Indonesia’s blue economy views community adaptation and coordination as markers of success, but Eman Zahid Jokhio‘s fieldwork in Aceh reveals that this so-called “harmony” masks unequal power relations, environmental harm, and the failure of policies, instead of resolving them.

Indonesia’s Blue Economy Tells the Wrong Story

Indonesia often showcases its blue economy as a benchmark for national development. It is espoused as a strategy that achieves economic growth, environmental sustainability, and community benefits simultaneously. Aceh is often cited as an example of success, especially due to the continual participation of Panglima Laot, a centuries-old customary maritime institution that governs fishing and dispute resolution at sea.

In policy narratives, Aceh is presented as a unique example wherein traditional governance, modern regulation, and economic development seamlessly coexist. Indonesia’s Blue Economy gained the most traction under the administration of President Joko Widodo through the “Global Maritime Fulcrum” vision of 2014. With an archipelago with 17,000 islands and one of the world’s longest coastlines, the policy can leverage vast ocean resources for sustainable growth This agenda was formalized through the Blue Economy Development Framework by the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas), which later informed Indonesia’s comprehensive Blue Economy Roadmap and subsequent policy planning towards vision 2045. The framework promises to achieve three goals: economic development, environmental sustainability, and community empowerment through participatory governance.  

Aceh became a strategic showcase for this framework owing to its unique governance structure. The province enjoys special autonomy due to a peace agreement in 2005 which ended decades of conflict. Thus local traditional governance systems such as Panglima Laot share regulatory powers with the central state. For the Widodo administration, Aceh was a blueprint to show that Indonesia’s blue economy policy can incorporate and honour indigenous systems of governance, thus making it both a test case and a showcase for national policy.

However, field research in Banda Aceh points to a much less complete and more misleading version of success. What many claim to be success in “coordination” is often the masked acceptance of unequal relations of power which, rather than being resolved, continue to be sustained.

The Panglima Laot Works, But Within Tight Limits

Panglima Laot is one of the oldest traditional maritime institutions, and is older than the state of Indonesia itself. It predates the formal establishment of Indonesia, and manages the Acehnese fishing communities using the “Adat Laot”, which is a traditional law. Traditionally, the Panglima Laot exercised full control over all governance functions pertaining to the maritime domain, and thus controlled the first governance structures over the sea before any modern state ever existed. Under the Aceh Special Autonomy Law (Law No. 11/2006), Panglima Laot received formal recognition under the Acehnese traditional law and governance structures within the legal framework of the Republic of Indonesia; thus, creating a framework of legal recognition in which customary maritime governance operates alongside national law within defined jurisdictional limits, yet independently.

As such, it holds great significance in regard to the law and sovereignty of traditional institutions in Indonesia, as it is one of the few customary maritime institutions that possess the legal constitutional power to govern. For the blue economy policymakers, the legitimacy of the Panglima Laot and the institution’s ability to sustain itself, demonstrated that self-governance existed in the outer limits of state control and could remain intact for the purposes of integrating modern self-governance systems. This self-governance system became central to the ‘progressive and modern’ integrated blue economy narrative that the Indonesian government wanted to promote, as it provided a fundamentally local and culturally exclusive base to work from.

Panglima Laot is certainly effective within the confines of its remit. It manages fishing activities, resolves conflicts, coordinates sea rescues, and enforces maritime order. Fishermen trust the institution, and the state relies on it to carry out governance to a higher degree of competency than other formal institutions in the rest of Indonesia.

However, effectiveness is not the same as exercising power. The Panglima Laot is limited to Aceh’s territorial waters, it has no authority to grant license to industries, no power to regulate pollution, and no control over the national development agenda. It can manage  the consequences of inequality, but cannot transform  the conditions that produces it

This is the most common oversight in the blue economy discourse. The presence of geographically decentralized local governance is seen as a positive achievement of the system. But often it is an indication of the system’s ability to manage inequality rather than to eliminate it.

“Making Harmony” as a Governance Strategy

This phenomenon becomes most apparent when industrial operations move into the coastal zone. Addressing the issue of pollution and unregulated trawlers and the response of fishing communities, Panglima Laot leader Taufik Abda states:

“It is disturbing, but we try to make harmony by coordinating with industry.”

This is very telling. There is no mention of negotiating with a party on equal footing. Instead, the statement speaks to a dominant party’s strategy of coping. Industries engage in ecological violence; communities adapt. One party inflicts damage; the other party has to cope with the consequences.

Describing the situation as harmony is a euphemism. It is very indicative that the industrial practices are not to be changed at all; it is the communities instead that are expected to find the means to coexist with these practices. The purpose of coordination, then, becomes to alleviate the problem, rather than redistribute power and the responsibility.

This is the so-called collaboration that Indonesia’s blue economy proudly claims. But when one party incurs environmental and economic disadvantages, coordination is not collaboration. It is containment.

When “Less Pollution” Becomes the Benchmark

The environmental success of Aceh is often contextualized comparatively. Mr. Azwir, the General Secretary of the Panglima Laot, noted:

“In Aceh, we do not have big industrial ships, so we have less pollution.”

Indeed, while this holds true relative to more industrialized cities such as Jakarta and Surabaya, it serves to lower the bar. The phrase, “less polluted” says nothing about being clean, safe, or sustainable. It simply means less environmentally damaged in relative terms.

In Lampulo, Banda Aceh’s main fishing port, pollution is a visible reality. Plastic waste floats between boats, sanitation is poor, and the water is severely compromised.  However, these conditions are almost entirely absent from official documents. Instead, they are used as background problem rather than signifying a policy failure.

This is how the normalization of environmental decline occurs. When success is measured and kept in line with more egregious failures, the degradation of the environment is no longer perceived as urgent. The blue economy is then perceived as an economy that becomes a system to manage the slow degradation of the environment, rather than to prevent degradation.

Resilience as a Policy Shortcut

When asked by fishermen Mr. Suleman about the challenges he faces he sea.

“Not any”, he said immediately.

However, earlier that very day, he discussed the prospect of traveling to fish 120 miles offshore for a stretch of fifteen days. His co-worker, Muhammad Noor, explained the adverse weather conditions that can, for weeks, effectively ground them on land, resulting in no fishing, and thus no income and no money for food. Another fisherman recounted the government permits that he must obtain to engage in fishing.  

Challenges? None.

This is what normalized hardship looks like, when these mundane realities are rarely treated as problems and simply part of normal daily life.

Development policy tends to frame this as ‘resilience’. However, ‘resilience’ can also mean that people have simply stopped hoping for something better. When communities begin to describe extreme challenges as normal, it indicates not just strength, but also the extreme limits to their options.

A policy that ‘resilience’ is built on is one that abdicates responsibility. It does not minimize risk but rather moves the responsibility of adaptation to those who lack the power to refuse. The blue economy measures the extent to which communities are able to manage the effects of climate change. It seldom, if ever, attempts to understand why communities are required to manage risk in the first place.

Systematic Exclusion of Women

Another challenge of Aceh’s blue economy governance is also voice inclusion. In formal discussions on maritime governance, custom leaders, officials, and fishermen, were all men. In contrast, women occupy almost all fish markets, control household economies, and make income and food security decisions.

To leave them out is not only unjust; it also is ineffective. Policies that are created and implemented without an inclusive approach are bound to fail. A blue economy that is purportedly community-oriented is fundamentally inequitable, and engages only with particular segments of the community.

Such a gap only further reiterates the interlocking of inequalities, and the injustices within the policies formulated. The only explanation for this is an intentional structural gap.

Managing Inequality Is Not Solving It

The success of Aceh’s maritime governance is attributed to the low level of conflict and the ease of collaboration. However, stability should not be confused with justice. Panglima Laot can to keep the system running, but it cannot change its trajectory.

The governance system manages rather than reduces inequality. Environmental degradation is not prevented, but rather absorbed. While local communities change, the industries do not. The dominant discourse of harmony gives the illusion of consensus, when in fact there are few options.

This is not a local institutional failure. This is a failure of the blue economy’s definition of success.

Redefining Indonesia’s Blue Economy Success

Blue economy initiatives in Indonesia should not just be evaluated on how quiet and submissive coastal communities are in the face of pressure. Yes, adaptation might keep communities quiet, but that doesn’t mean it is equitable. When fishermen are praised and recognized for simply “adapting” to new levels of pollution, extended fishing trips, and income instability, the real work of sustainability is being pushed onto those with the least power to refuse it.

The Aceh region of Indonesia demonstrates that there is a paradoxical kind of ‘harmony’ that can be achieved, even when there is no equitable redistribution of assets and resources. But such ‘harmony’ should not be mistaken for ‘justice’. If the blue economy is genuinely concerned with achieving true ‘sustainability’ in all its forms, it needs to do far more than simply ‘manage relationships and ‘order’ the unjust inequities that such initiatives have placed on fishing Otherwise, the term “making harmony” will continue to be a euphemism for just managing the status quo. A blue economy founded on such principles will be stable, yes, but also incredibly inequitable.

*The views expressed in the blog are those of the author alone. They do not reflect the position of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, nor that of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

**Banner photo by Misbahul Aulia on Unsplash

The post In Aceh’s Waters, “Making Harmony” Hides Indonesia’s Blue Economy Failures first appeared on LSE Southeast Asia Blog.