Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Indonesian aquaculture futures: An analysis of fish supply and demand in MARK

Indonesia to 2030 and role of aquaculture using the AsiaFish model☆
⁎
Nhuong Trana, , U.-Primo Rodriguezb, Chin Yee Chana, Michael John Phillipsa, Chadag
Vishnumurthy Mohana, Patrik John Gustav Henrikssona,c, Sonny Koeshendrajanad,
Sharon Suria, Stephen Halla
a
WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, 11960 Penang, Malaysia
b
Department of Economics, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
c
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 114 19 Stockholm, Sweden
d
Center of Marine and Fisheries Social & Economic Research, Jalan Petamburan VI Slipi, Jakarta 10260, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This paper explores the seafood sector in Indonesia, using fish supply-demand modeling, with special focus on
Indonesia the growing role of aquaculture in the country's food portfolio. The paper describes six scenarios for future fish
Aquaculture supply–demand dynamics and examines the role of aquaculture growth in fish supply in Indonesia. A business
AsiaFish model as usual scenario (BAU) assumed exogenous variables of our supply-demand model following historical trends.
Supply-demand
Five alternative scenarios explored the implications of stagnant capture fisheries; export-oriented growth of
Scenario
aquaculture; domestic-oriented aquaculture growth; slow growth of aquaculture sector; and disease outbreaks
to key aquaculture species. The BAU scenario projected that fish supply and demand in Indonesia continues to
increase over time and strong aquaculture growth is critical to meet increasing demand for fish. Stagnant
capture fisheries resulted in increasing fish prices and decreasing fish consumption. Export-oriented
aquaculture growth benefitted fish supply and exports, but also helped lower domestic prices and thus increase
consumption. An emphasis on domestic aquaculture commodities increased fish supply, providing best
domestic consumption outcomes and lower consumer prices. Slow aquaculture growth reduced fish supply
and led to undesirable increases in domestic prices and decreasing domestic consumption as a consequence.
Disease outbreaks in shrimp and carp aquaculture resulted in a short-term reduction in aquaculture output and
increasing fish prices, lowering fish consumption.

1. Introduction
Indonesia is the second largest fish producer in the world after
China, with capture fisheries and aquaculture production, including
aquatic plants, estimated at 6.5 and 14.4 million tons, respectively in
2014 [1]. The fisheries sector plays an important role in Indonesia's
economy through income generation, livelihoods diversification, supply
of animal proteins, and foreign exchange earnings. The sector con-
tributed 3.1% to the total national gross domestic product (GDP) and
21.0% to the total agricultural GDP, created an estimated 6.4 million
direct jobs for Indonesians, earned US$ 4.2 billion dollars from seafood
exports in 2012 and provided 54.8% of domestic animal protein supply
[2]. Per capita fish consumption in Indonesia is also increasing, with
annual consumption per capita going from 21.0 kg in 2003–33.9 kg in
2012 [3].
Fish supply in Indonesia has been growing at a steady rate over the
past 50 years, from 0.8 million tons in 1960 to 10.7 million tons in
2014 [1]. Most of these fish still come from wild capture fisheries in
inland and marine waters, but fish landings have leveled off over the
last decade. Aquaculture has, in turn, become the main driver behind

Abbreviations: AIDS, almost ideal demand system; AS, alternative scenario; BAU, business as usual; BGI, blue growth initiative; CGE, computable general equilibrium models;
CGIAR, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; GAMS, Generalized Algebraic Modeling System; GDP, gross domestic
product; GNP, gross national product; IFPRI, International Food Policy Research Institute; IMPACT, International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade;
IUU, illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing); L & F, Livestock and Fish; MMAF, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries; MSY, maximum sustainable yield; OECD, Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development; PIM, Policies, Institutions and Markets
☆
LOCATION OF WORK: WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: n.tran@cgiar.org (N. Tran).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.002
Received 18 November 2016; Received in revised form 7 February 2017; Accepted 7 February 2017
0308-597X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Tran et al.
fish supply growth in Indonesia in recent years. With an annual growth
rate of the aquaculture sector of about 7.7% per year since 1960, the
share of farmed fish of total fish production rose from 10.6% in 1960 to
40.2% in 2014 [1]. Indonesia is also considered to have great potential
for further aquaculture growth, with more than 17,000 islands and a
coastline of about 81,000 km. The Indonesian government has, for
example, stated that there is an additional 26 million hectare of
suitable land for aquaculture expansion [4].
Total landings from capture fisheries have been increasing at 4.2%
per year on average over the past 50 years but has slowed down to 3.1%
per year over the past 10 years [1]. By weight, skipjack tuna accounts
for the largest portion (7% excl. aquatic plants) of a diverse set of
landings [2]. As much as 90 species actually make up 90% of
production, including other tunas, scads, mackerels, catfishes, group-
ers, sharks, squids and bivalves [1]. By monetary value, prepared tuna
is the second most important export commodity (7%), following frozen
shrimp and prawn (27%) which are mainly farmed [1]. Judging from
economic development targets (e.g., contribution of fisheries to gross
national product (GNP)) fish catches would be expected to continue to
increase [5]. Research suggests, however, that the majority of the
targeted fish stocks in Indonesia are fully or over-exploited due to the
habitat destruction, excess fishing effort, and poor and inappropriate
governance and management approaches [6,7]. Any increases in land-
ings that might be achieved in the short-term are therefore almost
certainly unsustainable.
Aquaculture in Indonesia is practiced in fresh, brackish and marine
waters, with production limited to a smaller number of fish species
compared to capture fisheries. Eight species accounted for roughly 90%
of Indonesia's aquaculture production (excl. seaweed) in 2014: Nile
tilapia (23% of total aquaculture production), Clarias catfish (16%),
milkfish (13%), white-leg shrimp (10%), common carp (10%),
Pangasius catfish (10%) and Asian tiger shrimp (3%) [1]. Building on
past success, the government of Indonesia has set ambitious aqua-
culture production targets; by 2019 it has set a goal of 11.8 millon tons
[8].
While aquaculture is projected to continue to grow [9–11], its
expansion over the past three decades has highlighted a number of
social and environmental challenges, including loss of mangrove and
wetland ecosystems, pollution of waterways, rendering of edible fish
into fish meal and oils for aquaculture diets, marginalized local
farmers, increased social tensions and fish disease outbreaks resulting
in aquaculture crop failures and income losses [12–19]. With increas-
ing environmental awareness, concerns related to aquaculture devel-
opment have recently extended to greenhouse gas emissions, acidifying
emissions, energy use and water depletion. Increasing stringency of
environmental regulation might constrain aquaculture growth as
suggested by Abate et al. [20].
In order to sustain the sector's growth and avoid adverse socio-
economic and environmental consequences, the government of
Indonesia adopted the concept of blue growth for fisheries and
aquaculture in 2014. The action is in line with the Blue Growth
Initiative (BGI) for fisheries and aquaculture launched by the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2013. According to FAO [21],
blue growth is defined as: “Sustainable growth and development
emanating from economic activities using living renewable resources
of the oceans, wetlands and coastal zones that minimize environmental
degradation, biodiversity loss and unsustainable use of aquatic re-
sources, and maximize economic and social benefits”. The concept has
become an emerging paradigm for sustainable utilization and manage-
ment of marine and freshwater resources including fisheries and
aquaculture. It has been promoted as an integral part of the oceanic
and freshwater development strategies by many international and
national organizations, in both developed and developing countries
[22]. Though the term ‘blue growth’ is used liberally in national ocean
plans, it remains ill-defined in operational terms and subject to
different interpretations by interested actors [23]. Successful blue
26
Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32
growth strategies require appropriate enabling policies, strong advo-
cacy, innovative financial investments and suitable knowledge transfer
mechanisms [22]. In support of the government of Indonesia's policy
vision, this article explores the concept of blue growth, with special
focus on aquaculture. Using the supply-demand AsiaFish model, the
present article provides projections to build an understanding of the
future fish supply-demand situation in Indonesia up to 2030.
Specifically, it analyses the implications of business as usual (BAU),
and five alternative scenarios (ASs) in terms of key outcomes: fish
production, consumption, trade, consumer and producer prices.
The paper highlight future growth trends in the fishery and
aquaculture sectors and key social, economic and environmental out-
comes associated with those trends, from which more public and
private sector actions can be identified for attention in applying the
blue growth concept.
2. Methods and data
The objective for this research was to assess the complex interac-
tions of fish supply, demand and trade, as well as their future
implications on development outcomes. Food sector supply-demand
models are well suited for making such projections, because they take
the behavior of stakeholders from multi-markets into account. To date,
several partial equilibrium economic models, such as the International
Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade
(IMPACT) [24] and the AGLINK-COSIMO model, have included fish
commodities into their analyses. For instance, in 2003, Delgado [25]
used the IMPACT to produce projections of global food fish production,
consumption, and trade for the period 1997–2020.
In 2013, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
the World Bank, the FAO, and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
improved Delgado's IMPACT fish model to generate the Fish to 2030
report [26] covering a period from 2000 to 2030. A short version of this
study provides projections of the global supply, demand and trade of
fish products to 2030 was presented in Kobayashi et al. [11]. These
global models used the world price of a commodity as the mechanism
for establishing equilibrium for national and global fish markets.
However, there are limitations found in these models with regards to
labor and time costs-effectiveness as well as the disaggregation level for
exploring growth options for aquaculture at the country level that we
will address in the present study.
The fish sector model (AsiaFish) was developed by Dey et al. [27,28]
and has been used extensively to evaluate consequences of changes in
technology, fishing effort, incomes, urbanization, export prices, trade
policy, and impacts of climate change and related adaptation strategies
on fish supply and demand [29,30]. This supply-demand model divides
a country's fish sector into producer, consumer and trade cores. In the
producer core, domestic supply equations are derived from the normal-
ized profit function approach and can be differentiated by production
category (e.g., capture fisheries, aquaculture, commodity groups, etc.).
A shift in a supply function due to technological change, policy change
or changes in other quasi-fixed factors is represented by the propor-
tional change of fish supply and captured by a ratio of actual and
effective prices (technological index or factor productivity parameter,
lambda). In the consumer core, household fish demand functions are
derived from a three-stage budgeting framework [31], with household
food and fish expenditure functions specified in the first and second
stages, and expenditure shares of fish groups specified in the third
stage using the quadratic form of the Almost Ideal Demand System
(AIDS) [32,33]. The trade core of the model is comprised of fish export
supply and import demand functions imposing the Armington assump-
tion [34], a common approach used in computable general equilibrium
models (CGE) that treats domestic and foreign goods as differentiated
products. Model closure is found by simultaneously equating supply-
demand for every fish type declared in the model. Once completed, the
model is solved by the Generalized Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS)
N. Tran et al. Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32

Table 1
Balance sheet for the Indonesia AsiaFish model, 2012.

Item Tuna Shrimp Milkfish Clarias Pangasius Carps Tilapia Grouper Other fish Total

Quantities (thousand tons)

Production/Harvest 1,134 699 522 480 384 466 760 105 4,431 8,982
Capture marine 1,134 263 – – – – – 93 3,938 5,428
Capture inland – 21 – 39 36 44 42 – 211 394
Aquaculture marine and brackish water – 397 522 – – – 39 12 75 1,044
Aquaculture freshwater – 19 – 441 347 422 679 – 208 2,116
Imports 11 3 – – 1 – – – 156 172
Household demand (consumption)
Rural 229 40 132 37 49 74 126 9 786 1,482
Urban 232 106 169 70 92 106 155 8 858 1,795
Firm demand (intermediate demand) 483 440 220 366 243 286 465 75 2,359 4,939
Foreign demand (exports) 201 117 1 7 0 0 13 13 585 938

Value (billion IDR); 1USD =9,645.4 IDR on 31 December 2012

Production/Harvest 14,495 26,582 8,531 5,969 5,567 8,781 11,550 4,229 57,992 143,696
Capture marine 14,495 7,331 – – – – – 2,671 47,488 71,986
Capture inland – 792 – 712 931 750 629 – 3,564 7,377
Aquaculture brackishwater – 17,594 8,531 – – – 568 1,558 1,906 30,156
Aquaculture freshwater – 864 – 5,258 4,636 8,031 10,353 – 5,033 34,177
Imports 282 171 – – 23 – – – 1,755 2,230
Household demand (consumption) 3,875 4,317 4,900 1,299 2,059 3,388 4,070 734 20,387 45,028
Rural 1,923 1,187 2,146 450 713 1,400 1,825 384 9,752 19,781
Urban 1,952 3,130 2,754 849 1,345 1,988 2,245 349 10,636 25,248
Firm demand (intermediate demand) 3,862 12,808 3,594 4,468 3,528 5,389 6,745 3,145 29,548 73,086
Foreign demand (exports) 7,040 9,627 37 203 4 4 735 350 9,812 27,812

Note: The values above exclude seaweed

program to produce projections on a country's fish production,
consumption, trade, and prices on an annual basis. Details of the
model description are given in Dey et al.[27].
2.1. The AsiaFish model for Indonesia and data sources
Based on the current structure of the country's aquaculture sector
and available data, we specified nine fish supply groups in the
Indonesia AsiaFish model (Table 1), sourced from marine capture
fisheries, inland capture fisheries, marine and brackish water aqua-
culture, and freshwater aquaculture. The “other fish” group repre-
sented all of the remaining fish supplied in Indonesia that were not
explicitly included in the model (as presented in Table 1, capture
fisheries accounted for about 94% of the “other fish” group by volume).
On the demand side, fish consumption was disaggregated by fish group
and region (rural versus urban). The demand side also recognized two
categories of fish products consumed by consumers: fresh and pro-
cessed fish (e.g., fillet, dried, and canned fish). Fish processing firms
were presumed to use a portion of fish supply (firm demand) to
produce processed fish. The conversion of firm demand into processed
fish was assumed to follow a fixed proportion technology [27].
Data and information for the model construction were collected
from various sources such as the MMAF, FAO, Badan Pusat Statistik
(Center Bureau Statistics) (BPS) and Center for Marine and Fisheries
Social Economic Research [1,2,35–40]. Given data availability, 2012
was chosen as the base year for the model. Table 1 indicates that
Indonesia produced 8.9 million tons of fish in 2012, worth IDR 143.7
trillion (1USD =9,645.4 IDR on 31 December 2012). Most of the fish
produced (about 60.4% by volume) was from marine capture fisheries
and the largest fish group was “other fish”. Fish supply (domestic
production and imports) was mainly from domestic sources (Table 1).
Parameters for the model's equations such as supply-demand elasti-
cities were obtained from previous versions of the AsiaFish model and
a literature review [9–13]. The intercept terms for all equations in the
model were then carefully calibrated to ensure the initial solution of the
model replicated the available information for the base year 2012.
2.2. Model solutions and scenarios
The model begins in 2012 and continues its projection yearly up to
2030. The BAU scenario was defined such that exogenous variables of
the model follow historical trends. Information for defining baseline
growth rates was obtained from various sources mentioned in the
above paragraphs. For 2013 and 2014, where actual statistical data
were available, values of factor productivity parameters were adjusted
to ensure that the model solutions replicate the statistics for the two
years. Aquatic plants were excluded from all models.
ASs selected for assessment were generated via a stakeholder
consultation process. Three workshops were held between July and
December of 2014 at national (in Jakarta) and provincial levels (in
Lombok and Makassar) to develop qualitative scenarios for future
aquaculture and fisheries development in Indonesia. In each workshop,
participants representing the government, private sector, research
institutions, non-governmental organizations, and aquaculture com-
munities were asked to identify critical drivers influencing future
fisheries and aquaculture supply-demand in Indonesia; as well as to
comment on potential impacts and uncertainties of identified critical
drivers. Across the national and provincial level workshops, the
following eight groups of critical drivers were identified: 1) government
policy and regulation, 2) climate and environmental change, 3) market
conditions, 4) technological research and development, 5) macro
socioeconomic development, 6) human resources and capacity, 7)
infrastructure for fisheries and aquaculture, and 8) investment context
[41].
The quantitative ASs for assessment with the model were con-
structed by varying the productivity growth parameter (lambda) in
relation to that in the BAU scenario. Given that eight critical driver
groups identified by stakeholder workshops can influence the producer,
consumer, and trade components of the model, and our objective is to
explore blue growth pathways for aquaculture, the following five ASs
were selected for quantitative analysis:
The first scenario (AS1 — Stagnant capture fisheries growth) assumes
that capture fisheries from 2016 to 2030 will remain at its 2015 level. The
objective is to simulate a setting where (past and current) unsustainable

27
N. Tran et al.
fishing practices and other threats such as climate change might prevent
further growth in supply of fish from capture fisheries.
The second scenario (AS2 — Export oriented growth) assumes
factor productivity growth for exportable fish groups (shrimp, grouper
and tilapia) in aquaculture is 5% higher than the BAU scenario from
2016 to 2030. As aquatic animals are the most traded animal food
products, with a general flow of higher value products from developing
countries to developed countries [42], the objective of AS2 is to explore
implications of export-oriented aquaculture growth policy.
The third scenario (AS3 — Domestic oriented growth) assumes that
the factor productivity growth rates for low value aquaculture fish
(carp, pangasius, tilapia and milkfish) are 5% faster compared to the
BAU scenario from 2016 to 2030. While not explicitly identified, faster
factor productivity growths of aquaculture under AS2 and AS3 can be
the result of improvements in aquaculture farm practices, policy
interventions and/or technological change, as has been documented
in number of studies [43,44]. Many production systems are also far
from perfected, suggesting that there is potential for further innovation
and productivity growth up to 2030 [43].
The fourth scenario (AS4 — slow aquaculture growth) assumes the
aquaculture growth rate as a whole slows down to one percent per year
compared to the BAU scenario from 2016 to 2030. This could be the
result of negative impacts on aquaculture growth such as climate
change, biophysical limiting factors (environmental carrying capacity)
or failing government support. It could also be the result of more strict
environmental regulations [20].
Finally the fifth scenario (AS5 — Aquaculture disease) assumes a
decline in aquaculture production as a result of diseases in shrimp and
carp farming, as has happened before and has been the case in many
other countries [45]. In the case of shrimp, disease in farms is set to
cause the output in 2018 to 30% of 2017 production levels, after which
it will recover to its 2017 level by 2023. For carp, output in 2018 is
assumed to be 15% lower than in 2017 and declines by another 10% in
2019. Eventually carp production is assumed to recover to its 2017
level by 2025.
3. Results
3.1. Business as usual
Under the BAU scenario, the total production of capture fisheries
and aquaculture is projected to increase from 9.0 million tons in 2012
to 18.8 million tons in 2030 (Fig. 1). Based on the empirical
observations and participatory expert consultations, we projected that
aquaculture and capture fisheries production are likely to expand at
about 7.0% and 2.1% per year, respectively, from 2012 to 2030. Past
production figures [1] attest that Indonesian aquaculture and capture
fisheries output grew by 7.7% and 4.2% per year from 1960 to 2013.
The BAU scenario suggests that both capture fisheries and aquaculture
will continue to increase, but at slower rates compared to those
observed in the past. Given that aquaculture is expanding at a faster
growth rate under the BAU scenario, aquaculture production will likely
surpass the output of capture fisheries by 2026. Future outputs under
the BAU scenario are also well below the government targets an-
nounced for the 2016–2019 period, especially for aquaculture, suggest-
ing that the government of Indonesia might be excessively optimistic in
aquaculture policy targets (Fig. 1).
Per capita fish consumption under the BAU scenario is expected to
increase from 33.9 kg person per year in 2012 to about 60.7 kg per
person per year by 2030. Increases in overall fish consumption are
attributable mostly to the relatively rapid expansion of per capita fish
consumption and population growth in urban areas. Fish trade
(exports and imports) is projected to increase over the projection
period, with fish exports being 77.4% larger by 2030 (1.9 million tons)
than in 2012. The sharp increase in imports (431.8% higher than
imports in 2012) in the BAU scenario suggests that Indonesia's net
28
Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32
exports of fish products will be decreasing over the projection period.
Weighted average consumer and producer nominal prices of fish are
expected to be nearly three times higher in 2030 compared to 2012,
with likely implications for poorer fish consumers.
Production of all aquaculture fish groups is projected to increase
under the BAU scenario (Fig. 2). Grouper production, at 79,000 t by
2030, will be almost seven times larger compared to 2012 (12,000 t)
and is thereby expected to have the largest proportionate growth.
Groupers are expected, in terms of sectoral growth, to be followed by
milkfish, shrimp and carps, which all experienced three-fold increases
up to 2030. The remainder of the fish species (catfish, tilapia and
others) are projected to grow by between 2.3 and 2.8 times. Milkfish is
also expected to outgrow tilapia as the largest source of farmed fish in
Indonesia by 2026. The production of 2.3 million tons of milkfish by
2030 would be 22% of the total output of aquaculture (Table 2). Shrimp
(from 13% in 2012 to 18% in 2030) and carps (13% in 2012 to 15% in
2030) will most likely also experience noticeable increases in their
contribution to overall fish supply. Tilapia production is expected to
increase from 0.7 million tons in 2012 to 2.0 million tons by 2030, but
its share of total aquaculture production is projected to fall from 23% in
2012 to 19% in 2030. The contributions of clarias catfish (from 14% in
2012 to 10% in 2030), pangasius (10% to 8%) and other fish (9% to
7%) towards overall aquaculture production are projected to be
decrease up to 2030.
3.2. Alternative scenarios for growth
Table 3 presents results for the ASs in comparison to the key outcomes
associated with the BAU scenario. The AS projections provide an under-
standing of the sensitivity of fish production, consumption, trade, and
prices in Indonesia to changes in critical drivers discussed in the method
section (e.g., market conditions, enabling socioeconomic policies and
regulations, natural environmental conditions, market conditions).
3.2.1. AS1: Stagnant capture fisheries
The stagnation of capture fisheries scenario (AS1) lowers the
projected capture fisheries’ output by −25.4% compared to the BAU
scenario (8.4 million tons) in 2030 (Table 3). Combined with projected
aquaculture production, the total output of fish is projected to be
−11.7% lower than the BAU scenario (18.8 million tons). Per capita fish
consumption under AS1 is projected to fall by −8.1% compared to the
BAU scenario, while fish exports and imports are expected to be
−23.6% and −3.0% lower by 2030, respectively. Tuna would suffer
some of the worst impacts, with estimated exports level to be −55%
below the BAU 2030 scenario. Weighted averages of consumer and
producer prices of fish are, in the meantime, projected to increase by
6.2% and 4.3%, respectively.
As presented in Table 2, the impacts of AS1 on aquaculture
production are modest, with estimated 2030 production being only
−0.7% lower than BAU. However, with regards to disaggregated
aquaculture production, milkfish and carps seem to experience the
largest declines in output. Grouper and other brackish and marine
aquaculture, in the meantime, are projected to react positively to AS1,
with 2030 production levels expected to be 15.4% and 2.1% higher than
that in the BAU scenario, respectively). Ambiguous responses are
observed for aquaculture of shrimp, catfish, and tilapia under the AS1.
The stagnation of capture fisheries has several implications on the
projected outcomes of the model. Domestic and import supply of fish
under AS1 would be lower in comparison to the BAU. This results in
increases in consumer prices of fish and has negative impacts on per
capita fish consumption. It also results in a decline in domestic
production and thereby constrained fish exports. The decline in
domestic fish consumption would also reduce imports, while higher
domestic fish prices would make imported fish more competitive. The
overall decline of −3.0%, however, suggests that the influence of lower
fish demand outweighs that of higher prices.
N. Tran et al. Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32

Fig. 1. Evolution and projected Indonesia fish trend in A) total production: actual data (2003–2014), BAU projection (2015–2030) and government target (2015–2019); B) per capita
fish consumption by region, 2012–2030; C) international fish trade, 2012–2030; and D) consumer and producer prices, 2012–2030.

3.2.2. AS2: Export oriented aquaculture growth
Under the assumption of faster growth of exportable aquaculture
commodities (mainly shrimp, grouper and tilapia), the simulation
results showed that the total fish output would be 26.1% higher by
2030 in the AS2 compared to the BAU scenario (Table 3). This increase
is largely accounted for by a projected aquaculture output that is
expected to be 47.9% greater than the BAU in 2030. As a result of
increases in domestic supply, per capita fish consumption is also
projected to be higher (17.9% by 2030) than in the BAU scenario,
with per capita consumption in urban regions increasing faster than
that in rural areas (18.5% versus 16.6%). Fish exports are projected to
exceed BAU levels by 37.7% by 2030. Most of this increase is associated
with shrimp exports, with levels being 221.5% higher in AS2 than in
the BAU scenario. Fish imports are, in the meantime, projected to
experience only modest increases (5.8% compared to BAU). Overall
fish availability also resulted in somewhat lower consumer and
producer prices (−4.4% and −6.8%, respectively) for AS2 compared
to BAU.
With regards to disaggregated projections for aquaculture species
following AS2, the largest relative increases in fish production com-
pared to the BAU scenario were for shrimp (153.0%), grouper (215.5%)
and tilapia (93.7%). Clarias, pangasius and other aquaculture produc-
tion had relatively small impacts in the scenario.
3.2.3. AS3: Domestic oriented aquaculture growth
AS3, which assumes faster productivity growth for lower valued
aquaculture species (carps, pangasius, tilapia and milkfish), projects
that aquaculture fish output in 2030 is 70.4% higher than the BAU.
Overall fish production, which combines aquaculture and capture
fisheries, is also 39.4% higher. This is thus the most productive of all

29
N. Tran et al. Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32

Table 3
The effects of alternative scenarios on key sectoral indicators (% deviation from the BAU
scenario in 2030).

Outcome Scenario Percent deviation from BAU

BAU AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5

(1) Fish supply (thousand tons)

Aquaculture, of which 10,421.8 −0.7 47.9 70.3 −50.6 −12.7
Shrimp 1,847.1 0.2 153.0 4.5 −60.0 −33.4
Milkfish 2,302.1 −2.4 2.9 116.4 −62.4 −2.0
Clarias 1,040.7 −0.1 0.1 0.2 −33.2 −0.1
Pangasius 821.5 −0.1 0.2 103.4 −33.4 −0.1
Carps 1,609.9 −1.3 2.3 111.1 −57.3 −40.0
Tilapia 2,015.0 −0.7 93.7 95.2 −43.3 −0.8
Grouper 78.9 15.4 215.5 4.0 −71.6 −1.0
Other freshwater 487.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 −32.9 0.0
aquaculture
Other brackishwater/ 219.1 2.1 −0.1 −0.2 −45.2 −0.1
marine aquaculture
Capture 8,414.3 −25.4 −1.0 1.2 0.1 0.3
Total 18,836.2 −11.7 26.1 39.4 −28.0 −6.9

(2) Per capita fish consumption (kg/person/year)

Fig. 2. Projected aquaculture production in the BAU scenario by fish group. Rural 56.7 −7.9 16.6 35.9 −25.6 −5.8
Urban 62.6 −8.2 18.5 32.9 −27.0 −6.8
National 60.7 −8.1 17.9 46.5 −26.6 −6.5
Table 2
Outputs and shares of fish groups in total aquaculture production in 2012 and 2030 in
the BAU scenario. (3) Prices (thousand Rp/kg)
Consumer prices 56.8 6.2 −4.4 −10.1 23.6 4.5
Fish group Share of aquaculture output (%) Producer prices 40.1 4.3 −6.8 −11.2 24.5 5.6

2012 Outputs shares 2030 outputs shares

(4) International trade (thousand tons)
Exports, of which 1,857.3 −23.6 37.7 12.6 −16.6 −5.7
Shrimp 13.1 17.7
Tuna 374.4 −55.2 0.3 0.5 −1.0 −0.2
Milkfish 16.5 22.1
Shrimp 221.5 −4.5 221.5 −2.1 −60.3 −37.8
Clarias 14.0 10.0
Imports 1,785.2 −3.0 5.8 10.5 −14.2 −3.7
Pangasius 11.0 7.9
Carps 13.4 15.5
Tilapia 22.7 19.3
Grouper 0.4 0.8
Others 8.9 6.8 noticeable declines were observed for grouper (−71.6%), milkfish
Total 100 100
(−62.4%) and shrimp (−60.0%). Capture fisheries are, in the meantime,
expected to remain largely unaffected by AS4 relative to BAU.
scenarios, in terms of overall volume. Increases in domestic fish supply
3.2.5. AS5: Fish and shrimp disease
resulted in per capita fish consumption and fish exports exceeding BAU
The impacts of the disease scenario (AS5), affecting shrimp and
by 46.5% and +12.6%, respectively. Weighted averages of consumer
carps farming, over the simulation period is projected to have a severe
and producer prices were projected to be 10.1% and 11.2% lower
setback in production for both of these two species in the late 2010 s,
compared to that in the BAU in 2030.
from which neither of them really recover. Both shrimp (−33.5%) and
Disaggregated projections for aquaculture species were +116.6%,
carp (−40.0%) consequently fall below BAU production estimates for
+103.4%, +111.3% and +95.3% above BAU in 2030 for milkfish,
2030, with an overall decline of 12.7% from the aquaculture sector.
pangasius, carps and tilapia. Shrimp (4.5%) and groupers (4.0) showed
This also has knock-on effects on exports of shrimp (−37.8% by 2030
mild increases in production while Clarias and other aquaculture
compared to BAU) and fish as a whole (−5.7%), and per capita fish
species production remained largely unchanged. AS3 also had small
consumption (−6.5%). Consumer and producer prices in 2030 were
(+1.2%) positive effects on capture fisheries.
expected to be 4.5% and 5.6%, respectively, higher compared to BAU.
Capture fisheries, would in the meantime, remain largely stagnant.
3.2.4. AS4: Slow aquaculture growth
The slowdown of aquaculture in AS4 resulted in aquaculture 4. Discussion
production that is 50.6% lower than the BAU in 2030. Total fish
production (aquaculture and capture fisheries) is also expected to be The importance of fisheries and aquaculture, and their contribution
28.0% lower than the BAU (Table 3). Following the decline in domestic to the national economy is well recognized in Indonesia, particularly as
supply, per capita consumption is also projected to be −26.6% lower a source of foreign exchange earnings and livelihoods [46]. Thus, there
than the BAU in 2030. The lower supply of fish resulting from the lower is a strong urge for decision-makers to formulate plans, strategies and
productivity in AS4 result in increased consumer (23.6%) and producer interventions that ensure robust and sustainable development of the
prices (24.5%). The combined effects of higher fish prices and lower sector. Our analysis indicates that under the BAU scenario, domestic
production explain the 16.6% fall in exports. Lower fish demand, as fish supply-demand in Indonesia will continue to grow and the country
represented by lower per capita fish consumption, is also the major will remain a net fish exporter up to 2030. However, net trade (export
cause for the 14.2% fall in imports. minus import) is projected to shrink over time due to rising demand
A closer inspection of disaggregated projections for aquaculture from domestic markets. Both producer and consumer prices of fish are
species show that the outputs of all farmed fish species would slow consequently projected to increase over the period. On the demand
down by between 33.2% and 71.6% compared to the BAU. The most side, increases in domestic fish consumption are to be expected, largely

30
N. Tran et al.
driven by rapid population growth, higher income, urbanization, and
changing consumer preferences to fish due to health concerns; as
observed in other studies [26,47,48]. On the supply side, strong
aquaculture growth is envisioned while capture fisheries will grow at
a slower rate. Slow growth or stagnancy of capture fisheries is expected
as threats of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the
destruction of fish habitats push fisheries resources closer to the brink
of depletion [6]. On the other hand, rapid expansion of aquaculture in
the past ten years has continued with no sign of reaching its peak [1,8].
The ASs illuminate two direction of future fish supply growth when
compared with the BAU scenario: 1) lower domestic fish supply due to
stagnant capture fisheries (AS1), a general slowing of aquaculture growth
(AS4), or a slowing of aquaculture specifically due to disease outbreaks in
shrimp and carp (AS5); and 2) higher prospect of domestic fish supply
due to public and private interventions to boost faster growth of
aquaculture for export (AS2) or for domestic consumption (AS3). As
one would expect, constraining domestic fish supply (AS1, AS4, AS5)
resulted in increased consumer prices of fish and lowered fish consump-
tion, whereas faster growth of aquaculture for export (AS2) and domestic
consumption (AS3) induced higher fish consumption and lower consumer
fish prices. Emphasis on domestic aquaculture (AS3) provided the
strongest reductions in consumer fish prices and increases in domestic
fish consumption. Promoting higher aquaculture growth for export (AS2)
would, as expected, provide the greatest boost in fish exports and the
largest source of foreign currency. No matter which of these directions the
country takes (AS2 or AS3 or a mix of the two), the Indonesian
government needs investments to mitigate the spread of disease, maintain
wild fish stocks, and strengthen institutional and human capacity to
support for aquaculture farmers and fishers.
The visions for substantial future growth of aquaculture are
embedded in the government's aquaculture targets and priorities
[49,50]. According to our projections, aquaculture production in
Indonesia could increase 2.4 fold between 2014 and 2030, excluding
aquatic plants. Most of these estimates are larger than both those by
Fish to 2030 [26] and OECD-FAO [51], but all projections still fall
short of the government targets [49,50]. This suggests that government
targets are overambitious and need to be reconsidered. Moreover,
existing shortcomings in spatial planning, physical infrastructure, seed
quality and feed resources have already been recognized [8], and would
need to be addressed to support successful future growth. Alongside
these concerns, socioeconomic and environmental consequences would
also need to be taken into account, as social conflicts and environ-
mental repercussions are becoming ever more frequent in Indonesia.
The different model projections alongside the Indonesian govern-
ment's ambitions suggest that aquaculture will likely overtake capture
fisheries as the main supplier of fish in Indonesia somewhere between
2026 and 2030. Stronger prospects for milkfish, shrimp and carps,
compared to tilapia, clarias and pangasius catfish, are projected for the
BAU scenario. Domestic markets support strong growth of milkfish and
carps, whereas shrimp growth will mainly be driven by foreign markets.
Shrimp will continue to be the key aquaculture export commodity from
Indonesia over the projection period, independent of scenario.
Given that capture fisheries currently is the dominant source of fish
in domestic markets and a key source of essential nutrition for many
poor consumers, declines in fish consumption due to elevated prices
will jeopardize the wellbeing of Indonesians. The results of AS1
highlight the importance of policies which both target sustaining
fisheries landings and sustainable growth of aquaculture. Under its
“Global Maritime Fulcrum” the Indonesian government has already
taken drastic steps to limit foreign fishing in its water to improve
domestic catches, including sinking foreign fishing boats in its waters
and arresting fishermen [52]. However, given the finite resources and
concerns about sustainability of fish stocks in Indonesia alongside the
likely consequences of climate change, which are projected to have
serious consequences for the Indonesian capture fishery [53], it is vital
that the government better manage its wild fish stocks by enacting and
31
Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32
enforcing effective governance that combats IUU and unsustainable
catches. This includes fish stocks, such as the Bali sardinella and sprat
that are predominantly used for fishmeal production that also maintain
the aquaculture industry. This important focus on wild fish stocks
needs parallel attention to sustainable growth of aquaculture, as both
sub-sectors are essential for the future.
With the creation of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
(MMAF) in 2000, aquaculture received strong policy support [54].
Development zones for aquaculture were created by the government,
where the intensification of production could be supported through
investment in private hatcheries, distribution and marketing channels
for fish and fingerlings, training, improved information systems, and
support for product certification and access to capital [54,55].
Nonetheless, aquaculture in Indonesia needs to grow substantially into
the future. Over the projection period, increases in aquaculture output
will require expansions to only take place on land that does not result
in the loss of important ecosystems, sustainable intensification of
farming practices and improved use efficiency of inputs for ecologically
viable production [10]. As producer prices increase over time, research
investments will also be needed to help farmers reduce production
costs and remain competitive. These investments should promote
major transformations of aquaculture systems, policies and invest-
ments that meet blue growth principles that harmonize development,
natural resources and environmental conservation goals [56].
While the modeling approach we present in this study can generate
useful insights and alternative options when planning and developing
for fisheries and aquaculture policies at a disaggregate level, a number
of limitations need to be highlighted. The projected results could be
undermined by discrepancies in reporting data, as well as future
expectations and commitments of public and private sectors to the
industry. Insufficient data could also impose constraints on dynamic
factors in the model especially with regards to 1) biological factors
influencing capture fisheries, 2) fishmeal and oil markets, 3) uncer-
tainties in global and domestic fish markets; 4) substitution effects
among protein sources (e.g., fish and meats); 5) improved or changed
farming practices; 6) climate change. Future studies should try to
incorporate these factors in the models, thereby contributing improved
insight and understanding into future fish supply-demand, allowing for
improved planning and management of the fisheries and aquaculture.
5. Conclusions
The partial equilibrium fish sector model called AsiaFish was applied
to explore six future fish supply-demand scenarios in Indonesia, with a
focus on aquaculture. Scenario analyses show that fish supply-demand in
Indonesia will continue to increase between 2012 and 2030, as will
consumer and producer prices of fish. Net international trade will, in the
meantime, decrease. The study also highlights the increasingly essential
role of aquaculture to meet domestic demands for fish. While aquaculture
is projected to become the main supplier of fish in Indonesia around
2026, it will be critical that the government transforms capture fisheries,
by enacting policies that limit IUU and promoting maximum sustainable
yield (MSY), to ensure landings. Conclusively, our models show that
growth is needed to maintain domestic supply, prices and consumption.
The models also proved to be a useful tool to better understand the future
economic trends and provided a reference for policy-makers when making
future interventions and priority settings.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Grant
# 4033 and the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions and
Markets (PIM)) – Program Participant Agreement No. CRP2-110;
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish – Program Participant
Agreement CRP3.7 for funding of the research. The strong partnership
with the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) in
N. Tran et al.
Indonesia, as well as the contributions of a wide range of public,
private, community and civil society members and organizations to the
research are also highly acknowledged.
References
[1] FishStatJ. (2016). Database and Software for Fishery Statistical Analysis. United
Nations FAO. Accessed on August 2016 from 〈http://www.fao.org/fishery/
statistics/software/fishstatj/en〉.
[2] MMAF. (2014). Marine Affairs and Fisheries in Figures 2013. Jakarta, Indonesia,
212.
[3] Marine and Fisheries Statistics Book 2012, Ministry of Marine Affair and Fisheries,
2013.
[4] Asia Development Bank. (2003). Technical Assiatance to the Republic of Indonesia
for preparing the sustainable aquaculture development for food security and
poverty reduction project. 1-16.
[5] P.J. Mous, J.S. Pet, Z. Arifin, R. Djohani, M.V. Erdmann, A. Halim, M. Knight,
L. Pet-Soede, G. Wiadnya, Policy needs to improve marine capture fisheries
management and to define a role for marine protected areas in Indonesia, Fish.
Manag. Ecol. 12 (2005) 259–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2400.2005.00448.x.
[6] U. Muawanah, R.S. Pomeroy, C. Marlessy, Revisiting fish wars:wars: conflict and
collaboration over fisheries in Indonesia, Coast. Manag. 40 (2012) 279–288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.677633.
[7] D.S. Adhuri, L. Rachmawati, H. Sofyanto, N. Hamilton-Hart, Green market for
small people: markets and opportunities for upgrading in small-scale fisheries in
Indonesia, Mar. Policy 63 (2016) 198–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2015.03.021.
[8] M.A. Rimmer, K. Sugama, D. Rakhmawati, R. Rofiq, R.H. Habgood, A review and
SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Indonesia, Rev. Aquac. 5 (2013)
255–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/raq.12017.
[9] World Bank. (2014). Reducing disease risk in aquaculture. World Bank Report
Number 88257-GL. Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper 09.
[10] J. Bostock, B. McAndrew, R. Richards, K. Jauncey, T. Telfer, K. Lorenzen, D. Little,
L. Ross, N. Handisyde, I. Gatward, R. Corner, Aquaculture: global status and
trends, Philos Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365 (2010) 2897–2912. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0170.
[11] M. Kobayashi, S. Msangi, M. Batka, S. Vannuccini, M.M. Dey, J.L. Anderson, Fish
to 2030: the role and opportunity for aquaculture, Aquac. Econ. Manag. 19 (2015)
282–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2015.994240.
[12] C. Bailey, The social consequences of tropical shrimp mariculture development,
Ocean Shorel. Manag. 11 (1988) 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8312(88)
90004-5.
[13] P. Vandergeest, M. Flaherty, P. Miller, A political ecology of shrimp aquaculture in
Thailand, Rural Sociol. 64 (1999) 573–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-
0831.1999.tb00379.x.
[14] S. Stonich, C. Bailey, Resisting the blue revolution:revolution: contending coalitions
surrounding industrial shrimp farming, Hum. Organ.: Spring 59 (2000) 23–36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.59.1.86281132l884231k.
[15] M.J. Phillips, C. KweiLin, M.C.M. Beveridge, Shrimp culture and the environment:
lessons from the world’s most rapidly expanding warm water aquaculture sector.
Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries. ICLARM Conference
Proceedings.171-197, 1993.
[16] R.L. Naylor, R.J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky,
J. Lubchenco, J. Primavera, M. Williams, Nature's subsidies to shrimp and salmon
farming, Science 282 (1998) 883–884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.282.5390.883.
[17] J.H. Primavera, Environmental and socioeconomic effects of shrimp farming: the
Phillipine experience, Info. Int. 1 (1994) 44–49.
[18] R.L. Naylor, R.W. Hardy, D.P. Bureau, A. Chiu, M. Elliott, A.P. Farrell, I. Forster,
D.M. Gatlin, R.J. Goldburg, K. Hua, P.D. Nichols, Feeding aquaculture in an era of
finite resources, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (2009) 15103–15110. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905235106.
[19] J.H. Primavera, Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone, Ocean
Coast. Manag. 49 (2006) 531–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoa-
man.2006.06.018.
[20] T.G. Abate, R. Nielsen, R. Tveterås, Stringency of environmental regulation and
aquaculture growth: a cross-country analysis, Aquac. Econ. Manag. 20 (2016)
201–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2016.1156191.
[21] FAO. (2015). FAO’s blue growth initiative and aquaculture COFI:AQ/VIII/2015/7.
[22] L. Ababouch, Fisheries and aquaculture in the contect of blue economy. Abdou
Diouf International Conference center, Dakar, Senegal, 2015.
[23] J.J. Silver, N.J. Gray, L.M. Campbell, L.W. Fairbanks, R.L. Gruby, (2015). Blue
Economy and Competing Discourses in International Oceans Governance. Journal
of E24. Rosegrant, M.W., et al., Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends
and Alternative Futures. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
DC, 2001.
[24] M.W. Rosegrant, M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer, J. Witcover, Global Food Projections to
2020: emerging Trends and Alternative Futures, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2001.
[25] C.L. Delgado, N. Wada, M.W. Rosegrant, S. Meijer, M. Ahmed, Fish to 2020: supply
and Demand in Changing Global Markets (WorldFish Center Technical Report 62),
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2003.
[26] World Bank, Fish to 2030: prospect for Fisheries and Aquaculture, World Bank,
Washington, DC, 2013.
[27] M.M. Dey, R.M. Briones, M. Ahmed, Disagregated analysis of fish supply, demand,
and trade in Asia: baseline model and estimation strategy, Aquac. Econ. Manag. 9
32
Marine Policy 79 (2017) 25–32
(2005) 113–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961555.
[28] M.M. Dey, M.W. Rosegrant, G. Kamal, O.L. Chen, R. Valmonte-Santos, Analysis of
the economic impact of climate change and climate change adaptation strategies for
fisheries sector in Pacific coral triangle countries: model, estimation strategy, and
baseline results, Mar. Policy 67 (2016) 156–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpol.2015.12.011.
[29] M.M. Dey, G. Kamal, R. Valmonte-Santos, M.W. Rosegrant, O.L. Chen, Economic
impact of climate change and climate change adaptation strategies for fisheries
sector in Solomon Islands: implication for food security, Mar. Policy 67 (2016)
171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.004.
[30] M.W. Rosegrant, M.M. Dey, R. Valmonte-Santos, O.L. Chen, Economic impacts of
climate change and climate change adaptation strategies in Vanuatu and Timor-
Leste, Mar. Policy 67 (2016) 179–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2015.12.010.
[31] D. Edgerton, Weak separability and the estimation of elasticities in multistage
demand systems, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79 (1997) 62–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1243943.
[32] A. Deaton, J. Muellbauer, An almost Ideal demand System, Am. Econ. Rev. 70
(1980) 312–326.
[33] J. Banks, R. Blundell, A. Lewbel, Quadratic Engel curves and consumer demand,
Rev. Econ. Stat. 79 (1997) 527–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/
003465397557015.
[34] P. Armington, A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of
production, IMF Staff Pap. 16 (1969) 159–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
3866403.
[35] PANELKANAS, Center for Marine and Fisheries Social Economic Research, Agency
for Marine and Fisheries Research and Development, MMAF, Jakarta, 2012.
[36] BPS (Center Bureau Statistics), Pengeluaran Untuk Konsumsi Penduduk Indonesia
(Translated: expenditures for Consumption of Indonesia), National Socio-
Economic Survey, BPS, Jakarta, 2011.
[37] BPS (Center Bureau Statistics), Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2014 Jakarta,
Indonesia, 2014.
[38] BPS (Center Bureau Statistics). (2015). Number of Fish Capture Households by
Province and Fishery Subsector, 2000–2013. (Accessed 11 September 2015) from
〈http://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1709〉.
[39] BPS (Center Bureau Statistics). (2015). Number of Aquaculture Households by
Province and Type of Culture, 2000–2013. (Accessed 11 September 2015) from
〈http://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1709〉.
[40] BPS (Center Bureau Statistics). (2015). Value of Exports and Imports by SITC
Group (million US$), 2000–2013 (Accessed 11 September 2015) from 〈http://
www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1200〉.
[41] M.J. Phillips, P.J.G. Henriksson, N. Tran, C.Y. Chan, C.V. Mohan, U.P. Rodriguez,
S. Suri, S. Hall, S. Koeshendrajana, Exploring Indonesia aquaculture futures,
WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia, 2015 (Program Report2015-2039).
[42] F. Asche, M.F. Bellemare, C.S. Roheim, D. Martin, Tveterås, Sigbjørn, Fair Enough?
food security and the international trade of seafood, World Development 67 (2015)
151–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.013.
[43] F. Asche, Farming the Sea, Mar. Resour. Econ. 23 (2008) 527–547. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1086/mre.23.4.42629678.
[44] G. Kumar, C.R. Engle, Technological advances that led to growth of shrimp,
salmon, and tilapia farming, Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 24 (2016) 136–152. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015.1112357.
[45] L. Lebel, R. Mungkung, S.H. Gheewala, P. Lebel, Innovation cycles, niches and
sustainability in the shrimp aquaculture industry in Thailand, Environ. Sci. Policy
13 (2010) 291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.005.
[46] FAO. (2016). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to
food security and nutrition for all. Rome.
[47] S.M. Garcia, A.A. Rosenberg, Food security and marine capture fisheries: char-
acteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives, Philos Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
Biol. Sci. 365 (2010) 2869–2880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0171.
[48] K.A. Toufique, B. Belton, Is aquaculture pro-poor? empirical evidence of impacts on
fish consumption in Bangladesh, World Dev. 64 (2014) 609–620. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.035.
[49] KKP, Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Nomor Per. 06/MEN/2010
Tentang Rencana Strategis Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan 2010–2014,
Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, Jakarta, 2010.
[50] KKP, Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Nomor Per. 23/MEN/2015
Tentang Rencana Strategis Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan 2016–2019,
Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, Jakarta, 2015.
[51] OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). OECD-
FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015. OECD Publishing, Paris. Online available at:
〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en〉.
[52] L.A. Connelly, Sovereignty and the Sea: President Joko Widodo's Foreign Policy
Challenges, Contemp. Southeast Asia 37 (2015) 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1355/
cs37-1a.
[53] W.W.L. Cheung, V.W.Y. Lam, J.L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R.E.G. Watson, D. Zeller,
D. Pauly, Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the
global ocean under climate change, Glob. Change Biol. 16 (2010) 24–35. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01995.x.
[54] M.L. Nurdjana, Indonesian aquaculture development. Technical paper presented at
FFTC-RCA International Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Ecofriendly
Fish Farm Management and Production of Safe Aquaculture Foods, Bali, Indonesia.
Online available at: 〈http://www.agnet.org/htmlarea_file/library/
20110718063907/bc55007.pdf〉. 56–70, 2006.
[55] S. Msangi, M. Batka, Chapter 8: the rise of aquaculture. The role of fish in global
food security, Glob. Food Policy (2015) (Report, 12).
[56] W.N. Adger, T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, J. Rockstrom, Social-ecological
resilience to coastal disasters, Science 309 (2005) 1036–1039. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.1112122.