and Housing
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield
MTCE Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
NPP Net Primary Productivity
NR Natural Resources
PKH Program Keluarga Harapan
PKPT Pengembangan Kawasan Pesisir Tangguh
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization
RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional
SBT Southern Bluefin Tuna
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SISNERLING Integrated System of Environmental-Economic Accounts
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TURF Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries
UPP Unit Pengelola Perikanan
VMS Vessel Monitoring System
WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan
9
Nusa Penida Island, Bali

Photo: © freepik.com
Executive Summary
Rising ocean temperatures are a challenge for Indonesia and many
countries worldwide.
Oceans underpin With 17,504 islands, 108,000 kilometers of coastline, and three-quarters of its territory at
Indonesia’s prosperity but sea,1 Indonesia’s prosperity is deeply entwined with its oceans. Yet the future for Indonesia’s
will be impacted by climate oceans, like those worldwide, is increasingly uncertain. Climate change is driving increases in
change water temperatures, storm severity, and sea level rise, causing shifts in coastal ecosystems and
fisheries. These trends pose challenges for Indonesia’s ocean economy and the people it supports.
Indonesia’s fisheries are on Indonesia’s fisheries are at the center of these challenges. The fisheries sector contributes
the front line US$26.9 billion annually to the national economy (around 2.6 percent of GDP), 50 percent of the
country’s protein, and over 7 million jobs (World Bank 2021). The impact of climate change on the
fisheries sector will thus have important implications for livelihoods, food security, and economic
growth. While this is true around the world, few countries have fishery resources as vast as
Indonesia’s or depend as much as Indonesia does on fisheries for jobs and protein.
Indonesia recognizes the As this report highlights, the importance of ensuring productive and sustainable fisheries in
importance of a resilient the face of a changing climate is well-recognized. The Government of Indonesia is taking steps
ocean economy toward a climate-resilient marine and coastal economy through investment in infrastructure,
technology, capacity-building, and governance. Strategies and actions are outlined in the
Enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the Climate Resilient Development Policy 2020-
2045, and the List of Priority Locations and Climate Resilient Actions prepared by the Ministry of
National Development Planning (Bappenas). Climate resilience is being prioritized by the Ministry
of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF).
1 Statistics from 2018 reference data by the Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Investment (CMMAI).
10
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
Research is needed to guide Yet the knowledge base for climate-resilient policy and investments remains relatively thin in
planning and investments Indonesia and worldwide. Research is needed for managers to predict changes in fish stocks and
fishery value chains and make informed responses. Governments need to be able to pinpoint the
coastal communities that are most vulnerable. The private sector needs to understand trends
and risks to make sound investments. This report aims to provide such knowledge through a
world-first sub-national, species-specific assessment of climate change impacts, drawing on
cutting-edge oceanic modeling techniques (Box E.S.1).
Climate-induced changes in ocean conditions will drive shifts in

Indonesia’s fisheries.
Indonesia’s sea surface Indonesia’s oceans have warmed by around 0.18°C per decade over the past 30 years, a total of
temperatures are expected over half a degree Celsius (C). The warming will continue. Sea surface temperatures are expected
to warm by 1.39 - to increase by 1.39 ± 0.39 °C under a low global emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6), and by 3.68 ±
3.68 °C by end-century 0.86 °C under a high global emissions scenario (SSP1-8.5), by end-century relative to 1850-1900.
relative to preindustrial This long-term warming trend will be punctuated by short-term and localized extremes. Marine
times heatwaves—temporary hot spikes in ocean temperature—are expected to increase in duration
from the typical 1-6 months seen today to 11-12 months by 2050.
This study analyzes the impacts of these temperature rises on the economics of the fishery
sector. Four complementary analyses are applied to a selection of 54 “focal species,” chosen
Advanced modeling because of their critical role within Indonesia’s industrial and artisanal fisheries. These include
techniques are used to shrimp, tuna, varied reef fish, and sardinella species (see Annex 1). The first stage of the
determine the implications analysis determines which species are most vulnerable, given their biological characteristics
for fisheries and projected changes in ocean conditions. The second stage determines how species’ ranges
will change, i.e., where those species are expected to migrate. The third stage estimates change
in maximum catch potential (i.e., fish harvests) given the shifting species distribution and
abundance. Finally, the economic implications—costs, revenues, and profits—are projected under
different climate and management scenarios.
Box 1. E.S: Objectives of this Report
D
rawing on recent climate impacts and maintain progress towards development
and ecological modeling goals. The policy options are selected not only to help
advances, this report Indonesia’s fisheries and coastal communities survive in a
provides a world-first sub- climate-impacted world but to thrive. That is, even if the
national and species-specific predicted climate impacts are less severe than expected,
assessment of the impact of the suggested options should still deliver benefits. For
climate change on fisheries this reason, the report focuses on the institutions and
and marine habitats. The systems that underpin the fishery sector’s management
report assesses how projected and productivity and the broader economic conditions of
temperature changes will alter ocean conditions and coastal communities.
the abundance and distribution of key species across
Indonesia’s waters. Based on these results, it estimates The report results from a scientific partnership between
changes in fish catch and economic outcomes at different the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, the University
levels of fishery management performance. The report then of British Columbia, and the World Bank, supported by the
integrates fishery modeling results with socio-economic David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the PROBLUE
indicators to quantify the vulnerability of Indonesia’s Trust Fund.
coastal communities across the archipelago. Source: Authors.
Based on these findings, a set of policy options is offered for

a more resilient future for Indonesia’s fisheries and coastal
communities. These options aim to support governments,
the private sector, and civil society adapt to climate
11
Average maximum catch potential The modeling shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature increases are
could decline by 20-30 percent under driving changes in ocean conditions, with ocean pH, oxygen levels, and salinity levels
a high climate change scenario all declining. The most impacted species are demersal species (those that live or feed
near the bottom) in shallow waters and some pelagic species. In aggregate, maximum
catch potential is projected to decrease by 20 to 30 percent under the high emissions
scenario by 2050 relative to 2010.2 The low climate change scenario sees declines of
up to 20 percent in some regions, and 5-15 percent in most regions, by 2050 (Figure
E.S.1). The most affected species include some of those critical to artisanal and
industrial-scale fisheries, including yellowstrip and Bali sardinella (Sardinella gibbosa
and S. lemuru), torpedo scad (Megalaspis cordyla), mackerels (Scomberomorus
commerson and S. guttatus), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis).
Reductions in catch reduce revenues, but strong management can

offset losses.
Climate change could decrease In line with the projected reductions, total economic returns (considering changes in
economic returns to fisheries by both revenues and costs) are projected to decrease by between 15 and 26 percent
15-26 percent by 2050 under low emission and high emission scenarios, respectively, across the Indonesian
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), by mid-century. Impacts are slightly worse for the
small-scale sector (17-19 percent reductions under the low emissions scenario) than
for the large-scale sector (13-14 percent) mostly because species caught by the
small-scale sector are more vulnerable than those caught by the large-scale sector.
Climate effects interact with While these effects are substantial, climate change is not the only or even the main
fishery management effectiveness determinant of a fishery’s productivity. Fishing effort levels, which are controlled
by the management regime, are also critical. Overfished stocks can be expected
to see a greater reduction due to negative climate change impacts. This contrasts
with outcomes for underfished stocks, which have a “buffer” against climate change.
Projected economic losses under poor management (i.e., 20 percent overfishing)
suggest incremental losses in the small-scale sector of 28-30 percent in 2050
relative to the present (low emissions scenario). More severe overfishing could lead
to losses of up to 60 percent. Stocks in such a scenario are placed under severe
pressure by climate change; overfishing then pushes these stocks to the point of
collapse. However, this is a worst-case scenario. Given improvements in Indonesia’s
fishery management system over recent years (and provided these trends continue),
overfishing is unlikely to reach such levels.
2 The baseline period for comparative analysis is the average of conditions between 1991-2010.
12
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1. E.S: The projected catch of fish species in Indonesian waters under climate change
Change in maximum catch potential (MCP) by mid-century (2030-2050) under RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios.
2030-2050, RCP2.6 2030-2050, RCP8.5
MCP change compared to 1981-2015 (%)
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 -25 50
Notes and source: MCP change is relative to recent historical catch (1985-2015). RCP = Representative Concentration Pathway. RCP8.5 should be
considered a high bound on climate impacts, and RCP2.6 a low bound. Estimation by authors.
Figure 2. E.S: Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors
Percentage change in economic returns (revenues less costs) by 2050 relative to current returns by sub-sector (small and large scale), region
(Indonesia’s eastern, central, and Indian ocean waters) and management scenarios.
Large-scale sector; low climate change scenario Small-scale sector; low climate change scenario
0.5* MSY 0.8* MSY MSY 1.2* MSY 1.5* MSY 0.5* MSY 0.8* MSY MSY 1.2* MSY 1.5* MSY
20 20
0 0
Profit Change (%)
Profit Change (%)
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
Eastern Central Indian Ocean Eastern Central Indian Ocean
Source: Estimation by authors. The small-scale sector refers to vessels relying on sail or outboard engines for propulsion and fishers operating
gear without a boat. Low climate change scenario represented by SSP1-RCP2.6. MSY = Maximum sustainable yield. Harvesting above MSY implies
overfishing (which, for modeling purposes, is assumed to be sustained, causing the fishery to become overfished).
13
Fortunately, good By contrast, climate losses are partially mitigated under strong management performance.
management can Maintaining total fishing effort at 80 percent of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (as
substantially offset many Indonesia’s fishery managers aim) would shift climate losses from 17 to 19 percent down to 9-10
climate change losses percent for the small-scale sector. The same conservative management would completely offset
losses in the large-scale sector, with economic returns projected to be 4-6 percent greater than
those received today under the strictest management under the low emission scenario (Figure
E.S.2.).
The vulnerability of coastal communities to these changes varies

across Indonesia.
In aggregate, Fishery This report next turns to consider the vulnerability of Indonesia’s coastal communities.
Management Units 713, This includes broader socio-economic factors, such as dependency on the fishery sector,
714, and 718 are most infrastructure, social services, and other forms of adaptation capacity. In aggregate,
vulnerable to climate communities in Fishery Management Units (Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan, WPP) 713, 714,
impacts on fisheries, and 718 appear to be the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Figure E.S.3).
although further research is These areas combine larger projected changes in fishery resources, with high levels of fishery
needed dependence and still-developing adaptive capacity (infrastructure and social services). In
line with these findings, these regions are already high priorities for MMAF investments and
programming, including transportation and logistics (connectivity), fishing-village support, and
social protection programs.
Figure 3. E.S: Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP

Relative vulnerability as a function of climate change exposure (and hazard), sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
571
716
711 717
715
572
712 713
714
718
573
Normalized risk index
Very low Low High Very High Source: Authors
14
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
Climate change is a threat, but Indonesia’s strategic and sustained

interventions will lessen impacts.
Fishery sector adaptation Indonesia has made important progress in improving climate resilience in a range of areas,
measures are a national including strengthened disaster risk management, financing for contingent liabilities, and an
priority expanded social protection system. National and sub-national governments are investing heavily
in infrastructure, including ports and fishing villages. Marine and fishery sector adaptation is
seen as a key priority (Bappenas 2021). Overall, Indonesia aims to limit climate damages to
below 2.87 percent of GDP in 2050.3
Measures will be needed in Building further marine and coastal resilience will require a combination of measures in three
three complementary areas categories: (1) coastal ecosystem protection, (2) sustainable fishery management, and (3)
measures to strengthen coastal communities and local economies. These three areas are
complementary, and MMAF programming is often designed to address these three areas
together. Underpinning these interventions is a need for (4) financing mechanisms that can
ensure resources are available and channeled to where they are needed. This report proposes
measures in all these areas based on stakeholders’ perspectives, existing programs already
underway, and new approaches trialed globally. Over one hundred stakeholders from NGOs, the
fishing industry, the government, and academia participated in this study’s workshops to define
policy priorities.
These include interventions for coastal ecosystem protection….
Coastal ecosystem The first set of measures addresses the foundation of Indonesia’ fishery sector – protection
protection conserves the for ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs. The Government is investing
foundations of the fishing significantly in these ecosystems through programs such as the Coral Reef Rehabilitation
industry and Management Program (COREMAP) and investments in mangrove restoration (towards
a national target of 600,000 hectares restored or receiving enhanced protection by 2024).
These investments will help protect ecosystems against the worst effects of climate change by
reducing compounding stresses such as coastal clearing or damage from fishing vessels. They
will also help fortify coastal communities, given the storm protection and erosion benefits that
reefs and mangrove offer (Guannel et al. 2016).
… climate adaptive fishery management….
Robust and adaptive The second set of measures is robust and adaptive fishery management. Fishery management
fishery management helps under climate change must anticipate and respond to faster and more significant changes
the sector respond to long- than has been the case previously. These changes will be both long-term trends as well as more
and short-term changes dramatic swings season-to-season or even day-to-day, such as marine heatwaves. The WPP
system, when fully operational, will provide a basis for localized and responsive management,
while the recently introduced policy of sustainable quota-based fishing (an output-based quota
system) will provide greater flexibility on when and how much fishers harvest. These systems,
provided they are supported by strong enforcement, will be the “first line of defense” against
climate-change impacts, by preventing overfishing (which compounds climate stresses) and
allowing for season-to-season adjustment in harvests. Over time, Indonesia may also look to
develop dynamic management measures and short-term forecasting that informs temporary
closures to avoid patches of low productivity or high bycatch on a daily or weekly basis.
3 Government modelled losses in the absence of adaptation (MoEF, 2021).
15
… and can be supported Adaptive and dynamic management measures necessitate greater levels of data. Indonesia
through research and has high scientific capacity, and continued investments in fisheries modeling capacity will
incentive design strengthen them further. Efforts could be directed toward remaining data gaps, such as species-
specific stock assessments and low-data methods (which provide cost-effective approximations
in the absence of detailed data). Investing in the capacity of local universities (those universities
that participate in WPP advisory bodies) will also be important. Management could also be
supported by incentive mechanisms. For example, quota adjustment that favors provinces (or
firms) with the best track records on licensing and enforcement. Such mechanisms will require
detailed design work and research.
… stronger coastal communities and ecosystems...
Diverse and vibrant local The wellbeing of coastal communities under climate stresses will be determined in large part by
economies underpin climate the economic opportunities they have access to. The strength and diversity of local economies
resilience as well as their connectivity to markets and services determine communities’ adaptation
capacity. On current trends, Indonesia’s economic growth will lift millions out of poverty in the
coming decades, and coastal communities will benefit from some of these trends. Yet, economic
opportunity in coastal communities, most notably those in rural and isolated locations, will not
be delivered by growth trends alone. Climate impacts will inflict economic and physical losses on
the most vulnerable and least adapted communities. The isolation and higher costs of services
provision in more remote coastal communities could create a development divergence between
relatively more-resilient urban or peri-urban areas and less-resilient and poorer rural coastal
areas.
Investments are most MMAF is investing in coastal livelihoods, skills, and infrastructure through initiatives such as the
effective when they Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan Sejahtera, LAUTRA) Project, the Coastal Communities Development
support broad economic Project (CCDP), and the Coastal Resilience Village Development Program, among others. A
development key focus has been on eastern Indonesia. This report shows that this region is relatively more
vulnerable to climate change impacts. These programs have been implemented successfully in
Indonesia and provide lessons for future programs. One lesson is that measures that provide
finance, business skills, and equipment (i.e., measures that support broader employment options)
appear more successful than measures (such as fishing equipment) that encourage and deepen
individuals’ investments in fishing itself.
Continued improvements Further measures for consideration could include climate-indexed insurance programs,
to social protection and which cover fishers’ losses from storms or marine heatwaves, with insurance payouts made
inclusive finance programs automatically after an event. Launched in 2019, this approach was first used in the Caribbean
will help Ocean and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility (COAST). Coastal village economies could
be strengthened through further support for micro, small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Increased use of dedicated financing facilities could provide finance to businesses that have
been previously excluded. This could include non-collateralized loans, loan guarantees (or
unconventional forms of collateral, such as fishing boat deeds), and invoice and cash flow-based
lending products.
Resilience goes hand in Another critical consideration for economic opportunity is the impact of gender disparities.
hand with gender equality Equitable and inclusive communities are typically more resilient to external economic and
and inclusion physical pressures and less likely to see community members ‘left behind’ during a disaster
or downturn. Coastal resilience and development projects internationally are increasingly
targeting women-owned seafood businesses with training and finance (in Tonga and Mauritania),
requiring project participants to meet gender targets in hiring or civic participation (Caribbean),
or supporting coastal households in making equitable financial and domestic decisions
(Mozambique). Indonesia also has experience in such interventions, which could be scaled up.
16
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
… and new sources of finance.
Building resilience require These interventions will require increases in both public and private investment. The estimated
new sources of financing needs considerably exceed conventional funding sources (Tirumala and Tiwari 2020). There
is considerable interest from the private, philanthropic, and development sectors in providing
financing for marine and coastal activities, as demonstrated by recent market research. These
sources of funds may be channeled via a range of ‘blue’ finance instruments, most of which
involve some level of blending between public and private sources. While some instruments have
been piloted, the field is relatively nascent. Possible instruments include blue bonds and impact
funds, concessional loans, as well as equity and debt funds supported by guarantees. These
opportunities require considerable policy and design work before funds can flow.
Integration and local decision-making underpin adaptation success.
An integrated response Given their complementarities, programs should work across the core areas of need—
across ecosystems, ecosystems, fishery management, and communities— in an integrated way wherever possible.
fisheries, and communities, To give one example of these complementarities, economic diversification through household
is needed finance and business support makes it feasible for households to reduce their reliance on marine
and coastal ecosystems, facilitating their protection. For this reason, MMAF typically takes an
integrated approach to the design of coastal interventions. The Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan
Sejahtera, LAUTRA) Project is a good example of an integrated approach, with investments in
businesses, livelihoods, and coastal small infrastructure, MPA strengthening, and measurement
and management of coastal fisheries.
Community participation is Community participation is also key. The diversity of Indonesia’s coastal communities and
also important the complexity of its fisheries and geography means that climate-resilience measures must
be highly localized in their design and implementation. Fishery outcomes are much stronger in
locations where site-level co-management is practiced (Fidler et al. 2022). This is not surprising.
Habitat protection supported by education and awareness efforts, and backed by trusting and
empowered community members, is likely to benefit from higher stewardship (and management
capacity) than efforts without these elements. Expansion of customary marine tenure could
further facilitate such localized approaches.
Climate resilience promotes Ultimately, climate resilience should not be considered separate from the wider development
development goals needs of coastal communities. Many activities recommended by this report contribute to
Indonesia’s short-term goals—including improving fisher’s income, national fish exports, and
stock status—while contributing to longer-term development aspirations. The ambition of
the policy options is thus to help Indonesia’s fisheries and coastal communities not only to
survive but to thrive. That is, recommendations are chosen that provide benefits even if climate
change impacts are less severe than expected. For this reason, they focus on the fundamental
institutions and systems that underpin the fishery sector’s management and productivity.
Climate resilience will take time to develop. This report presents short- and medium-term
actions toward this long-term goal. These actions can be refined over time through further
research and on-the-ground experience.
17
Summary of Policy Options

for Resilience
Timeline
Policy Option
Key Government Agencies
Marine and Coastal Ecosystems Resilience
1 Adaptive and monitored spatial planning: Beyond MPAs, spatial planning underpins coastal Short-term priority
protection. Develop a scorecard to monitor and evaluate spatial plan implementation (akin to MMAF, Bappenas, Provinces
the MPA management effectiveness scorecard, EVIKA) that considers social, economic, and
environmental outcomes. Develop an integrated system that links business permitting to spatial
plans at the provincial level. Establish technical and financial support (incentives) for accelerated
implementation of spatial plans (and longer-term spatial cadastres) by provinces, along with
institutional arrangements for adapting spatial plans over time.
2 Design options for climate resilience in the MPA network: Identify climate refugia locations (i.e., Medium-term priority
high biodiversity or fishery productivity sites that will be relied upon by large numbers of species MMAF, MoEF
as habitat suitability shifts). These could be priority areas for future MPAs, which in addition to
management upgrades in existing MPAs and broader spatial planning, will be the cornerstone for
marine and coastal conservation. Explore legal and practical options for use of dynamic spatial
planning in which MPA boundaries are shifted as species’ key habitat areas move.
3 Data and research on ecosystems and climate change: Establish and systematize long-term Short- and medium-term priority
monitoring with defined sampling protocols for coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses that MMAF, MoEF, BRIN, Provinces
continue beyond any one individual monitoring project. This could utilize or build on the indices
recently developed by BRIN. Complement physical measures with economic valuation of key
coastal ecosystems and include valuation data within the Indonesian System of Environmental-
Economic Accounts (SISNERLING). Further develop research capacity on climate change impacts
on ecosystems. Assess the joint impacts of climate change with other human stressors (such as
pollution and shipping) on Indonesia’s marine ecosystems.
4 Mangroves protection: Expand the scope of license issuance moratorium in primary forest and Short- and medium-term priority
peatlands to include mangroves and include mangroves in the national REDD+ framework to support MoEF, MMAF, Bappenas, Provinces
carbon financing. Some exceptions to the mangrove moratoria could be made for high-value public
interest development (e.g., critical infrastructure). However, these should be minimized. Ensure the
value of mangroves is recognized in environmental impact assessment (AMDAL) preparation.
5 Systems for conservation financing: Develop a provincial (pilot) or national-level system for Medium- and long-term priority
collection of visitor fees in high-visitation MPAs, with transfer of a proportion of revenues to support MTCE, MMAF, MOF, Provinces
MPAs that are unable to generate their own revenues (while allowing site management to keep a
proportion of revenues to incentivize performance). This could be supported by transforming select
MPA management units into Public Service Entities (Badan. Layanan Umum, BLU), similar to that
used in Raja Ampat. A national or provincial endowment fund could further support MPA financing.
The fund could be used to receive and distribute locally raised funds and additional contributions
from philanthropy, development assistance, and private sector contributions.
Robust and Adaptive Fisheries Management
6 Fisheries management institutions: The fishery management system—specifically the WPP Short-term priority
system—is the “first line of defense” against climate impacts on fisheries. Continue advancing CMMAI, MMAF, Bappenas, Provinces
WPP operationalization by identifying and defining the full suite of roles and responsibilities within
the system, update regulations, and increase budgets and human resources for its components
(including implementing agencies, executive coordinator, and advisory bodies such as the Lembaga
Pengolaan Perikanan, LPP).
7 Harvest control rules and quota allocations: A system that can quickly and fairly adjust fishing Short-term priority
efforts in response to changes is fundamental to fishery management. Accelerate development MMAF, Provinces
and implementation of harvest control rules (including clearly defined limit and target reference
points and input/output control mechanisms) based on the best available data. Continue developing
sustainable quota fisheries, with allocations informed by harvest control rules (and subject to
consolidation limits to prevent unfair quota accrual among a few operators). Explore options for
quota allocations that reward provinces (or firms) with the best track records (e.g., high reporting
compliance or bycatch minimization).
18
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
Timeline
Policy Option
Key Government Agencies
8 Data and research on fisheries and climate change: Continue expanding data collection on Medium- and long-term priority
fisheries, including geographical and fleet coverage, and refine species information (notably species- MMAF, BPS, BRIN, Provinces
specific stock assessments). Continue consolidating the existing multiple information systems
within MMAF, including within Pusat Data Statistik dan Informasi. Invest in the capacity of local
universities to collect and interpret fishery data (particularly those that participate in the WPPs).
Explore low-data decision-making tools such as “fish baskets” and the FAO Fishery Performance
Assessment Tool (FPAT), in which indicator species are used to determine the condition of a multi-
species stock. Analytics on value-chain impacts (i.e., impacts on markets and processors beyond fish
stocks themselves) may also be needed.
9 Dynamic fishery management: While season-to-season quota allocations responding to changing Long-term priority
stock conditions (adaptive fishery management) will be the basis for a well-managed fishery MMAF, BRIN
sector, dynamic measures—short-term forecasting of fish stock conditions that guides fishers in
daily or weekly fishing decisions—will become increasingly important. This is a long-term capacity
requirement that can be strengthened through international research collaboration.
10 Safety at sea: Further develop early warning weather forecasting capability, with a focus on Medium-term priority
systems for delivering regular weather updates to fishers through handphone text messages and MMAF, BRIN, BMKG
satellite- or GSM-based vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Forecasting may require increased
deployment of remote monitoring buoys. Low-cost weather and text communications systems
can be incorporated into VMS. This provides opportunities to improve management and safety
simultaneously: VMS inform management and enforcement activities (by monitoring fishing
activity), with their use potentially incentivized through the delivery of free weather and
communications for smaller vessels that otherwise lack these capabilities. They also provide a
means for locating vessels in emergencies.
11 Cost recovery mechanisms: Well-designed mechanisms can raise revenues while also incentivizing Medium-term priority
behaviors aligned with fishery management outcomes. These include using auctions for allocating MMAF, MOF
fishing privileges and raising revenues, supporting management objectives, e.g., preferential
allocation to vessels meeting certain criteria (e.g., independently verified sustainability credentials),
or taxing undesirable fishing gears due to their environment impact. Research and design work on
such mechanisms would be valuable.
Coastal Communities and Economies
12 Coastal livelihoods and business support: Promote diversified livelihoods and business growth Short and medium-term priority
in coastal communities through business skills-building and access to finance programs. Training MPWH, MMAF, MOF, Provinces
and business promotion in activities outside of fishing could support efforts to reduce pressure
on marine or coastal resources. Design support programs that diversify, rather than deepen,
fishing dependency. Expand unconventional financing opportunities for small businesses and
households, including those based on non-collateralized loans and loan guarantees (or loans based
on unconventional forms of collateral, such as fishing boat deeds) and invoice and cash flow -based
lending products.
13 Customary marine tenure: Explore options for a legal framework that can define marine resources Medium- and long-term priority
privileges and responsibilities at the local level to expand the current Hak Pengelolaan Perikanan MPWH, MMAF, MOF, Provinces
approach beyond traditional communities. Integrate customary marine tenure within spatial
planning and permitting systems to the extent the current legal framework allows.
14 Social protection for fishers: Explore options for parametric insurance (paid on expected losses Medium- and long-term priority
rather than assessed losses) for fishers’ losses from storms. Launched in 2019, this approach was MPWH, MMAF, MOF, Provinces
first used in the Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility (COAST). The parametric
approach could be expanded to pre-registered fish vendors and processors over time, and long-term
could also consider marine heatwaves. In the short term, continue expanding social security access
for fishers through existing programs.
19
1
Introduction
Photo: ©freepik.com
Mentawai Island, West Sumatra

1. Introduction
Climate change will play a large part in determining the future of
Indonesia’s ocean economy.
The ocean’s economic With more than 17,500 islands, 108,000 kilometers of coastline, and three-quarters of its
contribution will be territory at sea,4 Indonesia’s prosperity is intimately connected to its oceans. Indonesia’s oceans
impacted by climate change support more than US$180 billion of economic activity annually (PENSEA 2018).5 Yet, with the
effects of climate change set to increase, the future of Indonesia’s oceans is uncertain. Low-lying
areas across Indonesia are susceptible to storms and sea level rise while rising temperatures
damage coastal ecosystems of high economic and ecological value. These and other effects of
climate change pose challenges to the ocean economy across the vast Indonesian archipelago.
Climate risks are Indonesia’s fisheries are at the center of these challenges. The sector contributes US$26.9
heightened by the billion annually to the national economy (around 2.6 percent of GDP) (BPS 2020), supplies over
important role of 50 percent of the country’s protein, and contributes over 7 million jobs (WTTC 2020; World
Indonesia’s fisheries Bank 2021). This dependence on fisheries means that climate change impacts on the sector will
have implications for livelihoods, food security, economic growth, and the well-being of coastal
communities. In global assessments, Indonesia ranks among the highest of all countries on
the national importance of its fisheries. At the same time, Indonesia ranks among the highest
countries for the predicted impacts of climate change on those fisheries (Cheung et al. 2016;
Barange et al. 2018; Lam et al. 2020) (Figure 1).
4 Statistics from reference data by the Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Investment (CMMAI).
5 Based on 2015 data. Sectors comprising this total include fisheries, marine and coastal tourism, sea-based transport, energy and minerals, marine
manufacturing (e.g., shipbuilding, salt production), marine and nearshore construction, and government oceans-related expenditure. The sector has likely grown
significantly since this assessment.
22
I N TR ODUCTION
Figure 4: Estimated climate impacts on fisheries and dependence on fisheries for food security globally
Projected changes in maximum catch potential by 2050 (2041-2060) relative to 1986-2005 under a high emission ‘no mitigation’ scenario, and
the dependence of countries on fish as a source of food.
Change in maximum catch potential (%) by the mid-21st century under RCP8.5
-50 -30 -15 -5 0 5 15 30
Fish as proportion of animal-sourced food (%) in the present-day
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Source: Golden et al. (2016). Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 represents the high emissions scenario. RCPs are trajectories for
greenhouse gas concentrations adopted by the IPCC. RCP8.5 should be considered an upper bound on climate impacts (see Box 3).
Climate challenges are A productive fishery sector is a key development imperative. Indonesia has laid out ocean-related
inherently development development goals in the national medium-term development plan (Rencana Pembangunan
challenges Jangka Menengah Nasional, RPJMN 2020-24) in line with the country’s long-term aim of reaching
high-income status by 2045. The government seeks to contribute to this goal in the fisheries
sector through increased production, sustainably managed stocks, and higher value-add
through public and private investment. Meanwhile, coastal communities will require diversified
income opportunities and protection from climate change’s physical and economic impacts.
The challenge of trying to increase productivity, sustainability, and livelihoods in the context of
climate change is a challenge faced by many sectors, as well as by many countries of all levels of
income (Box 1).
Indonesia is responding This development imperative is well-recognized in Indonesia. The government is taking steps
with climate-sensitive towards a more climate-resilient future for its marine and coastal economy through investment
policy and strategy in infrastructure, technology, capacity building, and governance. Strategies and actions
underway are outlined in the National Climate Adaptation Roadmap, the Enhanced Nationally
Determined Contribution (NDC), and the List of Priority Locations and Climate Resilient Actions by
the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas). Implementation of these actions
is being prioritized by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), including actions
that improve resilience through healthier ecosystems and stronger communities. Many of these
actions also contribute to Indonesia’s “blue-economy” strategy, articulated by the Oceans
Policy of 2017 and the RPJMN 2020-24. A blue-economy strategy is an integrated approach
to ocean policymaking based on science and data, coordination across ocean sectors, and the
participation of diverse stakeholders (World Bank 2017a).
23
Lampung, Sumatra
Photo by Devi Puspita Amartha Yahya on Unsplash
This report provides Translating these development strategies and goals into specific adaptation measures relies
the first national-level on detailed and reliable evidence. Research is needed that can predict changes in fish stocks
assessment of climate risks and inform management steps to reduce risks. Similarly, businesses and other stakeholders
to fisheries… must understand trends and risks to make sound investments. This report aims to provide this
knowledge. The report begins by introducing Indonesia’s fisheries, its governance structure, and
the ecosystems that sustain them. These are the building blocks of a productive and climate-
resilient fishery sector. Drawing on advances in climatological and ecological modeling, the
report then quantitively links projected climate changes to Indonesia’s ocean conditions, and
fishery abundance and distribution. It does so by drawing on cutting-edge oceanic modeling
techniques—applied previously at global and regional scales by researchers at the University
of British Columbia, the World Bank, and partner institutions (see World Bank 2019)—and now
applied at sub-national scales for the first time.
… and provides policy These impacts are explored in the context of differing fishery management approaches, and
options that contribute to differing levels of community development and vulnerability levels across Indonesia. The report
both economic and climate emphasizes that climate resilience is just one outcome of robust fisheries management, i.e.,
goals. a co-benefit of institutional investments that deliver more economically productive fisheries
irrespective of climate outcomes. Well-managed stocks (i.e., with biomass within target ranges)
are those that are most productive and can be fished at the lowest costs, as well as those best
able to adapt to the effects of climate change. Continued investment in Indonesia’s fishery
management capacity and institutions—a process already well underway—thus represents
a ‘no-regrets’ policy direction. Reflecting this finding, the report provides policy options for
a transition to a climate-resilient future for Indonesia’s fisheries and coastal communities,
supported by examples from international experience.
24
I N TR ODUCTION
Box 2. Indonesia’s Climate Vulnerability and Readiness: A Global Comparison
W
hile global comparisons suggest areas for improvement, Indonesia
is gradually trending upwards in climate readiness. The Notre Dame-
Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN) summarizes countries’ vulnerability
to climate change and other global challenges and their readiness to respond to
impacts. It draws on global datasets for an internationally comparable (although
approximate only) indication of where countries stand. It quantifies vulnerability
through indices that capture climate impacts in six areas: food, water, health,
ecosystem service, human habitat, and infrastructure, while it captures readiness
(i.e., the country’s ability to leverage investments and convert them to adaptation
actions), by considering indices of economic performance, governance, and
social systems.
The ND-GAIN Index ranks Indonesia as the 73rd most vulnerable to, and the
106th most ready for, climate change, with a vulnerability score of 0.446 and a
readiness score of 0.31 (Figure B1.1 and B1.2). These scores place Indonesia around
the global median. However, vulnerability is higher, and readiness is still lower than
in many peer countries (those countries with similar economy size, income levels,
and population). Since 2014, Indonesia’s vulnerability has decreased slightly (in
line with peers), while its readiness has been increasing (faster than peers).
Figure B1.1: Indonesia’s vulnerability Figure B1.2: Indonesia’s readiness

to climate impacts for climate impacts
Vulnerabilty versus peer countries Readiness versus peer countries
0,48 0,48
0,45 0,45
Vulnerability Index
0,42 0,42
Readiness Index
0,39 0,39
0,36 0,36
0,33 0,33
0,30 0,30
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Indonesia Interquartile range Indonesia Interquartile range

(structural peers) (structural peers)
Notes and Source: Structural peers are Brazil, China, India, Thailand, Philippines, Mexico, Egypt, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, and Ukraine. These
countries were selected for this analysis as they are the most statistically similar to Indonesia based on three variables: GDP per capita
and total GDP (World Bank data). Vulnerability and Readiness data are from the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (2022).
Sectors that are most vulnerable to climate change include agriculture, water, health systems, and as shown in this report,
fisheries. It should be noted that the breadth of the ND-GAIN Index means it cannot capture all dimensions of individual
countries’ vulnerability and readiness. In areas such as social protection systems and disaster risk management and
financing, Indonesia has been making significant improvements that are not reflected in these numbers.
Source: World Bank Staff based on data from the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (2022) (link).
25
2
Indonesia’s
Fisheries
Photo by Jakob Owens on Unsplash
Belitung, Bangka Belitung Islands

Photo by Vive Vio on Unsplash
2. Indonesia’s Fisheries
2.1. A Complex and Critical Sector
Indonesia relies on its fisheries for economic growth and
coastal livelihoods.
Indonesia’s fisheries are Fisheries play an important role in the national economy. Indonesia has the sixth-largest ocean
complex and economically area (as measured by its Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ). Depending on the year, it has the second
important or third largest marine fish catch after China and Peru, at over 6 million metric tonnes (Figure 5).
Aquaculture contributes a further 4.95 million tonnes (FAO 2019). The harvest supports exports
valued at over US$4 billion per year—an important source of foreign exchange—while also
sustaining livelihoods and food security domestically. Capture fisheries employ approximately
2.7 million workers, while an additional 1 million workers are employed in the processing and
marketing of fisheries products (CEA 2018). Fish contribute 52 percent of all animal-based
protein in the national diet (FAO 2011; Oktavilia et al. 2019).
The small-scale sector The sector is highly complex in terms of both fisheries and people, with hundreds of species
dominates a complex socio- caught and traded by a vast armada of small and large vessels. Small vessels (less than 10 gross
economic system tonnes) account for over 90 percent of the total ~600,000 vessels, and contribute around half
the total catch (CEA 2018).6 A significant portion (~71 percent) are considered non-motorized and
are either small craft with outboard engines or no engine at all. The gears used and the species
caught vary widely. The small-scale fleet targets small and large pelagic and demersal species,
reef fishes, mollusks, and shellfish. The large-scale commercial fleet is relatively small (~4
percent of the total fleet) but contributes significantly to overall production. The most important
commercial species, skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), account for the largest portion of
Indonesian fisheries’ landings and value.
6 Law 7/2016 on the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Raisers and Salt Farmers defines small-scale fishers as those who catch fish for daily needs,
without or with vessels smaller than 10 gross tonnes.
28
I NDO NESIA’S FISHE R IE S
Figure 5: Global marine capture production by major Figure 6: Fisheries as a proportion of GDP versus
producer countries regional peer countries
2015-18 avg. annual marine capture production, million tonnes Fisheries sector value as a percent of total GDP
0 4.0 8.0 12 16
3
China
Indonesia
Peru
United States of America
2
Russian Federation
India
Japan
Vietnam 1
Norway
Chilie
Philippines
0
Malaysia
Thailand Malaysia Philippines China Indonesia
Republic of Korea
Mexico Sources and note: China, Indonesia, and Thailand (2016) from CIEC
Morocco 2019; Philippines and Malaysia (2015) from SEAFDEC 2019.
Thailand
Source: FAO 2019.
Figure 7: Spatial variation in Indonesia’s catch Figure 8: Status of Indonesia’s fisheries, 2017-2022
Areas of highest and lowest catch throughout the Indonesian Volume of stocks (estimated annual potential yield) by stock status
archipelago. classification.
14,000,000
12,000,000
Estimated potential yield (tonnes)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
Catch (thousand tonnes)
Exclusive Economic Zone regions
0
WPP
High: 22.8 Low: 0 2017 2022
Experiencing Experiencing full Experiencing

overexploitation exploitation underexploitation
Notes and Source: Stock status data from MMAF (50/KEPMEN-KP/2017; 19/KEPMEN-KP/2022), compiled by authors. Reconstructed catch
data by location from Sea Around Us (SAU) database based on data from FAO and MMAF. This represents large-scale catches for which vessel
monitoring system and logbook data are available. Small-scale catches are not reflected.
29
Management of such The complexity of Indonesia’s fisheries means that management is highly challenging and likely
a complex sector is to become more so under climate change. The resource is vast and varied. Stocks and vessels
challenging, but improving cross jurisdictions, and different classes of vessels fall under the responsibility of different levels
of government. Small vessels are exempted from licensing and sometimes go unregistered
and unmonitored. While under the jurisdiction of provinces, small vessels sometimes operate
beyond provincial waters. As a result of these and other challenges, some fish stocks continue
to suffer from overfishing, which undermines fisheries revenues, export earnings, and coastal
community livelihoods (Pomeroy et al. 2007; Muawanah et al. 2012). In 2022, 35 fisheries were
considered to be experiencing overexploitation, while 44 were being fully fished (exploited at their
maximum productivity) (Figure 8). However, the trend since 2017 shows an improvement, with
a reduction in fisheries experiencing overexploitation stocks and an increase in fully exploited
stocks. Management improvements and enforcement actions against illegal foreign fishing have
contributed to these improvements.7 As explored in section 3.3, stock status is critical in the
context of climate change, with impacts relatively more severe on stocks facing overexploitation.
The decentralized system Institutional improvements to fishery management are progressing. As discussed in sections
for management is being 3 and 4 of this report, these improvements will be central to boosting climate resilience.
strengthened Recognizing the challenges of fishery management coordination across provincial boundaries,
in 2014, the MMAF launched the system of Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan (WPP) or Fisheries
Management Areas (FMA).8 Each WPP contains multiple provincial governments plus industry
and community stakeholders. These groups are represented within the Fishery Management
Unit (Unit Pengelola Perikanan (UPP), responsible for advising management decisions within that
WPP. This structure aims to empower local governments, researchers, NGOs, communities, and
the private sector in data collection and decision-making and balance interests between levels
of government (Jaya et al. 2022). Such area-based management approaches have successfully
achieved high levels of sustainable production in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Peru, and the
United States, among other countries (Hilborn et al. 2021). Indonesia’s system is still being built
by MMAF and other stakeholders, with a budget for operations and staff, offices, and equipment
gradually increasing. Fishery management plans (Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan, RPP) have been
developed. A key next step will be to develop harvest control rules that link stock conditions to
the level of permissible fishing effort (with specific reference points). Lines of authority within
the WPP structure are being clarified over time, along with the co-management arrangement
between provincial authorities and the central government. Full operationalization of this system
is a commitment in the RPJMN, and as discussed further in section 3.3, will be the first line of
defense against climate change impacts in the fishery sector.
7 Actions taken by the MMAF to combat illegal foreign fishing led to an estimated 25-40 percent reduction in total effort on fish stocks in Indonesia’s waters
between 2014-19 (Cabral et al. 2018).
8 Marine and Fisheries Ministerial Decree 18/PERMEN-KP/2014 defines the structure of and roles within the fisheries management area system. (link)
30
Gili Trawangan, Gili Indah, North Lombok Regency

Photo by Uber Scuba Gili on Unsplash
2.2. Fisheries’ Foundation: Marine and

Coastal Assets
The productivity and climate resilience of the fishery sector is a
function of Indonesia’s sensitive ecosystems.
Indonesia’s marine and Mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses, and other climate-sensitive ecosystems underpin the
coastal habitats are some productivity of Indonesia’s capture fisheries and further support coastal communities through
of the richest in the world tourism, aquaculture, and physical protection of infrastructure. The country’s mangrove
area is the world’s largest and most biodiverse, with 3.31 million hectares accounting for over
20 percent of the global total (MoEF 2019). Reefs span a combined area of over 2.4 million
hectares9 and provide a home to over 3,000 fish species and 590 coral species (the greatest
reef biodiversity of any country) (Hutomo and Moosa 2005; Froese and Pauly 2022). While data
on seagrasses are limited, these ecosystems too are considered some of the richest and most
extensive of their kind worldwide (Unsworth et al. 2018). Across a range of climate-sensitive
ecosystem types (Figure 9), Indonesia is a global hotspot of natural ocean wealth.
9 World Bank staff calculations based on LIPI data, with support from the Global Program on Sustainability (GPS).
31
Figure 9: Key concentrations of marine and coastal ecosystems across Indonesia

Major areas of key coastal ecosystems (mangroves, seagrass, and coral reef) and designated marine protected areas.
Marine protected areas Mangroves Coral reef Seagrass
Sources: Map produced by authors using seagrass data from the Geospatial Information Agency (GIA), National Agency for Research and
Innovation (BRIN), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Coral reef data from BRIN (2007) and GIA (2009), mangrove from MoEF (2018) and marine
protected area extents from MMAF.
These assets underpin These ecosystems play a crucial role in fish species’ feeding and breeding cycles, which is
the fishery sector but are important for Indonesia’s commercial catch and food security. They are also filtration systems,
themselves at risk removing pollutants from runoff and remove disease-causing fish pathogens and pollutants from
the water (Lamb et al. 2017). While studies to-date are limited, estimates suggest that reefs
alone provide a fishery value of over US$2.9 billion per year (UN Environment 2018) to Indonesia.
However, these ecosystems are under pressure from coastal development, destructive fishing
practices, and land-based pollution. More than half (i.e., 1.82 million out of 3.31 million hectares)
of the mangrove areas are currently in degraded condition (MoEF 2019). As much as 40 percent
of Indonesia’s original seagrass cover may have been lost (Unsworth et al. 2018).
Climate change exacerbates Climate change is adding to the stresses on these ecosystems. Increased water temperatures
these risks cause coral bleaching, with over 80 percent of Indonesia’s reefs expected to experience bleaching
five years out of 10 by the 2030s (Burke et al. 2012). Increased carbon dioxide concentrations
are increasing the acidity of oceans (explored in section 3.1), weakening calcified coral structures.
Greater runoff from more intense precipitation is increasing local water pollution and turbidity
(Ridwansyah et al. 2020). Marine heatwaves, caused by localized elevated sea surface
temperatures, pose threats to mangroves and seagrasses, is also discussed further in the next
section.
Management is key to While the global temperature impacts of climate change are, for the most part, beyond
strengthening ecosystem Indonesia’s control, management systems can and are working to alleviate some of these
resilience compounding stresses. The national and sub-national governments are implementing coastal
and small islands marine spatial plans (RZWP3K) as part of the country’s broader spatial
planning framework (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah, RTRW). Indonesia’s Marine Protected Area
(MPA) network is expanding, with over 23 million hectares reserved or gazetted (exceeding the
Aichi targets10), and is on track to reach 30 million hectares by 2030. MMAF has implemented a
scorecard system (EVIKA) across MPAs to provide a consistent means of tracking management
effectiveness. Rehabilitation activities are underway towards a national mangrove restoration
target of 600,000 hectares by 2024, the largest such effort in the world. These will go some way
towards protecting the foundations of productive fisheries in Indonesia and improve resilience
to increasing climate impacts. This report returns to further possibilities for climate-sensitive
ecosystem management in section 5.
10 Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity calls for countries to effectively conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by 2020.
32
Indonesia’s Marine
Protected Area (MPA)
network is expanding, with
over 23 million hectares
reserved or gazetted, and is
on track to reach 30 million
hectares by 2030.
33
3
The Climate
Challenge
Photo by Autumn Studio on Unsplash
Kelingking Beach, Nusa Penida Island, Bali

3. The Climate Challenge

3.1. Impacts on Indonesia’s Oceans
As global temperatures increase, Indonesia’s oceans
are changing.
Indonesia’s oceans have Over the past three decades, Indonesian oceans have warmed substantially. Satellite data
warmed by over half a analyzed for this report indicate that sea surface temperatures have increased by 0.18°C,
degree C. since the 1980s. 0.16°C, and 0.15°C per decade in Eastern, Central, and Indian Ocean EEZs, respectively, since
1982 (Figure 10). The total observed average temperature change to date is over half a degree
Celsius. More severe but temporary spikes are also becoming apparent. During the strong El Niño
events of 1997-98 and 2015, sea surface temperatures greatly exceeded the long-run average
conditions in all subregions. Sea surface temperatures have increased in all regions, with the
strongest increase observed in the open ocean (> 0.2°C increase per decade), with warming in
coastal regions relatively less severe (< 0.1°C per decade) (Figure 11).
36
TH E CLI MATE CHAL L E NG E
Figure 10: Temperature increase in Indonesia’s oceans

Sea surface temperatures (°C) averaged over EEZ subregions, 1982-2019.
29.50
Sea Surface Temperature (°C)
29.25
29.00
28.75
28.50
28.25
Indonesia (Indian Ocean)
28.00 Indonesia (Central)

Indonesia (Eastern)
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Time
Figure 11: Hotspots of warming in Indonesia’s oceans

Map of local linear trends in sea surface temperatures (°C), 1982-2019.
0.2
Linear Trend in Sea Surface
Temperature (°C/decade)
0.1
0.0
-0.1
Notes and Source: Authors’
-0.2 analysis based on data from
Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project, Phase 6 (CIMP6).
Warming is projected The projections for further changes to the temperature of Indonesia’s ocean are severe.
to further increase Averaging across the projections made by the set of climate models used for the IPCC reports,11
substantially… the surface air temperature average over the Indonesian region is projected to increase by
4.2°C ± 0.9 between 1850-1900 and 2081-2100, under the SSP5-8.5 (high global greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions) scenario. This means a change from a historical average of 27°C to more
than 31°C. Under a scenario with mitigation measures (SSP1-2.6) (low global GHG emissions),
the annual mean surface air temperature is projected to increase by 1.6°C ± 0.4 over this period
(Figure 12A). These figures can be considered likely upper and lower bounds on temperature
change, respectively (Box 3), and are slightly below the projected global change.12 The associated
sea surface temperature changes are from 1.39 (± 0.39) to 3.68 (± 0.86) °C under the low and
high scenario, respectively relative to preindustrial levels.
11 Data are derived from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6 (CIMP6) which are the basis for global climate change projections in the Sixth Assessment
Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
12 Global warming is expected to be relatively less severe at high latitudes (Indonesia) and more severe at low latitudes (Canada). However, as this report explains in the
next section, this does not imply lesser impacts on fisheries.
37
… leading to short-term Short-term fluctuations and localized variation, such as those seen in marine heatwaves
temperature spikes (marine will punctuate these long-term changes trends. These short-term hot temperature spikes
heatwaves) last from a few days to months and globally have roughly doubled in frequency over the past
three decades (Frölicher et al. 2018). Defined by a temperature above the 90th percentile of
the historical average, marine heatwaves in Indonesia are projected to intensify. Modeling for
this report suggests periods of marine heatwave with temperatures of 2-10 degrees C above
normal (the climatological mean) by 2030, and up to 16 degrees above normal by 2050, under
the high GHG emissions scenario. The length of these heatwaves is expected to increase from
a typical 1-6 months in the 2000s to 11-12 months by 2050. Experience suggests that these
are likely to arrive during strong El Niño and decreased monsoon activity (as seen in 1998 and
2016) (Iskander et al. 2021). Marine heatwaves place pressure on critical coastal ecosystems,
manifesting in symptoms such as the death of marine invertebrates (which play an important
role at the bottom of the food chain), coral bleaching, and mangrove dieback, hindering these
ecosystems’ support for fisheries.
… and changes in Indonesian Yet climate impacts are not only about heat. Changes in temperature drive other changes in
ocean’s oxygen levels, pH, ocean conditions, with major implications for fisheries. Climate modeling for this report shows
and productivity. that surface-level pH, oxygen, and salinity are declining in Indonesian waters as warmer
temperatures reduce the physical exchange of gases between the ocean and atmosphere
(Figure 12). Mixing processes within the ocean’s depths is changing, leading to reduced salinity
and oxygen levels. Meanwhile, higher levels of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere
and water increase carbonic acid formation in the water, reducing pH and damaging coral reef
structures and shellfish. These conditions may also undermine the net primary productivity
(NPP) of oceans—their basic ability to generate biomass from sunlight and nutrients—although
projected changes in this outcome are less certain.
Figure 12: Projected physical and chemical changes in Indonesia’s oceans

Changes in (A) surface atmospheric temperature (B) sea surface temperatures, (C) surface ocean salinity, (D) surface ocean acidity (pH), (E)
surface ocean dissolved oxygen (O2), and (F) net primary production (NPP) within Indonesia’s three different EEZ subregions, 1850-2100.
A B C
(°C) (°C)
(°C) (°C)
(psu)
temperature
air temperature
(psu)
salinity
temperature
air temperature
salinity
surface
surface
surface
Surface
surface
Sea Sea
Surface
Sea Sea
D E F
m-1-2)yr-1)
mC-2 yr
m-3)m-3)
(g C(g
O2 (mmol
pH pH
productivity
O2 (mmol
surface
productivity
surface
surface
Sea Sea
surface
primary
Sea Sea
primary
Net Net
Notes and source: Surface atmospheric temperature is averaged over 90°W-145°W and 15°S-10°N. Values are anomalies relative to the 1850-1900
reference period. The lines show multi-model annual means, and the shaded areas represent ± one standard deviation across the models. Solid lines
show the historical (1850-2014) and SSP5-8.5 scenario time series (2015-2100). The dotted lines indicate the SSP1-2.6 scenario time series from
2015 to 2100.
38
Box 3. Climate Scenarios used in this Report
T
o evaluate the pathways associated with potential changes in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, two representative concentration
pathways scenarios are applied for each environmental variable.
The first scenario, RCP2.6, represents a relatively good outcome for the planet,
with rapid decreases in greenhouse gas emissions by major emitting countries.
Emissions start declining in 2020 and reach zero by 2100, with consequent
radiative forcing (the extra energy trapped by the atmosphere for each square
meter of land) peaking at 3 Wm-2 before 2100 followed by a decline to 2.6 Wm-2
by 2100. The second scenario (RCP8.5) is a “worst-case” emissions scenario, with
emissions rising throughout the century. Radiative forcing reaches 8.5 Wm-2
by 2100.
Neither scenario is likely in itself, but they bookend likely climate outcomes from
above and below, thus covering the likely range of outcomes. Global emissions are
on track to exceed the RCP2.6 scenario, while the falling cost of renewables and
accelerated policy action by governments means that RCP8.5 is also now unlikely
(although adverse feedback loops could still cause this outcome). The planet is on
track for an outcome between these extremes, with recent estimates suggesting
around 3 degrees of warming by 2100 based on the Paris Agreement
emissions pledges.
Source: Authors.
3.2. Implications for Indonesia’s Fisheries

Climate-induced changes in ocean conditions will
drive large shifts in Indonesia’s fisheries.
Temperature changes shift Changes to Indonesia’s oceans are directly impacting the biology, ecology, and, ultimately,
fish stocks to new locations the catchability of exploited fisheries. The internal temperature of most fish depends on the
surrounding water temperature; a change in water temperature influences their internal
chemistry and biological processes, such as reproduction and feeding. The geographic
distribution of species thus changes as stocks attempt to remain in locations suitable for each
species. The impact of temperature change on species distribution and abundance is particularly
dramatic in tropical countries such as Indonesia, which have waters already at the high end of
global temperatures. High initial temperature implies adjustment by the movement of stocks
towards cooler waters, leading to a net decrease in fisheries abundance in Indonesia without
inflows of new (higher temperature) species from elsewhere.
Impacts are observable on Impacts on fisheries are already being observed. Indonesia’s bigeye tuna catch decreased
some fish stocks already between 1997 and 2010 consistent with climate impacts, thought to be due to a reduction
in phytoplankton abundance (Lumban-Gaol et al. 2012). Productivity of the Sardinella lemuru
fishery in the Bali straight has decreased significantly over the past decade, with the largest dips
in catch-per-unit effort seen following the high ocean temperature conditions in 2010 and 2016.
Again, the abundance of phytoplankton appeared to be the critical pathway (Puspasari et al.
2019). The fishing area for flying fish (Exocoetidae Sp.) appears to be migrating from Sulawesi to
West Papua. The trends are complex at local scales, with short-term countervailing outcomes.
For example, the positive Indian Ocean Dipole event of 2019 increased phytoplankton biomass
and small pelagic fish production in Indonesian waters (Lumban-Gaol et al. 2021). Localized and
short-term increases in some fisheries have and will continue to occur even in the face of longer-
term projected decreases.
39
Box 4. Climate Impacts on Fisheries: A Summary of Modeling Methods
T
his study uses three complementary methods to analyze the effect of changing ocean conditions on fish
stocks. These are applied to a selection of 54 “focal species” of 47 fish and 7 invertebrates, including shrimp, skipjack
tuna, and sardinella species critical to the industrial and artisanal fisheries of Indonesia. Species were selected based
on the 40 species with the greatest catch volume, cross-referenced with databases of commercially important species
within Indonesia (see Annex 1).
1. Assessment of climate risk on individual species. The first stage of analysis determines those species most
vulnerable using a fuzzy logic climate index. Climate risk is determined by three components: exposure, sensitivity,
and capacity to adapt. Exposure is the distribution of a given species (across ocean conditions—temperature, oxygen
levels, pH, net primary production). Sensitivity is the degree to which that species’ biological function is affected by
those condition changes (maximum length, temperature preference, and taxonomic group). Adaptive capacity is
the ability of species to respond and adjust (proxied by fecundity, bathymetry range, latitudinal range, and habitat
specificity). Exposure variables are sourced from earth systems model projections (see section 3.1); sensitivity and
adaptive capacity parameters are drawn from life-history and ecological data in the FishBase, SeaLifeBase, and the
Sea Around Us databases. These determine a relative-risk value from 0 to 100 for each species, with 100 indicating a
species with the highest risk of disappearing from Indonesian fisheries (see Cheung et al. 2018; Jones and Cheung 2018
for detail on the index).
2. Assessment of change in species distribution. The second stage of analysis considered how species’ distribution
would change within Indonesia’s waters. The future distributions of the focal marine species are modeled using an
environmental niche approach (Austin 1985) that quantifies environmental preferences of marine species (based on
their current observed distribution and average environmental conditions within that distribution from 1971 to 2000).
This is used to project their potential distribution following environmental change, quantified by a Habitat Suitability
Index (HSI) following established methodologies (Reygondeau 2019). The HSI ranges from 0 (the species cannot
survive) to 1 (the species is in its optimal environment) and is calculated for each species in each spatial cell. To address
uncertainty, a multi-model approach is adopted to best approximate the environmental niche of each species. Pelagic
species are modeled using surface variables, benthic species using sea bottom environmental variables, and demersal
species using both sets of environmental data (gathered from FishBase).
3. Assessment of impacts on fishery harvests. The third stage of analysis projects changes in maximum catch
potential for exploited marine fishes and invertebrates. A Dynamic Bioclimate Envelope Model (DBEM) simulates
changes in distribution, abundance, and potential catches of species based on the ecological niche and biology of
the species (see Cheung et al. 2016 for details). Population carrying capacity in each spatial cell varies with habitat
preference (see HSI calculation, described above). The model simulates changes in relative abundance of a species in
each grid cell at each time step based on changes in population carrying capacity, intrinsic population growth, and the
advection-diffusion of adults and larvae in the population driven by ocean conditions projected from the Earth system
models. Maximum catch potential (a proxy of maximum sustainable yield, MSY) from each population is predicted by
applying a fishing mortality rate at the level required to achieve maximum sustainable yield. Changes in total annual
maximum catch potential by mid-century (2050: 2041-2060) and relative to 2000 (1991-2010) under SSP1-2.6
and SSP5-8.5 is calculated for each subregion, based on averaged projected conditions from the three Earth system
models.
Source: Authors.
Shallow water demersal Longer term, all species assessed for this report (a total of 47) are projected to be affected by
species will be most climate change to some extent, with some species more affected than others. The projected
affected most impacted species are demersal species (those that live or feed near the bottom) and
neritic-pelagic species (the top ocean layer close to the coastline), and include Mangrove red
snapper (Lutjanus argentimaculatus), Toli shad (Tenualosa toli) and Indo-Pacific king mackerel
(Scomberomorus guttatus) (Table 1). Their narrow distribution and specialized ecology make them
highly sensitive to climate variation. These are important stocks for artisanal and industrial-
scale fisheries in Indonesia. The risk of disappearance of these species from local waters13 is
projected to be very high for key Indonesian species compared to globally exploited species.
13 Disappearance within Indonesia’s waters, not total extinction. Species’ range is expected to shift to cooler climates.
40
Table 1: Focal species at the highest risk of disappearance from Indonesian fisheries
Species Risk Index
Scientific name Common name Central Eastern Western
Tenualosa toli Toli shad 93 92 92

Lutjanus argentimaculatus Mangrove red snapper 90 85 90
Scomberomorus guttatus Indo-Pacific king mackerel 90 85 90
Carcharhinus limbatus a
Blacktip shark 89 85 90
Epinephelus tauvina Greasy grouper 89 84 89
Aphareus rutilans b
Rusty jobfish 89 83 89
Lutjanus malabaricusc Malabar blood snapper 89 87 89
Euthynnus affinis Kawakawa 88 84 88
Scomberomorus commerson Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel 87 83 88
Megalaspis cordyla Torpedo scad 88 86 88
Plectropomus leopardus Leopard coral grouper 87 - 88
Dussumieria acuta Rainbow sardine 87 82 87
Rastrelliger brachysoma Short mackerel 87 81 87
Epinephelus areolatus d
Areolate grouper 85 78 86
Selaroides leptolepis Yellowstripe scad 84 78 85
Thunnus tonggol Longtail tuna 85 82 85
Parastromateus niger Black pomfret 83 80 84
Thunnus alalunga Albacore 84 75 -
Thunnus maccoyii Southern bluefin tuna 84 84 -
Thunnus obesus Bigeye tuna 83 74 84
Notes and source: Risk assessment by authors based on a fuzzy logic climate index (see Box 4). Risk is assessed under SSP5-8.5 but expected to
be similar in relative terms (but lower in absolute terms) under more moderate climate scenarios.
Arafura, Timor, and Banda There is variation in the degree of impact among different regions. More negative impacts in
seas will be most affected habitat suitability and, thus, higher species turnover is projected in the Arafura, Timor, and
Banda seas and the Indian Ocean coast by mid-century and beyond, relative to recent historical
levels (1981–2000) (Figure 13). The environment in these regions will be less favorable for species
with narrow distributions, which will consequently need to migrate as climate conditions change.
Relative to other regions, no or few climate-driven invasive species are expected to move into
these regions, as there are no or few species tolerant of the more extreme ocean conditions
projected for these regions. No regions within Indonesia’s waters are projected to see a net
increase in habitat suitability.
41
Figure 13: Change in habitat suitability for fish species in Indonesia’s waters
Change in the sum of the habitat suitability index (HSI) by mid-century (2041-2060)
under SSP1-2.6 (left) and SSP5-8.5 (right) scenarios.
SSP.1 RCP 2.6 SSP.5 RCP 8.5
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Change in HSI Change in HSI
Notes and source: Map of the change in the sum of the HSI (averaged across Earth system models and species distribution models). HSI is
normalized by current species richness.
Average maximum catch Decreased habitat suitability is projected to reduce the overall productivity of Indonesian
potential is projected to fisheries (Figure 14). The total maximum catch potential of the focal species is projected to
decline by 20-30 percent decrease by 20 to 30 percent under the high emissions scenario relative to 2010 (1991-2010)
under a high climate change across the three subregions by 2050. Maximum catch potential declines further after 2050
scenario. under the high emission scenario. Affected species include those critical to small-scale pelagic
fisheries such as yellowstrip and Bali sardinella (Sardinella gibbosa and S. lemuru), which are
projected to have more than 30 percent declines by mid-century under the high emission
scenario. Several large pelagic species of importance to commercial catches are also projected
to have large declines, including torpedo scad (Megalaspis cordyla), mackerels (Scomberomorus
commerson and S. guttatus), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis).
Declines under a low Notably, these declines are not confined to a high climate change scenario only. The low climate
climate change scenario change scenario (SSP1 RCP2.6) has large impacts on total catch potential by 2050 (up to 20
are also considerable before percent decreases, and 5-15 percent decreases in most regions). Impacts of this scenario level
2050. off as the global climate stabilizes, with mild further decreases in the subsequent decades. Some
commercially important species are relatively more resilient, too, with a smaller risk of impacts
and declines in maximum catch potential. For example, silver pomfret (Pampus argenteus) is
amongst those species with relatively mild projected declines. Overall, the long-term declines
in maximum catch potential under high and low scenarios have important implications
for economic outcomes (explored in the next section) and food security, given Indonesia’s
dependency on fisheries for protein.
42
Figure 14: The projected catch of fish species in Indonesian waters under climate change
Change in maximum catch potential (MCP) by mid-century (2041-2060) and end-century (2080-2100)
under SSP1-2.6 (top) and SSP5-8.5 (bottom) scenarios.
2030-2050, RCP2.6 2080-2100, RCP2.6

50
-25
MCP change compared to 1981-2015 (%)

0
-25
2030-2050, RCP8.5 2080-2100, RCP8.5
-50
-75
-100
Notes and source: MCP change is relative to recent historical catch (1985-2015). Estimation by authors.
3.3. Economic Effects of Climate Change on Fisheries

Reductions in catch potential reduce revenues but strong
management can offset some losses.
Climate change is expected The impacts of climate change on fisheries can be calculated in economic terms.14 This report
to decrease economic estimates the change in fisheries revenues,15 variable fishing costs,16 and overall economic
returns to fisheries by returns under different climate change and management scenarios. In line with the projected
15-26 percent by 2050. reductions in catch discussed in the previous section, total fisheries revenue across the
Indonesian EEZ is projected to drop by 15 and 27 percent under the low (SSP1-2.6) and high
(SSP5-8.5) emissions scenarios, respectively, by 2050, in the absence of climate adaptation
measures in management (explored further below). Falls in catch drive lower costs as well as
lower revenues (due to decreased fishing activity), with the variable cost projected to drop by 10
and 21 percent under low emission and high emission scenarios, respectively. The resulting total
economic returns (the difference between revenues and costs) are projected to decrease by 15
and 26 percent under low emission and high emission scenarios, respectively, with only minor
differences between eastern, central and western regions (Figure 15 and Table 2).
14 The method used for these calculations is elaborated in Lam et al. (2016).
15 Revenues are calculated as the product of the species’ ex-vessel price and projected maximum catch potential (reported in section 3.2). Real ex-vessel price
(i.e., after adjusting for inflation) is kept constant throughout the projection period given uncertainties in future price projections. Real ex-vessel fish prices have
remained relatively stable since 1970 (Swartz et al. 2012) although may increase in the future.
16 The variable costs of different fleet types in Indonesia were obtained from a literature review. Since fishing cost data comes in a variety of formats (cost per year
or cost per trip, etc.), the variable cost to landed value ratio was calculated in each fishing sector (large-scale and small-scale), considering the fleet size and
tonnage of the fleet (0.532 for large-scale, 0.399 for small-scale). Ratios were applied to the landed values of each taxon to calculate the fishing cost.
43
Figure 15: Projected change in economic returns to Table 2: Projected change in catch, fishing revenue,
Indonesia’s fisheries by region costs, and economic returns
Percentage change in economic returns (revenues less costs) by 2050 Projected change relative to current conditions by 2050 (%),
relative to current returns by region and climate scenario. all Indonesian waters and fisheries.
Eastern Central Indian Ocean

Fishing
0 Catch Revenues Profit
Cost
Percent change
-10 Low emission -13.1 -14.8 -14.6 -15.0

scenario
(SSP1-2.6)
-20
High emission -25.7 -26.5 -26.4 -26.6
scenario
-30 (SSP5-8.5)
Low emission scenario High emission scenario Source: Estimation by authors.

(SSP1-2.6) (SSP5-8.5)
Source: Estimation by authors.
The small-scale fleet will be Impacts differ slightly between large-and small-scale fleets. Economic returns for the small-
affected slightly more than scale sector drop by 17-19 percent under the low emissions scenario, and 28-29 percent under
the large-scale fleet the high emissions scenario, across the three regions by 2050 relative to returns at present.
These estimates conservatively assume that fishing effort remains at a level conducive to
maximum sustainable yield throughout this time, i.e., there is no overfishing. Economic returns
within the large-scale fishing sector drop by 13-14 percent under the low emissions scenario and
24-27 percent under the high emissions scenario across the three regions.
Climate effects interact While these effects are substantial, climate change is not the primary determinant of a fishery’s
with fishery management productivity. Fishing effort levels, which are controlled by the management regime, are also
effectiveness critical. High effort levels (overfishing) cause short-term increases in catches and thus increased
revenues, but over the long term, reduce the size of the stock and thus its productivity. Effort
levels also affect fishing costs, with greater effort leading to higher costs. Similarly, depleted
stocks imply higher fishing costs as the few remaining fish become harder to find. Management
directly affects these factors. Management determines the objective of the fishery—for example,
to maximize the volume of production for food security or maximize economic returns—and
provides the tools to enforce fishing effort levels consistent with that objective. Most fisheries
in Indonesia are benchmarked against the maximum sustainable yield (MSY, equivalent to
maximum potential catch). As described in section 1, many of Indonesia’s key stocks are close to
this target because gradual improvements to Indonesia’s fishery management systems in recent
years. Some are still experiencing overfishing.
Well-managed stocks have These management outcomes interact with climate change. Overfished stocks can be expected
a buffer against climate to see a greater reduction due to negative climate change impacts than those currently
impacts underfished. A reduction in the maximum catch potential due to climate change reduces the
optimal effort level relative to current effort levels, implicitly increasing overfishing. This is
thought to have contributed to the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
off the US and Canadian east coasts in the 1990s. Overfishing may have been occurring for
years despite the fishery operating within harvest limits because those limits did not account
for climate-associated declines in productivity (Pershing et al. 2015). This contrasts with an
underfished stock, which has a “buffer.”
Overfished stocks face Projected economic losses under climate change are thus much worse under poor management.
large climate losses… Overfishing by 20 percent above MSY causes projected losses in the small-scale sector of 28-
30 percent in 2050 relative to present. This is under the low global emissions scenario. Losses
are even greater under the high emissions scenario, or under more severe overfishing. Given
the improving trends in Indonesia’s fishery management outcomes (see Figure 8), and provided
these trends continue, overfishing is unlikely to reach extreme levels. Yet, the results highlight
the importance of avoiding even mild overfishing given the interaction that occurs between
overfishing and climate change. Essentially, stocks are placed under severe pressure by climate
change, even under the low emissions scenario, as demonstrated in section 3.2. Overfishing then
pushes these stressed stocks to the point of near economic collapse.
44
… while conservative fishery By contrast, climate losses are partially or fully mitigated under highly conservative
management can partially management. Keeping the total fishing effort in the small-scale sector at around 80 percent
offset losses in the small- of MSY (in line with Indonesia’s target catch rate) would shift climate losses from 16.7-19.3
scale sector… percent down to 9.1-10.7 percent under the low emissions scenario. Notably, management
improvements alone appear unable to fully offset small-scale losses (see Table 3, where more
extreme restrictions do not improve outcomes further). Other measures will thus be required to
offset losses in economic terms: a focus on small-scale value-add (i.e., improved market access
and product quality), cost efficiencies in harvesting, and cash transfers for those who can exit
the sector. Such policy options are elaborated in section 5.2.
… and fully offset losses in In the large-scale sector, conservative management can, in principle, completely offset climate
the large-scale sector under losses under the low emissions scenario. Economic returns are projected to be 4-6 percent
a low emissions scenario greater than those received today under the most restrictive management regime, or on par with
today’s returns under a more modest management regime (Table 3 and Figure 16). An important
consideration not fully accounted for in the modeling is spillover effects between the large-scale
and small-scale sectors. If management quality improves significantly in the large-scale fleet,
but corresponding improvements are not made in the small-scale fleet, small-scale fishing
efforts may rise to take advantage of the “space” left by the restrictions on large-scale vessels.
This would partially undermine the value of the management action. This applies only to stocks
shared between the fleets. Management enhancements in both fleets together is thus important.
Table 3: Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors
(Indonesia’s eastern, central, and Indian ocean waters), climate, and management scenarios (fishing effort).
Low emission scenario (SSP1-2.6) High emission scenario (SSP5-8.5)

Management
Scenario 0.5*MSY 0.8*MSY MSY 1.2*MSY 1.5*MSY 0.5*MSY 0.8*MSY MSY 1.2*MSY 1.5*MSY
(effort)
Small-scale fishing sector economic returns (revenues-costs)
Eastern -13.2 -9.1 -16.7 -28.1 -59.9 -25.0 -21.5 -28.0 -38.0 -65.5
Central -15.2 -11.7 -19.3 -30.4 -60.9 -26.1 -22.9 -29.3 -39.1 -66.0
Indian Ocean -15.8 -10.7 -17.2 -27.8 -57.7 -27.1 -22.5 -28.1 -37.2 -63.1
Large-scale fishing sector economic returns (revenues-costs)
Eastern 4.2 0.1 -14.4 -31.4 -73.1 -11.5 -15.0 -27.2 -41.8 -77.2
Central 6.2 1.3 -13.9 -31.2 -73.5 -7.9 -12.2 -25.3 -40.5 -77.1
Indian Ocean 4.2 0.9 -13.2 -30.1 -71.8 -9.3 -12.2 -24.4 -39.1 -75.4
Source and Notes: Average fishing effort at present is assumed to be FMSY (effort associated with MSY). Harvest above MSY implies overfishing
(which for modeling purposes is assumed to be sustained, causing the fishery to become overfished). Author estimations.
45
Juwana, Pati Regency, Central Java

Photo by Alfi Hilman on Unsplash
Figure 16: Projected change in economic returns for small-scale and large-scale fishing sectors
(Indonesia’s eastern, central, and Indian ocean waters), and management scenarios.
Large-scale sector; low climate change scenario Small-scale sector; low climate change scenario
0.5* MSY 0.8* MSY MSY 1.2* MSY 1.5* MSY 0.5* MSY 0.8* MSY MSY 1.2* MSY 1.5* MSY
20 20
0 0
Profit Change (%)
Profit Change (%)
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
Eastern Central Indian Ocean Eastern Central Indian Ocean
Source: Estimation by authors. Low climate change scenario represented by SSP1-RCP2.6.
46
Climate change is expected

to decrease economic
returns to fisheries by
15-26 percent by 2050 in
the absence of adaptation
measures.
47
4
The
Vulnerability
of Coastal
Communities
Kelingking Beach, Nusa Penida, Bali
Photo by Reinis Birznieks on Unsplash
Gili Trawangan, Gili Indah, North Lombok Regency

4. The Vulnerability of Coastal

Communities
The vulnerability of Indonesia’s coastal communities is a function of
environmental change and socio-economic conditions.
The way in which climate This report has so far considered a specific type of climate vulnerability: the physical and
and fisheries impacts economic impacts of oceanic changes on fisheries. Indonesia’s dependence on fishery
people depends on the resources—for export revenues, coastal livelihoods, and food security—means that this source
socio-economic context of vulnerability is significant. However, the impact that changes in fisheries will have on the
community and household well-being depends on many factors. Some communities will be able
to weather dramatic changes in income and livelihood changes arising from one sector due to a
diversified local economy, strong local institutions, good public services and infrastructure, high
income, and education levels, or tight community bonds. Others lacking in one or more of these
factors will feel the impacts of diminishing fisheries more severely.
Risk-factors include the Building on the results presented above, this report now considers those broader socio-economic
level of dependency on factors to identify the most vulnerable areas of Indonesia. Vulnerability is commonly described
fishery resources, diversity as being a function of four dimensions: hazard, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity
of the economy, and (IPCC 2007; Allison et al. 2009; Blasiak et al. 2017). (1) Hazard is the severity of climate change
development level itself (e.g., temperature change or sea-level rise); (2) Exposure is the presence of people and
ecosystems likely to be affected by climate impacts (e.g., coastal population, presence of major
fisheries); (3) Sensitivity is the degree to which the exposed people will be impacted (e.g., due
to dependency on fisheries for food security); and (4) Adaptation is the capacity of people
and communities to adjust (e.g., functional village governance, high education levels). The
combination of these factors determines climate vulnerability (Box 5).
50
TH E V U LNERAB I LI TY O F COASTAL COMMUNITIE S
Box 5. Quantifying Climate Vulnerability at National and WPP scales
T
his study quantifies relative vulnerability at national and fishery management area (Wilayah Pengelolaan
Perikanan, WPP) levels. It uses a risk assessment framework from the IPCC Working Group II Fifth Assessment
Report adapted for a specific focus on fisheries. The selected variables represent hazard, exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptation capacity. A similar set of variables is used for national and WPP level assessments, with some substitutions
based on data limitations when required.
Hazard (H) Exposure (E) Sensitivity (S) Adaptation Capacity (AC)
• Projected turnover of • Coastal population (no.) • Employment in fishing • Health care centers (No.)
marine species • Coastal villages (no.) sector • Schooling length (years)
• Projected marine • Projected change in max. • Fish consumption per • University participation (%)
heatwaves catch potential (%) capita • Governance index
• Climate disaster incidence • Coral reef-dependent • Malnutrition rate (%) • Employment diversity index
species (%) • Poverty rate (%) • Motorized fishing vessels (%)
• Overfished stocks (%) • Fishery value (% GDP) • Road development
• Presence and condition of • Catch (tonnes) • Disaster preparedness
mangroves
Scores for each variable were normalized to one and summed to arrive at a score for each of the four categories
(Vulnerability = H+E+S-AC). No assumptions are made regarding the relative importance of each factor (i.e., each has the
same weighting). Data at provincial level (e.g., coastal population) was aggregated to the national or WPP level. A country
or WPP with a high vulnerability score is assumed to have (i) high exposure to climate change; (ii) high level of fisheries
contributions to its economy and food security; and (iii) low ability to respond and adapt to climate risks.
Source: Authors.
Indonesia ranks third in the Southeast National level vulnerability assessment utilizes an existing national-level climate-
Asian region for coastal climate and fishery assessment drawing on the same techniques used in this report (but with a
fisheries vulnerability lower level of species and spatial specificity) (see Cheung et al. 2016a). These findings
are integrated with published socio-economic indicators (see Box 4). Aggregated
scores suggest that Myanmar, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the top three most
vulnerable countries in the region (in that order) to the impacts of climate change
on fisheries. The overall relative vulnerability of Indonesia is driven particularly by
sensitivity (i.e., the importance of fisheries for livelihoods, meeting the country’s
protein needs, and export value). Indonesia’s adaptive capacity (health, GDP level per
capita, and governance) is mid-ranked against regional peers and has improved in
recent years.
Figure 17: Regional comparison of vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries

Relative scores (0-1) for exposure (and hazard), sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability.
The top ranked country in the region receives a 1, the lowest a 0.
0,8
Relative Score
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Myanmar Vietnam Indonesia Cambodia Philippines Timor-Leste Malaysia Brunei Singapore
Source: Authors. Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity Vulnerability Total
51
Climate hazard is greatest Country-level analysis provides a broad benchmark but little of the granularity required for
in WPP 714, 718 and 713 policymaking. A more targeted approach considers the same variables at a WPP level, again
combining the indices of hazard, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptative capacity to determine
overall relative vulnerability for each WPP.17 Doing so provides broad geographic guidance
toward hotspots of climate concern. WPPs 713, 714, 571, and 573 appear to face some of the
greatest underlying climate hazards (see Section 3.2), with hazards driven by a high rate of
species turnover (particularly WPP 573 and 714), projected marine heatwave intensity and
duration (particularly WPP 571 and 573), and elevated presence of climate disasters (particularly
WPPs 714 and 713). These are areas where the greatest ecological change can be expected.
Improved protection for marine and coastal ecosystems under stress and strengthening coastal
infrastructure and local disaster risk management systems will be important in these areas.
Climate exposure appears WPPs 711, 713, and 714 appear to face some of the greatest exposure to climate hazards
greatest in WPP 711, 713 based on these metrics. Scores are driven by high coastal population (WPP 713), high coastal
and 714 population proportion (WPPs 714 and 715), elevated presence of overfished stocks (WPPs 711,
713, and 717), and dependency on coral-reef associated stocks (WPP 711, 713 and 714). Loss
of maximum catch potential is projected to particularly affect WPPs 718 and 711, but also
affects WPP 571 and 572 (zones that face less exposure on other metrics). Resilience will require
continued focus on improved fishery management and measures to diversify coastal economies
over the long-term.
Climate sensitivity appears WPPs 713, 714, and 718 appear to have elevated sensitivity to climate change. This is seen
greatest in WPP 714, 715 particularly in terms of elevated numbers of fishing households, income dependence on fisheries,
and 718; these areas’ also and high fish consumption per capita (all evident in WPP 714, 715, and 718), along with the
have low adaptive capacity incidence of malnutrition (particularly WPP 714) and poverty (WPP 714 and 718). Adaptive
capacity mirrors these results to some extent, with WPPs 717, 718, and 711 showing relatively
low adaptive capacity. Yet results are mixed. Measures of adaptive capacity are broad and
extend well-beyond coastal and fishery-related metrics and should be considered rough proxies
of adaptation capacity only, generally reflecting regional development status. Health measures
(health care centers in the village; life expectancy at birth) are relatively low in WPPs 717, 718,
and 571, along with education metrics (length of schooling, university participation rates). WPPs
717 and 718 also stand out for low road development and disaster risk mitigation systems.
In aggregate, WPP 713, The combination of these factors suggests that WPP 713, 714, and 718 are the most vulnerable
714, and 718 are most to the impacts of climate change on fisheries in Indonesia (Figure 18). These areas combine
vulnerable to climate larger rates of projected change in fishery resources with high levels of dependence and reduced
impacts, although further adaptive capacity. It is important to note that vulnerability assessments take a variety of forms,
research is needed and the conclusions of any study depend on the indicators chosen to represent each vulnerability
component. It is also important to note that the selected indicators reflect processes occurring
on varied timescales, with socio-economic indicators signaling current conditions and fishery
indicators reflecting a combination of current (e.g., overfishing) and future projected conditions
(maximum catch potential). Development conditions will change as a function of economic
growth, and Indonesia’s long-term development goals and differentiated rates of development
will eventually change the rankings presented in this section. Yet measures to increase
adaptation capacity and reduce sensitivity and exposure are generally long-term propositions.
Relative results based on current conditions indicate where investments and programs are most
needed to drive development in ways that help mitigate both present and future vulnerability.
17 WPPs are ocean areas and thus not themselves vulnerable in a socio-economic sense. Our analysis uses WPPs as shorthand for the provinces and communities
that border these WPPs and utilize their resources. The analysis combines ecological risks facing the WPP areas themselves (i.e., fisheries) with socio-economic
risk factors of communities along their shores.
52
TH E V U LNERAB I LI TY O F COASTAL COMMUNITIE S
Figure 18: Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP

Relative vulnerability as a function of climate change exposure (and hazard), sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
571
716
711 717
715
572
712 713
714
718
Normalized risk index
573
Very low Low
High Very High
Source: Authors
Box 6. Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Indonesia’s Coastal Communities
I
ndonesia is particularly exposed to sea-level rise (SLR), ranked fifth highest in population inhabiting low elevation
coastal zones (Church, et al. 2013). By 2050, global sea levels are expected to rise between 0.24 m (0.17-0.32 m)
under a low global emissions scenario (RCP2.6) and 0.32 m (0.23-0.40 m) under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5)
(Oppenheimer et al. 2019). This will accelerate erosion and flooding in Indonesia’s coastal areas, possibly damaging
mangrove ecosystems, aquaculture, agriculture, and infrastructure. Studies suggest health impacts from increased
disease (e.g., malaria and dengue fever) are also possible, along with increased pressure on sanitation systems (Marfai
2014; Bappenas 2021).
The number of people exposed to coastal flooding is projected to grow. By the 2030s, around 9 million people in Indonesia
could reside in a 100-year flood plain (an area exposed to 1 in 100-year coastal floods), growing to 14 million people by the
2060s (this compares to a baseline of 5.4 million people in 2000) (Neumann et al. 2015). These estimates assume a 10
cm SLR by 2030 and 21 cm SLR by 2060. Over 20.5 million people in almost 80 cities already live in high flood-risk areas
(Figure B5.1). Flood damage modeling predicts flood damage costs of US$17 billion in 2030 (0.55 percent of GDP) and
US$47 billion by 2050 (0.73 percent of GDP), up from US$1.2 billion (0.13 percent of GDP) in 2010.
Figure B6.1: Coastal flood risk map for Indonesia
MALAYSIA BRUNEI
DARUSSALAM
Kuala Lumpur Tarakan Celebes
Sea
SINGAPORE
Molucca
Sea
Padang
MALAYSIA INDONESIA Laut

BRUNEI Seram
Palembang
DARUSSALAM
Banjarmasin
Kuala Lumpur Tarakan Celebes
Sea
Laut
Jawa Makassar Laut
Banda
SINGAPORE Jakarta
Bandung
Surabaya Molucca
Sea
TIMOR
Padang
LESTE Arafura
Laut Sea
INDONESIA Laut
Timor
Palembang Seram
Banjarmasin
Laut Source and notes: Adapted from WRI Aqueduct Model

Jawa Makassar Laut
(2019). Coastal flood risk measures the proportion of the
Low Low-medium Medium-high
Jakarta High Extremely high Banda
population expected to be affected by coastal flooding in
(0 to 9 in (9 in 1,000,000 Bandung
(7 in 100,000 to (3 in 10,000 to
Surabaya (more than 2 in an average year, accounting for existing flood protection
1,000,000) to 7 in 100,000) 3 in 10,000) 2 in 1,000) 1,000) standards.
TIMOR
LESTE Arafura
Laut Sea
Timor
53
5
The Path
Forward
Padar Island, West Manggarai Regency
Photo by Bagir Bahana on Unsplash
Halmahera, North Maluku

Photo by Kanenori on Pixabay
5. The Path Forward

5.1. Possibilities for Indonesia’s Fishing Future
Climate change is a severe threat, but the worst of its effects
are not inevitable.
Some level of climate This report has presented a difficult diagnostic. Climate change impacts on fisheries in Indonesia
change impacts are are projected to be some of the most severe in the world, with decreases in catch potential of 20
locked in to 30 percent under a high emissions scenario and 10-15 percent under a low emissions scenario.
Indonesia’s tropical ocean geography means that its fisheries already occupy the upper end of
the temperature spectrum-ecological niche combination. There are thus relatively few species
that can increase their abundance in a warmer world. Indonesia is also one of the world’s most
fishery-dependent large nations in terms of per capita consumption, livelihoods, and economic
contribution, as could be expected given the richness of the country’s fishery resources.
Moreover, the fundamental challenge of temperature is mostly beyond Indonesia’s control:
significant temperature rise is baked in from past emissions, while the emissions choices of the
global collective will determine the extent of additional rises.
Yet adaptation actions will Yet significantly different outcomes remain possible. As a top-five global emitter and a top-
be critical in determining twenty global economy, Indonesia has some influence over the global emissions trajectory.
outcomes on the ground Indonesia’s ability to meet its medium-term NDC target—a 32 to 43 percent reduction below
business-as-usual projections—and its willingness to drive emissions to net zero in the long
term will influence choices made by other nations. However, more importantly, adaptation and
resilience measures remain firmly in Indonesia’s control. The combination of global action and
local adaptation will determine Indonesia’s climate future.
56
TH E PATH FORWAR D
‘Blue-Fish’ climate-resilient This report now turns to a set of options that can drive extensive local adaptation and thus
policies are the focus of offset many climate impacts. We call this future a ‘Blue-Fish’ world. Catch potential declines in
this section line with the impacts described in section 3, but Indonesia mitigates economic losses through
robust and adaptive fishery management systems. Ecosystems show adverse climate impacts
(such as coral bleaching) but spatial planning and coastal ecosystem protection help mitigate
effects. The alternative is a ‘Brown-fish’ world, in which climate change compounds fragile
ecosystems, stressed fish stocks, and vulnerable communities. Moving Indonesia as close
as possible towards ‘Blue-Fish’ outcomes through policy and programming measures—while
recognizing that not all ‘Brown-Fish’ realities are avoidable—given the global nature of climate
change is the focus for the remainder of the report.
5.2. Strategies for a ‘Blue-Fish’ World

A policy framework for climate resilience strengthens ecosystems,
fisheries, and communities.
Design and implementation Countries with high climate risk are increasingly implementing adaptation actions across their
of fishery sector adaptation economies, although measures specifically for fishery sector adaptation are relatively nascent.
measures is at a nascent Indonesia has made important progress in a range of areas. The government recognizes the
stage globally importance of marine and fishery sector adaptation and is working to develop strategies for its
Roadmap for Climate Adaptation.
Figure 19: A stylized depiction of Indonesia’s future under a ‘Blue-Fish’ world

A future in which extensive local adaptation efforts offset impacts to the extent possible and global
emissions are rapidly curtailed (SPP1-2.6).
Source: Authors.
57
Measures will be needed in ‘Blue-fish’ world outcomes will require a combination of mutually complementary outcomes. The
three complementary areas: foundation of Indonesia’s fishery sector is the natural assets that provide habitat for stocks:
(1) coastal ecosystem mangroves, seagrasses, and coral reefs. Adaptation will require protecting these ecosystems
protection… against the worst effects of climate change, in many cases, by reducing compounding
anthropogenic stressors such as coastal mangrove clearing or damage from fishing vessels.
Given the storm protection and erosion benefits reefs and mangroves offer, these actions will
also help fortify coastal communities in some locations (Guannel et al. 2016).18 These benefits
will likely grow as coastal areas become more developed and climate change becomes more
severe (providing coastal urbanization pressures do not place ecosystems at further risk).
… (2) robust and adaptive Building on a foundation of resilient ecosystems is robust and climate-adaptive fishery
fishery management, management. Even with healthy fish nurseries and other habitats, overfishing can still
and (3) stronger coastal undermine fish stocks’ productivity as demonstrated in the previous section. This is true
communities. irrespective of climate change but becomes more important as climate change becomes more
severe. Finally, communities will increasingly need to look beyond fishing for incomes and
livelihoods and will need assistance to bring about the local economic transformation required.
This is recognized by the Government of Indonesia, which is investing in coastal livelihoods, skills,
and infrastructure, through programs such as Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan Sejahtera, LAUTRA),
the Coastal Communities Development Project (CCDP), and the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and
Management Program (COREMAP). Continued investments, along with support for community-
level governance capacity and economy-wide efforts to promote productivity will be needed.
The measures put forward below draw on the perspectives of stakeholders (Box 7), successful
existing programs in Indonesia, complemented by new approaches being trialed globally.
Box 7. Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Adaptation Strategies
A
daptation requires actions from diverse stakeholders—including government, industry,
academia, and civic society—whose knowledge and perspectives on the best path
forward differ. The joint study team held participatory stakeholder consultations to gather
perspectives on adaptation strategies and exchange knowledge. The first workshop focused on
identifying the perceived severity of climate impacts and broad adaptation strategies. The second
workshop concentrated on specific adaptation measures and assessing their risks and benefits.
MMAF extended invitations to national and provincial government agencies, non-governmental
organizations, including industry groups representing fishers, and academia.
The first workshop focused on three sub-topics: impacts and strategies for fisheries management, socio-economic
wellbeing, and marine and coastal ecosystems. The second workshop built on findings from the first to propose adaptation
strategies for fisheries management, erosion and flood mitigation, and coral bleaching. Guiding questions aided by
live polls were used to encourage discussion, while online questionnaires gathered data. Findings have informed the
recommendations presented in this report.
Perceived climate impacts. Participants expressed the greatest concern about extreme weather (including heavy rainfall
and floods), followed by coral bleaching and degradation of corals, and changes in fisheries abundance and location.
Coastal erosion and sea-level rise attracted mid-level concern.
Perceived most effective types of adaptation responses. Participants nominated three categories of adaptation actions
as most important: (1) Investments in social capital, including capacity-building, education, improving social cohesion, and
social assistance for coastal communities (e.g., financial savings and training programs); (2) restoration and sustainability
actions for coastal ecosystems, including rehabilitating mangrove and corals, protecting watersheds and forests (to reduce
runoff, flood risks, and land-based pollution), and stronger natural resources management (e.g., MPAs); and (3) improved
governance, including increased cooperation between government and non-government agencies; multi-stakeholder
dialogues, and inclusion of adaptation actions in development plans (Figure B6.1).
18 Reefs and mangroves lessen damage from storm surge and tsunamis. Less dramatically but more frequently, they moderate wind-waves and swells, reducing
chronic shoreline erosion. Recent studies indicate that Indonesia’s coral reefs protect coastal areas from flood damage worth at least US$639 million annually
(Beck et al. 2018), while mangrove protection is worth a further estimated US$250-500 million (Menéndez et al. 2020). It should be noted that mangroves,
seagrass, and reefs provide protection most effectively as intact systems rather than as single habitat types due to their complementary characteristics.
Integrated management is thus important.
58
TH E PATH FORWAR D
Perceived most effective adaptation actions.
• Preference for adaptation strategies for coastal erosion and floods were evenly divided between “Brace for the storm”
actions (those that reduce personal, property, and financial damages) and “fortify defenses” actions (those that protect
coastal ecosystems and buffer against storms), reflecting participant’s recognition of the complementarity between
these categories. Building seawalls, for instance, is reinforced by coastal habitat protection, early warning weather
systems, and evacuation shelters, and indirectly, by education for greater awareness of storm and erosion risks.
Mangrove rehabilitation was seen as a particularly valuable “fortifying” activity, although participants raised a need
for regulations to implement and enforce rehabilitation. “Get out of harm’s way” type strategies (retreat from areas
of exposure, develop new towns and cities, provide social assistance) were the least favored strategy, possibly due to
negative experiences with past relocation projects.
• Preference for actions to protect reefs favored “stress reduction” activities, such as stronger protections for reefs
(including MPAs), fishing gear restrictions, anchoring restrictions, and jetty construction to avoid damage to coral
reefs from boats. “Climate proofing” strategies—actions that build resilient corals through coral “gardening,” assisted
migration and colonization, assisted genetics, and microbiome manipulation—were less favored, possibly partially due to
lower levels of familiarity with these approaches (many of which are at the proof-of-concept stage only, see Rinkevich et
al. 2019).
• Preferences for actions within fishery management favored diversifying fishing practices, such as diversifying fish catch
composition, changing fishing grounds and gear, and investing in new equipment. A contrasting view opposed relying on
technology-centered adaptation and instead focusing on strengthening community fishing associations and capacity
and improving market access. Measures to reduce reliance on fishing were relatively less preferred among stakeholders,
with perceptions that it would entail economic hardship on fishers.
Perceived risks: Stakeholders noted that many strategies entail risk (Table B6.1). Identified risks of concern include the
length of time and research needed for technology-centered coral reef adaptations and the need for maintenance and
training funding for fortified erosion and flooding control. A common concern was around livelihood impacts. Creating
MPAs, for instance, was perceived to reduce resources available to people in the short term (although may increase them
longer term). Reducing reliance on fisheries was seen as a risk to livelihoods and income. Also common was concern that
adaptation policies could lead to social tension or conflict. This came across particularly strongly in discussions about
relocation.
Figure B7.1: Perceived most important adaptation actions
(1) Social Capital Investment

(2) Ecosystem Restoration and Protection
(3) Governance
(4) Other Measures
(5) Technology Innovation
(6) Disaster risk reduction
(7) Fisheries Management
(8) Nature Based Solutions
(9) Alternative Livelihoods
(10) Communication and outreach
(11) Waste Management
(12 Business Innovation
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Academia Government NGO and Fisher Group
Notes: (1) The cultural norms and relationships that build cooperation among individuals in a community; (2) improving degraded
ecosystems to a sustainable level; (3) Formal and informal rules and institutions that underpin NRM and access to NRs; (4) Other
measures including climate mitigation; (5) technologies that assist people in adapting to climate change; (6) Interventions that increase
people’s preparedness to deal with extreme events (e.g., storms and floods) and reduce losses; (7) Formal and informal regulations in
place governing fishing; (8) Activities that restore ecosystems while also providing social, economic, and cultural benefits; (9) Programs to
reduce reliance on unsustainable resource exploitation; (10) Stakeholder outreach to exchange knowledge and opinions; (11) infrastructure
to manage waste and prevent pollution; (12) new and climate-sensitive business models. Data is from participant responses, compiled by
Authors. Workshops were held March 9 and June 8, 2021, with 85 and 62 participants, respectively.
59
Table B7.1: Risks perceived as associated with climate adaptation strategies
Threat: Coral Bleaching Erosion and Floods Fisheries
Brace (reduce personal, property,
Get out of harm’s way (relocation)

Fortify (protect ecosystems that
Diversify (change grounds, gear,

Maintain (adjustment to fishing
management and protection)
technology, eco-engineering)
Climate proof (research and
Reduce reliance (long-term

Reduce stress (ecosystem
alternatives to fishing)
Adaptation
effort, gear, markets)

and financial losses)
Actions:
buffer storms)
markets)
Risks:
Insufficient
resources (budget, + + + +
time, training)
Management and
implementation + + +
failure
Decreased
+ + +
economic resilience
Decreased access
+
to resources
Social conflict
+ + + +
and/or disparities
Decreased
biodiversity or env. + + +
sustainability
Note: Risks in dark cells are those nominated by participants; risks in light cells are
additions nominated by the study team.
5.2.1. Protected Ecosystems

The foundation of climate resilient fisheries and coastal communities
are healthy ecosystems.
Resilience requires Ecosystem protection is crucial for climate resilience. Protection is especially pertinent to
protecting ecosystems from coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses, and the fisheries they support, which are projected to be
a range of threats increasingly threatened by increased temperature and marine heatwaves. While ecosystems
protection cannot mitigate the direct impacts of climate change, protection from the
compounding stress of other sources of human pressure (runoff, fishing, and development
impacts) greatly improves ecosystem resilience. Protecting vulnerable and valuable habitats
is consistent with Indonesia’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM), along
with the government’s objectives for marine protected areas (MPA), mangrove and coral reef
restoration, and community outreach and support for local management.
Indonesia’s extensive MPA MPAs support fisheries management and ecosystem protection goals and are a key tool for
system is a critical asset improving ecosystems’ resilience. (Marcos et al. 2021). Indonesia has made substantial progress
towards this goal in expanding its MPA network to 23.4 million hectares in 2020 (meeting its Aichi target of
20 million hectares).19 These cover 3 percent of mangroves, 36 percent of seagrass beds, and
43 percent of coral reefs in Indonesia. The country has a further goal of reaching 32.5 million
hectares by 2030 (MMAF 2020). Subsequent action could focus on integrating climate resilience
19 Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity is a call for countries to effectively conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine
areas by 2020.
60
TH E PATH FORWAR D
in MPA design, e.g., identifying locations that are climate refugia (Ban et al. 2016; Carter et al.
2020), or exploring options for future dynamic spatial planning (where MPA boundaries can be
shifted as species’ key habitat areas move, see Cashion et al. 2020). Continued investment in
the quality of management will also be important through ranger training, increased patrols and
enforcement, community engagement, and small infrastructure. Indonesia’s scorecard system—
EVIKA—provides an outcomes-focused roadmap for these investments. While most national
MPAs are close to or have achieved EVIKA “silver” or “gold” status, most provincial-level MPAs
remain at significantly lower stages (“bronze”).20
Sustainable sources of Sustainable funding is necessary to maintain Indonesia’s MPAs and other ecosystem
funding will be needed protections. Funding for MPAs that are protected from regular budget cycles is an ongoing
as threats and climate challenge. One option is to fund MPAs through public budget allocations by transforming the
impacts grow MPA management unit into Public Service Entities (Badan. Layanan Umum, BLU), such as Raja
Ampat MPA, to produce and manage their own revenues (such as tourism and visitation fees).
Another related step—and one more useful for those MPAs unlikely to receive large numbers of
tourists—would be to develop national or sub-national conservation endowment funds that can
leverage and manage multiple financing streams (including philanthropic, private sector, and
international development assistance) for MPA management. This would build on experience at
local and regional levels (such as that in the Bird’s Head Seascape, West Papua). ‘Blue carbon’
financing may be another source of revenue that could contribute to such an endowment fund
(i.e., proceeds from the sale of carbon credits from seagrass and mangrove conservation). Such
financing mechanisms are further discussed in the next section.
Spatial plans can Ecosystems beyond the boundaries of even an expanded network of MPAs will also need
complement MPAs and protection. Spatial planning over marine and coastal areas is needed to avoid conflicting uses
protect ecosystems in other and destructive areas in high-value ecosystems. Indonesia has developed an advanced set of
areas national and provincial-level spatial plans, including coverage of marine areas, which provide
the framework for such protection. Ensuring that these plans boost ecosystem resilience on the
ground will require continued investment in monitoring systems and development permitting
capacities within provincial governments. This could include a national spatial plan scorecard
system (with indicators and targets akin to the EVIKA scorecard system for MPAs) and business
permit issuance that fully considers limitations and guidance posed by spatial plans. Longer-
term, a marine and coastal cadastre (a spatial title registry identifying property rights over
specific areas, including aquaculture sites and tourism facilities) will complement these systems
and help manage conflicts.
Mangrove protection Specific ecosystem protections could further complement spatial plans. The GoI has set a
underpinned by carbon- commendable target for mangrove restoration—600,000 hectares to be restored or to receive
financing will strengthen enhanced protection by 2024. This achievement would be well-complemented by measures to
physical resilience of prevent mangrove loss. Indonesia has a moratorium on land conversion for Indonesia’s primary
coasts. forests. This could be extended to mangroves given their similarly high ecological, carbon,
and economic value (Murdiyarso et al. 2015). Some exceptions will be needed to account for
critical development (in the public interest). Carbon financing can support mangrove protection.
Including mangroves in Indonesia’s land use emissions baseline would allow mangroves to
generate emissions reduction payments in carbon-based schemes such as REDD+. As discussed
further in the next section, Indonesia is already taking pioneering steps in this direction.
Systematic data collection Data and understanding of Indonesia’s ecosystems have improved considerably through recent
underpins climate-resilient investments in capacity. The development of reef, mangrove, and seagrass health indices by
management the National Research and Innovation Agency (Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional, BRIN) is helping
create consistent methods for measurement and harmonizing coastal ecosystem datasets (e.g.,
Hernawan et al. 2022). Yet there remain apparent data gaps. For instance, very little is known
about the extent of and trends in seagrass condition and coverage, despite the importance of
this ecosystem (Sjafrie et al. 2018). There is a need for research that assesses the joint impacts
of climate change with other human stressors (such as water pollution, shipping activity, and
coastal development) to underpin climate resilient management.
20 To achieve the highest levels of effectiveness, strong community participation is necessary. A recent long-term program evaluation of Indonesia’s MPAs found
robust increases in fishery biomass in MPA’s management in those areas with higher levels of community participation in governance (Fidler et al. 2022).
61
Senggigi Beach, West Lombok Regency

Photo by Tandya Rachmat on Unsplash
5.2.2. Climate-Resilient Fisheries

High performing management systems can offset the worst climate
change impacts.
Climate-resilient As seen in section 3.3., robust and adaptive management will be critical for maintaining the
fishery management is contribution that fisheries make to Indonesia’s economy and society. Four characteristics define
precautionary, efficient, a climate-resilient fisheries management system: (1) it is precautionary, because it recognizes
responsive, and integrated the stresses climate change places on fisheries and makes conservative decisions accordingly;
across spatial and temporal (2) it is efficient, because it keeps costs for industry low to partially offset potential losses in
levels. revenues; (3) it is responsive, because it quickly adjusts fishing activities to changes in stock
conditions, and (4) it integrates tools and policies across spatial and temporal scales (Holsman
et al. 2019). In essence, a climate-resilient fishery management system must anticipate and
respond to faster and greater changes in fisheries. These changes will be both the long-time
trends assessed earlier in this report (2050 and beyond) and more dramatic swings season-to-
season or even day-to-day (such as those due to marine heatwaves). The system must be able to
make short-term adjustments while ensuring long-term alignment between fishing effort, stock
conditions, and the fishery management objective (Box 8).
MMAF’s plans, including Several building blocks for such a climate-resilient system are already in place in Indonesia. The
operationalizing WPP WPP system, for instance, decentralizes decision-making and incorporates diverse stakeholders’
management, and views, providing a basis for localized and responsive management. The recently introduced
implementing quota, will plans for sustainable quota-based fishing will provide fishers with allocations (initially limited to
support climate-resilience the large-scale sector). Such “catch-share” systems are used by many countries to give fishers
flexibility in how and when they harvest their catch and to reduce rent-dissipating competition.
Indonesia has endorsed the ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management (EAFM),21
which includes adaptive and precautionary approaches as core tenets (Muawanah et al. 2018).
Once fully implemented, these systems will provide a strong foundation for climate-resilient
fisheries. Safety at sea—important in a context of increasing storm and wave activity—is being
strengthened through vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (Box 9). Yet further actions will be
needed.
21 In 2003, FAO defined EAFM as “an approach to fisheries management and development that strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account
the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to
fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries.”
62
TH E PATH FORWAR D
Tightly defined harvest Climate-readiness of Indonesia’s fishery management system would benefit from adaptive
control rules are the first measures that ensure responsiveness to mid-term changes in conditions while gradually
“line of defense” building capacity for dynamic measures. Harvest control rules with target reference points,
which trigger license renewal and/or quota allocation, will be the basis for sound adaptive
measures. These are the “first line of defense” against climate-change impacts, preventing
overfishing (which compounds climate stresses) and allowing for season-to-season adjustment
in harvests, as climate and non-climate factors demand. In the long term, Indonesia can look to
utilize “dynamic” measures and short-term forecasting that informs rules or advice for avoiding
patches of low productivity or high bycatch. These measures complement strong adaptive and
fixed measures (see Box 7).
Box 8. What Makes Climate-resilient Fisheries Management Different?
A
climate-resilient fishery must have stocks and harvest levels
maintained at sustainable levels. This is generally achieved through well-
defined harvest control rules that ensure permitted harvests are aligned
with the fish stock’s condition. However, in some cases this will be insufficient for
climate-resilience, which must consider greater changes and faster timescales to
traditional fishery management.
Most fishery management systems are a collection of overlapping policies,

regulations, and other measures. These measures can be placed in three
categories based on their temporal characteristics. (1) Measures that are
“fixed”—they are only revisited on decadal or longer timescales. These include
WPP boundaries, MPA locations, and legislatively mandated policies in Indonesia,
such as vessel licensing requirements. (2) Measures that are “adaptive”—these
are periodic (1-5 years) updates to harvest quotas, or target biomasses, such
as MMAF’s total allowable catch (jumlah tangkapan ikan) and licenses provided
to vessels. (3) measures that are “dynamic”—those that respond within days or
weeks to changes in conditions. They include continuous bycatch monitoring,
within-season adjustments to harvest levels, and temporary zone closures. They
use near-real-time ecological data and fisher surveys to inform rapid and more
spatially targeted interventions.
Dynamic measures are relatively new (see Box 10 for an example). Approaches include grid-based hot-spot closures, move-
on rules, and oceanographic closures. Hotspot closures entail restricting access to small cells (as small as 50 km2) of the
ocean when localized bycatch or harvest thresholds are exceeded. Move-on rules are similar restrictions to access, based
on a requirement for fishers to move a set distance from a location when a bycatch or harvest threshold in that hotspot
is exceeded. Oceanographic closures respond to environmental conditions, such as marine heatwaves, implemented daily
or weekly. All are highly targeted, short-term measures that ensure fishing is responding in near real-time to ocean and
fishery conditions, with the potential to dramatically increase the efficiency of fishery management (Dunn et al. 2016).
In summary, climate resilient fisheries management, relative to ordinary fisheries management, makes greater use
of such dynamic measures while drawing on robust adaptive measures. It also ensures that fixed measures are not
overly constraining (or updated too infrequently) in the context of expected climate trends.22 To facilitate adaptive and
dynamic measures, climate-resilient fisheries will need to have richer data collection (species-specific stock and landings
data, socio-economic data on fishers), often drawing on community data collection efforts. Finally, climate-resilient
management relies on multi-stakeholder participation. Complexities and management variation under climate change
means trust and transparency via stakeholder participation are critical to ensure buy-in.
Source: Authors’ elaboration. See also Karr et al. (2021), Hobday et al. (2016).
63
These may require While the principle is simple, implementing adaptive and dynamic measures within Indonesia’s
mechanisms to align decentralized system remains challenging. Many (although not all) licenses are granted by
incentives across levels of provincial governments (specifically, vessels 10-30 GT in coastal waters, less than 12 nautical
government… miles offshore). Provincial governments have their own incentives for issuing licenses that are
not always perfectly aligned with the long-term interests of the WPP (which covers multiple
provinces) or national-level considerations. When fully operational, the WPP structure provides a
forum for discussion and decision-making among varied stakeholders, which will go some way to
establishing consensus. Operationalization of WPP and LPP with staff and capacity—an MMAF
priority—is thus an important step. Longer-term incentive mechanisms could be considered. For
example, quota adjustment supports provinces with the best track records on licensing within
limits, as well as the best track record on enforcement.
…and between managers National or provincial governments could consider a similar incentive mechanism for individual
and firms. firms, with those in full compliance rewarded with prioritized license renewal or quota. Such
mechanisms would require detailed design work and research but can draw on international
experience for lessons. The EU Common Fisheries Policy provides an example, which requires
sustainability considerations in fishing allocations.23 A fishery-level example, and one tied to
a dynamic fishery management measure, is the Scottish “Conservation Credits” scheme. This
involves short, real-time closures of the cod fishery in high-pressure locations,24 combined with
gear requirements. Participants in good standing were rewarded with additional days at sea (i.e.,
quota) (WWF 2009).
Varied approaches will be Given its numerical importance, the small-scale fleet will need continued special attention (over
required for the small-scale 90 percent of vessels and around half of the total harvest). Output-based approaches can, in
fleet, reflecting its diversity some circumstances, apply to small-scale fisheries, particularly when there are well-organized
cooperatives that can hold quota on behalf of their members and provide sufficient oversight
of their actions (reducing transaction costs for managers). Community-based approaches
(locally devised regulations within a nationally recognized framework) will be more suitable in
other situations. These can potentially be supported by expanded registration and monitoring,
for instance, through the e-logbook program (Sari et al. 2021) which MMAF is pursuing. This
report returns to the community and spatially-based systems in section 5. Input controls (gear,
location, and season) restrictions will remain standard tools for management.
Enriched and integrated Adaptive and dynamic management measures necessitate greater levels of data to enable
data underpin climate- managers to make re-occurring decisions on harvests, gear, timing, and spatial restrictions
resilient fisheries that match effort to changing stock conditions. Indonesia has high scientific capacity within
Ministries, designated agencies such as BRIN, and universities. Continued investments in their
fisheries modeling capacity will strengthen them further. This could include investment to fill
remaining data gaps, such as species-specific stock assessments (rather than assessments
of broad fishery categories) and localized stock predictions.25 Yet provincial levels have limited
capacity to apply detailed data and modeling results to inform management. Integration of
different data and knowledge (e.g., that from public scientific, industry, and traditional sources)
is also lacking. Investing in the capacity of regional universities (those that participate in the
LPPs) towards these ends will thus be important, along with continued integration of data
through Indonesia’s OneData Policy, which MMAF is using to streamline its multiple data
systems.
22 Climate resilience requires review of “fixed” measures with greater regularity. Fixed measures are simpler to operate. Once decided, they remain in place. Ongoing
data needs are limited, and enforcement is simple. However, they assume that conditions are not changing. There is a thus a tradeoff as “fixed” measures are
moved to become adaptive (which places a burden both on managers and fishers).
23 The European Union Common Fisheries Policy’s Regulation No. 1380/2013, Article 17, states that “Member States must use transparent and objective criteria,
including those of an environmental, social and economic nature when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, …; whereas those criteria may include
the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance…” Article 17 also states that Member States shall endeavor to provide incentives to fishing
vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption.
24 Closures (of 21 days) are triggered by, for example, changes in species compositions or catch rates/landings per unit effort, indicative of a spike in fishing pressure.
See WWF (2009).
25 Recent research has demonstrated opportunities for adaptive management based on ecological forecasting. For instance, the abundance of S. Lemuru in the
Bali Strait can be predicted from the concentration of chlorophyll-a four months earlier ((Lumban-Gaol et al. 2012). Positive anomalies in chlorophyll-a (itself a
function of changes in the IOD) are associated with greater harvests. Management and processing preparations can be made, and fishers can prepare for lean
seasons with some warning.
64
TH E PATH FORWAR D
Low-data methods can be However, the complexity of Indonesia’s fisheries means that perfect information will never be
used when detailed data is available for all fisheries. Decision-makers can draw on localized and non-standardized data
not available in many cases. Expanding technologies for e-reporting and e-catch documentation will help fill
gaps over time (through the expansion of MMAF’s e-logbook program). Methods of decision-
making designed for low information can help. An example of such a method being trialed in
Mexico, Cuba, and Chile is “fish-baskets,” which simplifies multispecies management (Karr et al.
2021). A fishery that catches many species is managed by assessing a small subset of indicator
species. The full set of species is grouped into management “baskets” of similar vulnerability
and stock characteristics. An indicator species representing each basket is used to determine
harvest control rules. Another example of a low-data assessment tool is the FAO Fishery
Performance Assessment Tool.26
Tuna will require particular Tuna will require special attention. Indonesia’s three main tuna species are some of Indonesia’s
focus and international most valuable fisheries and are already being impacted by changes in ocean temperature. MMAF
collaboration is investing in the future viability of the country’s tuna stocks through a new nationwide harvest
strategy with sustainability provisions, including tighter controls on harvests in overfishing
locations and restrictions on fishery aggregating devices (FADs). These provide a sound basis
for future climate adaptive and dynamic measures. On the international stage, Indonesia’s
participation in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) has yielded higher tuna
harvests, allowing it to expand the high tuna seas longline fleet. The forum may also serve as a
platform for Indonesia to collaborate on international research on climate impacts on migratory
tuna stocks, which may inform future quota decisions.
Box 9. Extreme Weather and Fishing Safety
C
limate change is expected to increase storm activity and wave height. Greater wave
heights threaten smaller vessels and place greater stress on coastal infrastructure. These
trends are already being felt, with estimated wave heights increasing in Indonesia by 0.38
to 0.75 cm per year between 1984 and 2003 (an average total increase of 7-14 cm over this period,
Zikra et al. 2015). Related studies show this trend continuing in Indonesia. Globally, wave energy
has increased at approximately 0.4 percent per year between 1948-2008 and accelerated to 2.3
percent per year since 1994 because of warmer oceans (Reguero et al. 2019). The challenge of more
dangerous seas interacts with behavioral changes caused by diminishing fish stocks, specifically
longer and more dangerous voyages.
Meanwhile, due to its low latitude, cyclones do not directly impact Indonesia. Still, the country feels the effects of tropical
cyclones in the southeastern Indian Ocean between January and April and in the eastern Pacific between May and
December, with the country usually impacted by strong winds and heavy rainfall. Increased sea-surface temperatures
associated with climate change are projected to increase tropical cyclone intensity globally. However, the implications for
Indonesia are not yet well known.
In response to these challenges, Bappenas (2021) analysis has called for: (1) strengthening marine early warning systems,
(2) extend the use of automatic tracking systems (vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic identification systems
(AIS), especially among smaller vessels which do not currently require such systems, further investment in marine
safety infrastructure (marine rescue and coast guard facilities), support for vessel repairs and upgrades (e.g., fiberglass
reinforcements on less resilient vessels), as well as insurance mechanisms.
Concerning tracking systems, previous studies suggest opportunities to increase their uptake. A 2018 pilot in Indonesia
with 200 vessels found that advanced tracking devices (VMS+) increased efficiency of fishing operations—notably an
average 10 percent reduction in fuel use—as well as improved safety through their two-way communications features.
Cost-sharing schemes with monthly installment plans could be used to make such systems financially accessible to smaller
vessels. Processors may be willing to contribute to costs in some fisheries, given that using VMS aids compliance with
international traceability requirements and, thus, market access.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
26 FAO´s Fisheries Performance Assessment Toolkit (FPAT)—which is also part of the World Bank´s Fisheries Sector Assessment Toolkit, helps managers
systematically collect, collate, and curate multi-dimensional fisheries data and information from expert judgment, specifically for data-limited and capacity-
limited fisheries analyses, including for harvest strategies.
65
Box 10. Short-term Forecasts for Climate-resilience: The Case of Australian Bluefin Tuna
W
hile adaptive fishery management is the norm in well-managed fisheries globally,
dynamic fisheries management is much more nascent. Eastern Australia’s southern
bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii, SBT) fishery provides an example of the type of measures
likely to become more common as climate impacts become widely understood.
SBT are managed by a quota system (an adaptive measure) in a large multi-species fishery.
Because they are caught alongside other commercial species, the quota for SBT can constrain
fishing activity across several stocks (even when the allowable catch for those stocks allows
continued harvest). SBT are also seasonally distributed according to localized ocean temperatures.
In 2011-12, temperature changes pushed SBT eastward of their historical fishing ground, increasing fishing costs and
causing a localized decline in the stock.
The localized decline in SBT led to a decrease in the catch quota. The lower quota constrained fishers focused on other
species, a challenge that traditional management approaches could not overcome. A dynamic approach was used instead.
A climate-enhanced habitat model was developed using tagging data revealing the narrow temperature band SBT
preferred. The model provided short-term forecast maps (2-4 months), which fishers used to avoid areas where SBT would
be, and thus could continue fishing for other species without hitting their SBT quota constraints. The tool has helped the
industry manage costs and plan their fishery operations, thus managing climate-driven unpredictability in the region.
Source: Authors based on Hobday et al. (2016)
5.2.3. Empowered Communities

Communities need diverse economic opportunities for
climate adaptation.
Diverse and vibrant local The well-being of coastal communities under increasing climate stresses will largely be
economies underpin climate determined by the diversity and quality of their economic opportunities. Diverse economic
resilience opportunities mean households have options that reduce their dependency on fisheries and
other natural resources and the ability to engage in Indonesia’s rapidly growing and modernizing
economy. On current trends, Indonesia’s economic growth will lift millions out of poverty in the
coming decades and provide increasing employment options in higher-wage and productivity
sectors. Coastal communities will benefit from some of these trends—such as rapid expected
growth in marine and coastal tourism (World Bank 2020) and increased integration into global
agricultural and fishery product value chains.
The Government is Yet economic opportunity in coastal communities, most notably those in rural and isolated
promoting local economic locations, will not be delivered by growth trends alone. Climate impacts will inflict income
development through and physical losses on the most vulnerable communities. The isolation and higher costs of
infrastructure and social services provided in more remote coastal communities could create a development divergence
protection between relatively more-resilient urban or peri-urban areas and less-resilient and poorer rural
coastal areas. Investment in infrastructure and basic services, social protection programs, and
livelihoods support will be needed to offset these disadvantages and mitigate vulnerabilities.
A range of investments is proposed or underway—including in fishery harbor, transport, and
cold-chain infrastructure in remote locations, as well as livelihood programs targeted to coastal
communities such as Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan Sejahtera, LAUTRA).
Further opportunities for Social protection measures, including insurance, social security, and income support, can target
support include insurance specific risks posed by climate change to fisheries. An example is seen in the Caribbean, where
and social security a climate-indexed insurance program, the Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability
Facility (COAST), was launched in 2019. The program provides parametric insurance, paid on
expected losses rather than assessed losses, reducing transaction costs. The insurance covers
fishers’ losses due to storms, with payouts disbursed to pre-identified fishers, crew, fish vendors,
66
TH E PATH FORWAR D
and processors made automatically shortly after an event. Such instruments could build on
improvements Indonesia has made to social protection systems in recent years, including
expanding conditional cash transfers (Program Keluarga Harapan, PKH) for the poorest 10 percent
and establishing the universal social registry (Data Terpadu Kesejahteran Sosial, DTKS). There
may also be opportunities to expand social security in the long term. BPS data in 2018 indicates
that only 20 percent of fishers had access to work-accident insurance, old-age security, pension
insurance, and death benefits. This deficiency—which is not uncommon in non-wage, informal
sectors—is currently being addressed by MMAF27 and could be expanded through community
outreach over time (Azhar et al. 2020). Other countries’ experience, such as Morocco’s, shows
this is possible (Box 11).
Diversification will be Building resilient coastal communities will require continued investment in alternative
enhanced by livelihood livelihoods. The ability to transition successfully from fishing to other employment within
programs… fisheries or outside the sector relies on alternatives, skills training (e.g., aquaculture techniques,
business and finance management), and market development for new fishery products (Gillet
2008). Most fishing households already have at least one additional source of income,28 so
developing these skills augments a trend already underway. Experience with alternative
livelihood programs already implemented successfully provide a range of lessons for future
programs. One such lesson is the importance of interventions that diversify, rather than deepen,
fishing dependency. That is, providing equipment that encourages and deepens an individual’s
investments in fishing appears less successful than access-to-finance measures, business skills,
and equipment that supports broader employment options. There is also a need to complement
the supply-side promotion of diversified livelihoods (through business skills-building and
access-to-finance programs) with demand-side analyses to determine what sectors can absorb
additional labor and where market opportunities lie.
… and facilities that In the short and medium term, coastal village economies could be strengthened through further
improve financial services support for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises. Dedicated financing facilities set up
for village enterprises with both public and private capital could offer support services and finance to businesses that
have been previously excluded. This could include non-collateralized loans, loan guarantees (or
unconventional forms of collateral, such as fishing boat deeds), and invoice and cash flow-based
lending products. Facilities would target high-demand areas in coastal communities and channel
resources toward priority climate-resilient livelihood opportunities and towards traditionally
underserved groups. Tools for raising finance for such programs are discussed in the next section.
Box 11. The Coastal Resilience Village Development Program (Pengembangan Kawasan Pesisir Tangguh)
T
he MMAF started the Coastal Resilience Villages Development Program (Pengembangan Kawasan Pesisir
Tangguh, PKPT) in 2012. The program aims to reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of coastal and small
island communities due to disaster, including those caused by climate change. PKPT is one of several concrete
actions set out by Government Regulation Number 64 of 2010 on Disaster Mitigation in Coastal Areas and Small Islands.
PKPT stimulates behavior changes within the community, supports basic infrastructure improvements, and builds program
sustainability through institutional development. The program’s design thus combines structural and non-structural
activities within one integrated program. Targeted villages are those most at risk from climate-related disasters, suffering
socio-economic disadvantage and coastal degradation, but with economic potential.
Community involvement in all activities is the key to the successful implementation of PKPT. Community involvement
starts from designing the actions based on their circumstances and continues into implementation. Women’s participation
in decision-making processes within supported community organizations is a particular focus. PKPT regards the
community as the main actor, increasing their sense of belonging and preparing a good foundation for post-program
sustainability.
Source: Authors.
27 MMAF regulation 07/Permen-KP/2016 for the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Raisers, and Sea Salt Farmers.
28 A recent survey by the World Bank and MMAF of 25 coastal villages in 12 provinces found that 90 percent of those who fish have not changed their livelihood
in the past five to ten years, however, 74 percent reported an additional source of income besides fishing. Dependency on fishing for fishing villages surveyed in
central and eastern Indonesia was higher than for western Indonesia, and dependency on fishing was higher for villages further from the regency capital.
67
Gender equitable and Another critical consideration for economic opportunity is gender. Equitable and inclusive
inclusive communities are communities are typically more resilient to external economic and physical pressures. They are
more likely to be resilient less likely to see community members ‘left behind’ during a disaster or downturn. Women play a
significant role in coastal and marine economies, including fisheries, aquaculture, processing and
trading marine products, waste management, coastal tourism, and conservation activities. It is
common, however, for gender norms to often prevent women from developing and contributing
to their full potential (World Bank 2022a). Women’s role in industries like fisheries tends to be
informal and less well-paid, preventing their access to social services that increase climate
resilience and leadership positions.
Closing gender gaps International experience increasingly highlights ways to close gender gaps in coastal
is becoming a focus of development systematically. The 2019 “Tonga Pathway to Sustainable Ocean Project,” for
coastal resilience projects example, included an activity for financing and training for women-led oyster farms, along with
internationally the provision of seeds, boats, and other tools. This ongoing project aims to increase the share of
women-owned oyster businesses by 25 percent. The 2016 “Nouadhibou Eco-Seafood Cluster”
project in Mauritania provided women-targeted business training, reaching 659 women-led
businesses out of 1,100. Meanwhile, the “Unleashing the Blue Economy of the Eastern Caribbean”
project, initiated in 2022, requires that any firm, contractor, supplier, or vendor under the project
have a minimum of 10 percent female staff. This project also provides gender-based violence
prevention training for contractors and gender capacity building in the workplace.
While local circumstances Another interesting example comes from Mozambique, where the “Gender Action Learning
will determine exact System” was incorporated into the 2015 Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development
designs, examples show Project. Facilitators helped households envisage shared goals and equity in decision-making and
what is possible domestic chores. In the 12 communities where the methodology was implemented, 74 percent
of beneficiaries reported progress in behavior change and cohesion within their household.
While the design of gender interventions will be highly context-specific, given local norms,
customs, and circumstances, these examples offer possibilities and proof-of-concept. Many of
these approaches have been harnessed in Indonesia or could be further integrated into coastal
resilience development efforts.
Box 12. Social Protection and Formalization for Small-Scale Fishers: The Moroccan Experience.
S
ocial protection measures can incentivize good fishery management practices and
formalization. Morocco has increased formalization in the fishery sector through access
to social services. The Country’s Department of Maritime Fisheries invested in fisheries
infrastructure along the coast, providing facilities for improved storage, preservation, compliance
with international sanitary standards, and marketing (which increased the value of the catch).
These facilities attracted fishers, providing a platform for registering boats and workers who
wanted to use them. They also provided a way to offer and administer social insurance and health
insurance. The National Office of Fisheries automatically deducts social insurance contributions at
the point of sale at the in-port markets, removing the practical barriers to contributing (note that
the benefits that small-scale fishers receive are also cross-subsidized by workers in other sectors,
meaning that they receive more from the social insurance fund than they contribute). Together,
these benefits have incentivized some fishers to formalize their activities, encouraging registration
in and contribution to the overall system.
Building on this process, it is now a legal requirement to market catch through the government-run ports, enroll with the
National Social Security Fund, and contribute to health insurance. Fisher organizations (cooperatives and associations)
have been instrumental in communicating the benefits of formal operation to small-scale fishers. There is still a way to go:
the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in coverage, and fishers are still not entitled to unemployment benefits. Gleaners
and the informal workers supporting pre- and post-harvest activities (the very groups who tend to be the most vulnerable)
are also not included. Nevertheless, Morocco has achieved relatively high formalization in its fishery sector relative to
neighboring countries, creating a more secure industry for workers in the face of regulatory and climate changes.
Source: Authors, based on World Bank (2022b).
68
TH E PATH FORWAR D
5.3. Financing a Resilient Ocean Economy

Significant increases in investment will be needed to build resilience;
new financing instruments can help.
The capital needs for There is considerable interest from the private, philanthropic, and development sectors in
building resilience require providing financing for sustainable ocean activities, including those activities which contribute
new sources of financing to resilient fisheries and coastal ecosystems disused in this report.29 Harnessing these sources
will be important, given that the conventional funding sources that underpin efforts to improve
fisheries and coastal management—including public budgets, development assistance, and
private philanthropy—are considerably exceeded by the estimated needs of the blue economy
(Dharmapuri and Tiwarib 2020). Although nascent, innovative blue finance instruments have
been trialed in limited markets, others are now developing to channel private sector funds (often
guaranteed by some public funds) towards sustainable ocean activities.
Indonesia’s potential is Significantly, Indonesia is recognized as Southeast Asia’s largest impact investing market,30
recognized by markets both by capital deployed and the number of transactions. However, limited amounts of this
finance are reaching the blue economy due to its relative novelty and the lack of clear guidance.
This is not unique: globally, blue finance represented only five percent of climate finance in 2022
(Convergence 2022). At its core, ‘blue finance’ attempts to pool funds from diverse investors
for large public ocean-related projects (implemented by governments) or private ocean-related
commercial projects. Blue finance mechanisms thus aim to: (1) raise low-cost financing, (2)
deliver financing to sustainable ocean activities, and (3) deliver returns, where possible, to
private investors.
Instruments range in Most blue finance instruments developed to-date involve some level of blending between public
structure and uses and private sources. Public funds are used to reduce risks for private investors, crowding in the
quantity of resources offered and lowering their costs. Instruments developed to-date include
blue bonds, concessional loans (with varying structures of interest and payment), as well as
equity and debt funds supported by credit guarantee mechanisms and first loss tranches. In
most cases these mechanisms will require considerable further policy and design work before
funds can flow. Activities suited for blue financing range from coastal infrastructure to natural
resource management. They include sustainable seaweed, tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, and
related value chains, as well as commercial products that substitute for harmful plastics or other
waste (IFC 2022). These investments may contribute directly to the biophysical resilience of
fisheries and ecosystems or, more commonly, to economic opportunities (and thus adaptation)
for vulnerable areas.
29 A survey by Responsible Investor of 328 institutional investors in 34 countries in 2019 found that 9 out of 10 were interested in investing in sustainable blue
economy projects. See Credit Suis (2020).
30 The Global Impact Investing Network (2018).
69
Kedonganan Fish Market, Bali

5.4. An Integrated and Community-Focused Approach

Adaptation driven by local decision-making offers the best
opportunities for implementation success of development synergies.
An integrated response This report has so far argued that continued efforts will be needed in three broad areas to
across ecosystems, safeguard coastal and fishing communities from climate change impacts: (1) protection for and
fisheries, and communities, restoration of ecosystems, (2) adaptive and dynamic (and robust) fishery management, and (3)
is needed economic diversification in coastal communities. Programs should work across these domains in
concert wherever possible, due to their complementarities. For instance, economic diversification
through alternative livelihoods, household finance, and business support makes it feasible
for households to reduce their reliance on marine and coastal ecosystems, facilitating their
protection (Box 12). For this reason, the Government of Indonesia typically takes an integrated
approach to design interventions in coastal areas. The Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan Sejahtera,
LAUTRA) program currently in preparation by MMAF is a good example of an integrated
approach, with investments in businesses, livelihoods, and coastal small infrastructure, MPA
strengthening, and measurement and management of coastal fisheries.
70
TH E PATH FORWAR D
Box 13. Building Resilience in ‘Packages’: Leveraging Complementarities between Investments
W
hile many policy options are available to governments looking to increase
climate resilience, combining them appropriately may be as important as
selecting the policies themselves. Policies should be seen in terms of ‘packages’
which bring complementary characteristics. The whole package may be greater than the sum
of its parts.
For example, increasing management effectiveness of MPAs may provide a habitat for
charismatic marine fauna or protect high-quality dive sites; coastal development that
supports eco-tourism will allow the value of this MPA investment to be realized. This may
take the form of basic infrastructure or business development support for sustainable
businesses. Both contribute to long-term climate resilience, both economic and physical.
Similarly, investments in MPAs are recognized for their benefits for fish stocks. Investment in fishery institutions—including
adaptive and dynamic management systems that can avoid rent dissipation (when too many fishers compete for the same
resource, driving up costs), ensure that the economic value of these increased stocks is realized.
Recent investments by MMAF have specifically harnessed this ‘packaging’ principle. The Oceans for Prosperity (Lautan
Sejahtera, LAUTRA) program is structured around mutually reinforcing activities that harness complementarities.
Investments are targeted in select high-vulnerability locations, ensuring benefits are concentrated enough to have impact.
The program is also laying the groundwork for development of blue finance instruments, which could potentially finance
future investments. This US$210 million investment, supported by the World Bank and the Government of Canada, is set to
begin implementation in 2023.
Figure B13.1: Integrated and complementary

activities: The example of the Oceans for
Prosperity (LAUTRA) Project
• Basic infrastructure and services

for coastal communities
• Access to finance for coastal
enterprises
• business development support
and training
• Infrastructure and equipment for • Infrastructure and equipment

fisheries management Economic for MPAs
• Fishery data collection and Diversification • MPA management plans and
analysis capacity in Coastal institutional capacity
• Fishery management plans and Communities • Monitoring capacity for marine
institutional capacity ecosystems
Adaptive &
Robust Protection &
Fisheries Restoration of
Management Ecosystems
Development of blue finance

Source: Authors.
71
Community participation to Community participation is also key. The diversity of Indonesia’s coastal communities and
ensure localized adaptation the complexity of its fisheries and geography means that climate-resilience measures must
will also be important be highly localized in their design and implementation. High levels of community participation
have underpinned the success of Indonesia’s past coastal management investments and will
be critical for the interventions described in this report. Recent research highlights that fishery
outcomes in the Bird’s Head Seascape are seen to be much stronger in locations where site-
level co-management is practiced (Fidler et al. 2022). This is not surprising. Habitat protection
supported by education and awareness efforts, and backed by trusting and empowered
community members, is likely to benefit from higher stewardship (and management capacity)
than efforts without these elements. Community participation also helps the program to be
(perceived as) fair, reducing the risk of social conflict and building broad buy-in. Indonesia is well-
placed for community-led approaches to climate-resilience measures, with a robust system for
funding village-level decision-making and implementation already in place (Dana Desa).31
Customary marine tenure A participatory mechanism used with success in many locations globally is the customary
supports resilience through marine tenure system. These help to mitigate fisheries declines by securing the marine
a participatory approach resource base for the exclusive use of adjacent communities (Aswani et al. 2007; Halim et al.
2020). These traditional systems exist throughout Indonesia, regulating resource use through
traditional practices (sasi laut) such as banning the harvest of certain marine resources or
temporary seasonal closures. For example, a Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURF) network
was designated in Raja Ampat, where user rights to inshore marine waters were conferred to
local communities. However, such approaches can currently only be deployed where there are
traditionally managed fishing grounds (petuanan laut), a small proportion of Indonesia’s coastal
marine space.32 The currently used mechanism (Hak Pengelolaan Perikanan) is yet to be integrated
into the spatial planning or permitting system. A national legal framework for customary marine
tenure practices in locations across Indonesia could facilitate expansion, allowing the benefits of
community stewardship to be realized in local communities nationwide. However, this is a legally
complex reform.
Climate resilience Ultimately, climate resilience should not be considered separate from the broader development
promotes development needs of coastal communities. Activities that restore ecosystem health and improve fishery
goals irrespective of global management have social and economic benefits irrespective of climate change. Many activities
climate outcomes. recommended in this report contribute to Indonesia’s short-term goals—including improving
fisher’s income, national fish exports, and stock status—while contributing to longer-term
development aspirations. Climate resilience will take time to develop. This report presents short-
term actions toward this long-term goal. These actions can be refined over time through further
research and on-ground experience.
31 It may be possible to encourage villages to draw on village funds (Dana Desa) for coastal management actions by providing technical training and multi-year
budgeting flexibility for longer-term interventions. However, decisions on funding use will need to remain with village councils.
32 Traditional and adat communities are very precisely defined under Article 18B of the Constitution. Following a 2011 Constitutional Court challenge, there is not
an established legal basis for the granting of fishing privileges beyond these areas. A revised legal mechanism—that maintains a higher degree of government
control, protects existing rights of communities, and works for a broader public good benefit—is required and while not simple, is in principle feasible. See Waddell
(2012).
72
TH E PATH FORWAR D
Continued efforts will be needed

in three broad areas to safeguard
coastal and fishing communities
from climate change impacts:
(1) protection for and restoration
of ecosystems, (2) adaptive and
dynamic (and robust) fishery
management, and (3) economic
diversification in coastal
communities.
73
6
Conclusion
Photo by Hiroko Yoshii on Unsplash
Halmahera, North Maluku

Photo by Kanenori on Pixabay
6. Conclusion
Climate change impacts are significant, but mitigation options will
make a big difference.
This report has shown that The analysis presented in this report suggests that Indonesia’s fisheries are likely to be strongly
climate change will have impacted by climate change. As a low-latitude, warm-water country, Indonesian waters are
significant impacts on projected to be less favorable for major exploited species currently important to artisanal and
fisheries industrial-scale fisheries in Indonesia. The results in this report, which are the first sub-national,
species-level assessments undertaken anywhere in the world, predict long-term declines in
fisheries that are high by global standards: 20-30 percent maximum catch potential reductions
under a high emissions scenario, and 12-20 percent under a low emissions scenario, by 2050
relative to 2010. Fisheries revenues may decrease by a similar magnitude. Economic returns
decrease by a much larger amount under poor management (i.e., if overfishing increases), but
by a reduced amount under conservative management. With the large-scale fleet, returns can
improve in the face of climate change, given sufficiently adaptive management.
Mitigation measures can This report has presented an array of options to support more climate-resilient fisheries and
contribute to core sectoral communities. As discussed throughout the report, many of these align with desired development
development goals outcomes irrespective of whether low, moderate, or severe climate scenarios eventuate.
Protected areas and other ecosystem conservation measures often provide economic benefits in
the medium term through more productive fisheries. Harvest control measures that are well-
calibrated to stock needs and well-enforced also lead to more productive fisheries. Sustainable
quota-based systems, an important adaptive management tool, tend to deliver higher economic
returns than input-measure-based fisheries, all else equal (provided equity issues can be
addressed). Investments in basic community infrastructure underpin economic opportunity in
rural coastal areas. For this reason, the government is significantly investing in many of these
measures.
76
EX ECU TIVE SUMMARY
Research, planning, and The ambition of the policy options presented in this report aims to help Indonesia’s fisheries
identification of local and coastal communities not only to survive but to thrive—that is, to provide benefits even
solutions will help promote if climate change impacts are less severe than expected. For this reason, they focus on the
further progress fundamental institutions and systems that underpin the fishery sector’s management and
productivity. Continued research will be necessary to shape interventions: The relative costs
and benefits (i.e., effectiveness) of specific measures in specific places will be needed. This
could lead to a ranking of options and inform step-by-step resilience action plans as well as an
overarching strategy. Continued basic research will also be required to fill knowledge gaps, while
continued identification and evaluation of the most promising localized ideas (many of which are
contributed by communities themselves) will provide new ideas for potential scaling. Indonesia’s
vulnerability to climate change in the oceans sector is high, but so too is Indonesia’s potential to
build a more resilient oceans future.
77
Photo by Silas Baisch on Unsplash
78
H OT WATE R R ISING
References
Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C., Neil Adger, W., Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls, A.S., Pilling, G.M.,
Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., et al. 2009. “Vulnerability of National Economies to the Impacts of Climate
Change on Fisheries.” Fish 10:173–196.
Aswani, S., Albert, S., Sabetian, A., Furusawa, T. 2007. “Customary Management as Precautionary and
Adaptive Principles for Protecting Coral Reefs in Oceania.” Coral Reefs 26:1009–1021.
Austin, M. P. 1985. “Continuum Concept, Ordination Methods, and Niche Theory.” Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 16: 39–61 (link).
Azhar, M., Wisnaeni, F., Suharso, P., Setyono, J., and Badriyah, S.M. 2020. “Strengthening the Social Security
of the Indonesian Fishermen. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation Bioflux 13:6: 3721–3726
(link).
Ban, S.S., Alidina, H.M., Okey, T.A., Gregg, R.M., and Ban, N.C. 2016. “Identifying Potential Marine Climate
Change Refugia: A Case Study in Canada’s Pacific Marine Ecosystems.” Global Ecology and Conservation 8
(October): 41–54. (link).
Bappenas. 2021. List of Priority Locations and Climate Resilient Actions. Ministry of National Development
Planning (Bappenas), Jakarta.
Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M. C. M., Cochrane, K. L., Funge-Smith, S., and Poulain, F. 2018. “Impacts
of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture. Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and
Mitigation Options.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Beck, M., Losada I.J., Menéndez P., Reguero B.G., Díaz-Simal P., and Fernández F. 2018. “The Global Flood
Protection Savings Provided by Coral Reefs.” Nature Communications 9 (1) (link).
Blasiak R., Spijkers, J., Tokunaga, K., Pittman, J., Yagi, N., Österblom, H. 2017. “Climate Change and Marine
Fisheries: Least Developed Countries Top Global Index of Vulnerability. PLOS ONE 12(6): e0179632 (link).
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., and Perry, A. 2012. “Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle.” WRI:
World Resources Institute.
Cabral, R.B., Mayorga, J., Clemence, M., Lynham, J., Koeshendrajana, S., Muawanah, U., Nugroho, D., Anna,
Z., Mira, Ghofar, A. 2018. “Rapid and Lasting Gains from Solving Illegal Fishing.” Natural Ecology & Evolution
2, 650–658 (link).
California Environmental Associates (CEA). 2018. “Trends in marine resources and fisheries management in
Indonesia: A 2018 Review” (link).
Carter, A.L., Wilson, A.M.W., Bello, M., Hoyos-Padilla, E.M., Inall, M., Ketchum, J.T., Schurer, A., Tudhope, A.W.
2020. “Assessing Opportunities to Support Coral Reef Climate Change Refugia in MPAs: A Case Study at
the Revillagigedo Archipelago.” Marine Policy 112 (February): 103769 (link).
Cashion, T., Nguyen, T., Brink, T., Mook, A., Palacios-Abrantes, J., Roberts, S.M. 2020. “Shifting Seas,
Shifting Boundaries: Dynamic Marine Protected Area Designs for a Changing Climate. PLOS ONE 15(11):
e0241771 (link).
Cheung, W.W.L., Reygondeau, G., and Frölicher, T.L. 2016. “Large Benefits to Marine Fisheries of Meeting the
1.5 C Global Warming Target.” Science 354: 1591–1594. American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Cheung, W.W.L, Jones, M.C., Reygondeau, G., Frölicher T.L. 2018. “Opportunities for Climate-risk Reduction
through Effective Fisheries Management. Global Change Biology 24 (11): 5149–63 (link).
CIEC. 2019. National Accounts Database. Fisheries and Gross Domestic Product Time Series: System of
National Accounts, 2008.
Convergence Blended Finance. 2022. The State of Blended Finance 2022: Climate Edition. Convergence
Report.
Credit Suisse. 2020. Investors and the Blue Economy. Responsible Investor Research and Credit Suisse,
Geneva (link).
79
Dunn, D., Maxwell, S, Boustany, A., and Halpin, P. 2016. “Dynamic Ocean Management Increases the
Efficiency and Efficacy of Fisheries Management.” PNAS, 113(3): 668-673.
FAO. 2011. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles: The Republic of Indonesia. (link) (Accessed 23
November 2020).
FAO. 2019. FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019. FAO, United Nations, Rome.
Fidler, R.Y., Gabby, N., Ahmadia, Amkieltiela, Awaludinnoer, Cox, C., Estradivari, Glew L., Handayani, C.,
Mahajan, S.L., Harborne, A.R. et al. 2022. “Participation, Not Penalties: Community Involvement and
Equitable Governance Contribute to More Effective Multiuse Protected Areas.” Science Advances 8 (18):
eabl8929 (link).
Froese, R., and Pauly D. Editors. 2022. FishBase. Electronic database. www.fishbase.org, version (February
2022).
Frölicher, T.L., Fischer, E.M., and Gruber, N. 2018. “Marine Heatwaves Under Global Warming.” Nature 560,
360–364.
Gillet, R. 2008. Global Study of Shrimp Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fisheries Technical Paper.
Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Ruggiero, P., Verutes, G. 2016. “The Power of Three: Coral Reefs, Seagrasses and
Mangroves Protect Coastal Regions and Increase Their Resilience.” PLOS ONE 11(7): e0158094. (link).
Gokkon, B. 2021. Indonesia to Send More Tuna Vessels Out into International Waters. Mongabay. (link).
Golden, C.D., Allison, E.H., Cheung, W.W.L., Dey, M.M., Halpern, B.S., McCauley, D.J., Smith, M., Vaitla, B.,
Zeller, D., Myers, S.S. 2016. “Nutrition: Fall in Fish Catch Threatens Human Health.” Nature, 534: 317–320.
(link).
Halim, A., Loneragan, N.R., Wiryawan, B., Fujita, R., Adhuri, D.S., Hordyk, A.R., and Sondita, M.F.A. 2020.
“Transforming Traditional Management into Contemporary Territorial-based Fisheries Management
Rights for Small-scale Fisheries in Indonesia. Marine Policy 116, 103923 (link).
Hernawan, U. E., Rahmawati, S., Ambo-Rappe, R., Sjafrie, N.D.M., Hadiyanto, H., Yusup, D.S., Nugraha, A.H.,
la Nafie, Y.A., Adi, W., Prayudha, B., et al. 2021. The First Nation-wide Assessment Identifies Valuable Blue
Carbon Seagrass Habitat in Indonesia is in Moderate Condition. Science of The Total Environment, 782,
146818 (link).
Hilborn, R., Akselrud, C.A., Peterson, H., and Whitehouse, G.A. 2021. “The Trade-off between Biodiversity and
Sustainable Fish Harvest with Area-based Management.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 78: 2271–2279.
Hobday, A.J., Spillman, C.M., Eveson, J.P., and Hartog, J.R. 2016. “Seasonal Forecasting for Decision Support
in Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Fisheries Oceanography 25, 45–56.
Hutomo, M., and Moosa, M.K. 2005. “Indonesian Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: Present Status.” Indian
Journal of Marine Sciences 34(1): 88–97.
IFC. 2022. Guidance for Financing the Blue Economy, Building on the Green Bond Principles and the Green
Loan Principles. International Finance Cooperation, Washington, D.C. (link)
Indonesia, B.S. 2020. Statistik Indonesia 2020 Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2020. BPS-Statistics
Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 976.
Iskandar, M.R., Ismail, M.F.A., Arifin, T., Chandra, H. 2021. “Marine Heatwaves of Sea Surface Temperature
off South Java.” Heliyon 7(12). (link).
Jaya, I., Satria, F., Wudianto, W., Nugroho, D., Sadiyah, L., Buchary, E., White, A.T., Franklin, E.C., Courtney,
A.C., Green, G., et al. 2022. “Are the Working Principles of Fisheries Management at Work in Indonesia?”
Marine Policy 140: 105047 (link).
Jones, M.C., Cheung W.W.L. 2018. “Using Fuzzy Logic to Determine the Vulnerability of Marine Species to
Climate Change.” Global Change Biology 24: e719–e731 (link).
80
H OT WATE R R ISING
Karr, K.A., Miller, V., Coronado, E., Olivares-Bañuelos, N.C., Rosales, M., Naretto, J., Hiriart-Bertrand, L.,
Vargas-Fernández, C., Alzugaray, R., Puga, R., et al. 2021. “Identifying Pathways for Climate-Resilient
Multispecies Fisheries.” Frontiers in Marine Science, 8 (link).
Lam, V.W.Y., Allison, E.H., Bell, J.D., Blythe, J.L., Cheung, W.W.L., Frölicher, T.L., Gasalla, M.A., Sumaila, U.R.
2020. “Climate Change, Tropical Fisheries and Prospects for Sustainable Development. Nature Reviews
Earth & Environment 1: 440–454 (link).
Lam, V.W.Y., Cheung, W.W.L., Reygondeau, G., and Sumaila, U.R. 2016. “Projected Change in Global Fisheries
Revenues Under Climate Change.” Scientific Reports 6: 32607 (link).
Lamb, J.B., van de Water, J.A.J.M., Bourne, D.G., Altier, C., Hein, M.Y., Fiorenza, E.A., Abu, N., Jompa, J.,
Harvell, C.D. 2017. “Seagrass Ecosystems Reduce Exposure to Bacterial Pathogens of Humans, Fishes,
and Invertebrates.” Science 355 (6326): 731–33 (link).
Lumban-Gaol, Jonson & Nababan, Bisman & Amri, Khairul & Hanggono, Aryo & Roswintiarti, Orbita. 2012.
“Climate Change Impact on Indonesian Fisheries,” in Climate ExChange, ed. Jacqui Griffiths (Tudor Rose,
2012).
Lumban-Gaol, J., Siswanto, E., Mahapatra, K., Natih, N.M.N., Nurjaya, I.W., Hartanto, M.T., Maulana, E.,
Adrianto, L., Rachman, H.A. et al. 2021. “Impact of the Strong Downwelling (Upwelling) on Small Pelagic
Fish Production during the 2016 (2019) Negative (Positive) Indian Ocean Dipole Events in the Eastern
Indian Ocean off Java.” Climate 9(2), 29 (link).
Marcos, C., Díaz, D., Fietz, K., Forcada, A., Ford, A., García-Charton, J.A., Goñi, R., Lenfant, P., Mallol, S.,
Mouillot, D. et al. 2021. “Reviewing the Ecosystem Services, Societal Goods, and Benefits of Marine
Protected Areas.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8:613819 (link).
Marfai, M.A. 2014. “Impact of Sea Level Rise to Coastal Ecology: A Case Study on The Northern Part of Java
Island.” Quaestiones Geographicae 33:107–114 (link).
Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., Beck, M.W. et al. 2020. “The Global Flood
Protection Benefits of Mangroves.” Scientific Reports 10: 4404 (link).
MMAF (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries). 2017. Kepmen KP Nomor 50 Tahun 2017 tentang Estimasi
Potensi, JTB dan Tingkat Pemanfaatan SDI di WPPNRI.
MMAF (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries). 2020. Management of Marine Protected Areas in Indonesia:
Status and Challenges. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Jakarta, Indonesia.
MMAF (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries). 2022. Kepmen KP Nomor 19 Tahun 2022 tentang Estimasi
Potensi, JTB dan Tingkat Pemanfaatan SDI di WPPNRI.
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forestry). 2019. Status of Mangrove Cover, Changes and Quality. In
Presentation by Ir. Yuliarto Joko Putranto at the Workshop on Enhancing Resilience of Coastal and
Marine Resources 2019. MoEF, Indonesia.
Muawanah, U., Pomeroy, R.S., and Marlessy, C. 2012. “Revisiting Fish Wars: Conflict and Collaboration Over
Fisheries in Indonesia.” Coastal Management 40:3 279–288 (link).
Muawanah, U., Yusuf, G.D.H., Adrianto, L., Kalther, J., Pomeroy, R., Abdullah, H., Ruchimat, T. 2018. “Review
of National Laws and Regulation in Indonesia in Relation to an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
Management.” Marine Policy 91, 150–160 (link).
Neumann B., Vafeidis A.T., Zimmermann J., Nicholls R.J. 2015. “Future Coastal Population Growth and
Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment.” PLOS ONE 10(3): e0118571 (link).
“Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative,” ND-GAIN Country Index 2022 (link).
Oktavilia, S., Prayogi, R., and Abdulah, R. 2019. “Indonesian Fish Consumption: An Analysis of Dynamic
Panel Regression Model.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 246 012005.
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B.C., Hinkel, J., van de Wal, R. , Magnan, A.K., Abd-Elgawad, A., Cai, R., Cifuentes-
Jara, M., DeConto, R.M., T., Ghosh, T. 2019. “Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts
and Communities.” IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (link).
PEMSEA. 2018. State of the Oceans and Coasts 2018: Blue Economy Growth in the East Asian Seas Region.
(link).
81
Pershing, A.J., Alexander, M.A., Hernandez, C.M., Kerr, L.A., Le Bris, A., Mills K. E., Nye J. A., Record N. R.,
Scannell H. A., et al. 2015. “Slow Adaptation in the Face of Rapid Warming Leads to Collapse of the Gulf
of Maine Cod Fishery.” Science 350, 809–812.
Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Pollnac, R., Campson, T., Genio, E., Marlessy, C., Holle, E., Pido, M.D., Nissapa, A.,
Boromthanarat, S. 2007. “Fish wars: Conflict and Collaboration in Fisheries Management in Southeast
Asia.” Marine Policy 31: 645–656.
Puspasari, R., Rachmawati, P., and Muawanah, U. 2019. “Climate Variability Impact on Bali Sardine Fishery:
Ecology and Fisheries Perspective. Fisheries Management and Ecology 26(6): 540-547 (link).
Reguero, B.G., Losada, I.J. & Méndez, F.J. 2019. “A Recent Increase in Global Wave Power as a Consequence
of Oceanic Warming.” Nature Communications 10, 205 (link).
Reygondeau, Gabriel. 2019. “Current and Future Biogeography of Exploited Marine Groups Under Climate
Change,” in Predicting Future Oceans, Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor (Elsevier, 2019) (link).
Ridwansyah, I., Yulianti, M., Onodera, S., Shimizu, Y., Wibowo, H., Fakhrudin, M. 2020. “The Impact of
Land Use and Climate Change on Surface Runoff and Groundwater in Cimanuk Watershed, Indonesia.”
Limnology 21(3): 487–498.
Rinkevich, B. 2019. “The Active Reef Restoration Toolbox is a Vehicle for Coral Resilience and Adaptation in a
Changing World.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7(7): 201 (link).
SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center). 2019. Fisheries Country Profile of ASEAN
Member States (link).
Sidik, F., Lawrence, A., Wagey, T., Zamzani, F., and Lovelock, C.E. 2023. “Blue Carbon: A New Paradigm of
Mangrove Conservation and Management in Indonesia.” Marine Policy 147, 105388. (link).
Sjafrie, N.D.M., Hernawan, U.E., Prayudha B., Supriyadi, I.H., Iswari, M.Y., Rahmat, K. Anggraini, et al. 2018.
“Seagrass Status in Indonesia or Status Padang Lamun Indonesia.” Puslit Oseanografi, Indonesian
Institute of Sciences, Jakarta.
Swartz, W., Sumaila, R., Watson, R. 2012. “Global Ex-vessel Fish Price Database Revisited: A New Approach
for Estimating ‘Missing’ Prices.” Environmental and Resource Economics 1–14 (link).
Tirumala, R.D., and Tiwari, P. 2020. “Innovative Financing Mechanism for Blue Economy Projects.” Marine
Policy 139. 104194.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2022. “Case Study: Belize Debt Conversion for Marine Conservation.”
Washington, D.C. (link).
UN Environment, ISU, ICRI, and Trucost. 2018. “The Coral Reef Economy: The Business Case for Investment
in the Protection, Preservation and Enhancement of Coral Reef Health.” (link).
Unsworth, R.K.F., Ambo-Rappe, R., Jones, B.L., La Nafie, Y.A., Irawan, A., Hernawan, U.E., Moore, A.M., Cullen-
Unsworth, L.C. 2018. “Indonesia’s Globally Significant Seagrass Meadows are Under Widespread Threat.”
Science of the Total Environment 634: 279–286 (link).
Waddell, S. 2012. “Property Rights for Natural Resources Management in Indonesia: Have they Been Ruled
Unconstitutional?” Indonesia Law Review 2 (May-August) (link).
World Bank. 2017a. “The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-term Benefits of the Sustainable
Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries.”
World Bank, Washington, D.C. (link).
World Bank. 2019. “Climate Change and Marine Fisheries in Africa: Assessing Vulnerability and
Strengthening Adaptation Capacity.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. (link).
World Bank. 2021. “Oceans for Prosperity: Reforms for a Blue Economy in Indonesia.” World Bank, Jakarta.
World Bank. 2020. “Rebuilding Tourism Competitiveness: Tourism Response, Recovery and Resilience to the
COVID-19 Crisis.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. (link).
World Bank. 2022a. “Gender Integration in the Blue Economy Portfolio. Review of Experiences and Future
Opportunities.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. (link)
World Bank. 2022b. “Indonesia Blue Finance Policy Note.” World Bank, Jakarta.
82
H OT WATE R R ISING
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2019. Aqueduct Model 2019. “Using Cutting-edge Data to Identify and
Evaluate Water Risks Around the World.”
WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). 2020. WTTC Data Gateway. (link).
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2009. “The Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme Moving Fisheries
Management Towards Conservation.” Scotland. Dunkeld, UK (link).
Zikra, M., Suntoyo, S., and Lukijanto, L. 2015. “Climate Change Impacts on Indonesian Coastal Areas.”
Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 14: 57–63. (link).
83
Annex 1: Focal Species

Used in Analysis
Scientific Name Common Name (English) Scientific Name Common Name (English)
Acetes japonicus Akiami paste shrimp Pristipomoides filamentosus Crimson jobfish
Aphareus rutilans Rusty jobfish/Lehi Pristipomoides multidens Goldband snapper
Auxis thazard Frigate tuna Pristipomoides typus Red-tailed Opakapaka
Caranx tille Tille trevally Rastrelliger brachysoma Short mackerel
Carcharhinus limbatus Blacktip shark Sardinella gibbosa Goldstripe sardinella
Cephalopholis boenak Chocolate hind Sardinella lemuru Bali sardinella
Chirocentrus dorab Dorab wolf-herring Scomberomorus commerson Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel
Decapterus russelli Indian scad Scomberomorus guttatus Indo-Pacific king mackerel
Dussumieria acuta Rainbow sardine Selaroides leptolepis Yellowstripe scad
Epinephelus areolatus Areolate grouper Sepia latimanus Broadclub cuttlefish
Epinephelus tauvina Greasy grouper Siganus sutor Shoemaker spinefoot
Euthynnus affinis Kawakawa Stolephorus teguhi Sulawesi anchovy
Fenneropenaeus indicus Indian white prawn Tegillarca granosa Granular ark
Fenneropenaeus merguiensis Banana prawn Tenualosa toli Toli shad
Hemiramphus archipelagicus Jujmping halfbeak Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna
Katsuwonus pelamis Skipjack tuna Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna
Lates calcarifer Barramundi Thunnus maccoyii Southern bluefin tuna
Leiognathus splendens Ponyfishes Thunnus obesus Bigeye tuna
Lethrinus laticaudis Grass snapper Thunnus tonggol Longtail tuna
Lutjanus argentimaculatus Mangrove red snapper Trichiurus lepturus Largehead hairtail
Lutjanus malabaricus Malabar snapper Upeneus vittatus Yellowstriped goatfish
Lutjanus sebae Red emperor snapper
Megalaspis cordyla Torpedo scad
Megatrygon microps Smalleye stingray
Metapenaeus monoceros Speckled shrimp
Mugil cephalus Grey mullet
Nemipterus hexodon Ornate threadfin bream
Netuma thalassina Giant catfish
Pampus argenteus Silver pomfret
Parastromateus niger Black pomfret
Plectropomus leopardus Leopard coralgrouper
Portunus pelagicus Blue swimming crab
84
Hot Water Rising
The Impact of Climate Change on Indonesia’s
Fisheries and Coastal Communities

Hot Water Rising, World Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hot Water Rising, World Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hot Water Rising, World Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

Fisheries and Coastal Communities

© 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Rights and Permissions

Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to

A collaborative partnership: Supported by:

3 The Climate Challenge

4 The Vulnerability of Coastal Communities 50

5 The Path Forward

Figure 3. E.S Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP 14

Figure B1.1 Indonesia’s vulnerability to climate impacts 25

Figure B1.2 Indonesia’s readiness for climate impacts 25

Figure 5 Global marine capture production by major producer countries 29

Figure 6 Fisheries as a proportion of GDP versus regional peer countries 29

Figure 7 Spatial variation in Indonesia’s catch 29

Figure 8 Status of Indonesia’s fisheries, 2017-2022 29

Figure 9 Key concentrations of marine and coastal ecosystems across Indonesia 32

Figure 10 Temperature increase in Indonesia’s oceans 37

Figure 11 Hotspots of warming in Indonesia’s oceans 37

Figure 12 Projected physical and chemical changes in Indonesia’s oceans 38

Figure 13 Change in habitat suitability for fish species in Indonesia’s waters 42

Figure 15 Projected change in economic returns to Indonesia’s fisheries by region 44

Figure 17 Regional comparison of vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries 51

Figure 18 Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP 53

Figure B6.1 Coastal flood risk map for Indonesia 53

Figure 19 A stylized depiction of Indonesia’s future under a ‘Blue-Fish’ world 57

Figure B7.1 Perceived most important adaptation actions 59

Table B7.1 Risks perceived as associated with climate adaptation strategies 60

Box 2 Indonesia’s Climate Vulnerability and Readiness: A Global Comparison 25

Box 3 Climate Scenarios used in this Report 39

Box 4 Climate Impacts on Fisheries: A Summary of Modeling Methods 40

Box 5 Quantifying Climate Vulnerability at National and WPP scales 51

Box 6 Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Indonesia’s Coastal Communities 53

Box 7 Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Adaptation Strategies 58

Box 8 What Makes Climate-resilient Fisheries Management Different? 63

Box 9 Extreme Weather and Fishing Safety 65

Box 11 The Coastal Resilience Village Development Program (Pengembangan Kawasan 67

Box 13 Building Resilience in ‘Packages’: Leveraging Complementarities between Investments 71

Victor Gustaaf Manoppo

We need management that is

Reviews were gratefully received from Yadranka Farida (Natural Resources

Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

AMDAL Environmental Impact Assessment

Nusa Penida Island, Bali

Climate-induced changes in ocean conditions will drive shifts in

Box 1. E.S: Objectives of this Report

Based on these findings, a set of policy options is offered for

Reductions in catch reduce revenues, but strong management can

2030-2050, RCP2.6 2030-2050, RCP8.5

MCP change compared to 1981-2015 (%)

-100 -75 -50 -25 0 -25 50

Profit Change (%)

Eastern Central Indian Ocean Eastern Central Indian Ocean

The vulnerability of coastal communities to these changes varies

Figure 3. E.S: Comparison of aggregate vulnerability to climate impacts on fisheries by WPP

Normalized risk index

Very low Low High Very High Source: Authors

Climate change is a threat, but Indonesia’s strategic and sustained

These include interventions for coastal ecosystem protection….

… climate adaptive fishery management….