Indonesia is a country highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including the rapid rise in sea levels. According to data from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sea levels are rising by an average of 2.5 mm each year. This brief article highlights the importance of focusing our analysis on the configuration of power relations and access mechanisms when investigating maritime privatization. Having rights does not always mean advantages, and access can also be based on capital or social ties. This piece focuses on our fieldwork on Pari Island, where we highlight the conflict surrounding maritime privatization and its impact on the sustainability of local livelihoods.  We also seek to find a solution to this conflict.

Climate change vulnerability varies between the mainland and smaller islands (Dahuri et al., 2001). Smaller islands are especially at risk from climate change, which can cause extreme waves, rising sea levels, tidal flooding, and other disasters. A recent study by the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) estimates that at least 115 small islands in Indonesia are at risk of sinking due to rising sea levels and land subsidence.

Aside from the risk of sinking, small islands in Indonesia also face challenges related to land privatization. Indonesia's small islands are open to investment, but a lack of oversight and overlapping policies has allowed extractive industries to dominate the privatization process (Ocean Privatization). This has led to the destruction of islands and the displacement of communities. In theory, privatization is defined as a process that gives individuals greater ownership rights, often involving institutional change (Schlüter et al., 2025). Privatization can occur at the community level when formal laws, though usually informal rules, are changed, or at the organizational level, when assets under open access regimes, cooperatives, or state-owned enterprises are converted into privately managed entities.

Pari Island, which we visited as part of a field study in the 9th ESL IPB International Summer Course 2025 program, also experienced the same thing. Pari Island is one of the small islands in the Seribu Islands, DKI Jakarta. The conflict over the privatization of Pari Island has been ongoing since 1980, revolving around a dispute over land and sea use rights on Pari Island between local communities and a private company in the tourism sector.

The Interplay between Climate Change and Privatization in Pari Island

The issue of maritime privatization is not new. Similar conflicts have emerged in many countries around the world (Bennett et al. 2021; Schlüter et al., 2025). This is because we are currently in the Blue Economy and Blue Growth paradigm, which has led the private sector to expand the economic boundaries of human activity further into the sea. While the ocean poses challenges related to its open-access nature, which can result in the tragedy of the commons, ocean privatization has also created new problems, such as conflicts with local communities, increased environmental degradation, and conflicts between conservation and tourism.

Beach Conflict Property Rights in Pari Island: From Public Beaches to Private Business

Since 1980, there has been a conflict over the privatization of public coastal land on Pari Island. The local communities of Pari Island have experienced three different forms of privatization occurring in their fishing grounds over the past few decades. The first involves the accessibility of fishing grounds and fish stocks around Pari Island for local fishermen. These fishing areas have been used traditionally. However, the privatization of land by private parties has greatly restricted access to the waters near Pari Island for local fishermen. This privatization of space and resources has harmed the local communities of Pari Island.

The next step in the closure process was establishing a Marine Conservation Area (MPA) in 2002, located south and north of Pari Island, between Pramuka Island and West Dua Island. This 107,489-hectare MPA, created by Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. SK. 6310/Kpts-II/2002, aims to:

• Preserve the structure, functioning, and diversity of ecosystems.
• Rehabilitate degraded habitats.
• Boost fishing yields and provide socio-economic benefits for local communities.

The existence of this MPA officially bans fishermen from accessing and fishing in the area. The impact of these marine protected areas is forcing local fishermen to fish farther away, which increases the financial burden on their families, and/or to seek additional work in the tourism sector (Halimah, 2021). The third form of privatization involves a private company controlling land to restrict access to the local community to manage ecotourism.

Those processes are, despite taking place in the same location, quite diverse processes of privatization and therefore, are suitable to showcase the diversity of processes and the usefulness of the various theories of institutional change. From the Pari Island privatization case, we learn that both private companies and the government can carry out privatization. While privatization is theoretically a solution to prevent the tragedy of the commons, it has often led to a significant decline in local welfare. In the case of Pari Island, privatization not only reduced the welfare of local communities but also negatively affected them, causing loss of livelihoods, criminalization, and even expulsion from their homeland.

Building Inclusive Institutional Not Extractive Institutional

The Pari Island case demonstrated that local communities on small islands face more challenging issues than those on the mainland. They not only confront climate change effects but also worry about conflicts related to island and sea privatization. To address climate change impacts, the local community of Pari Island has implemented independent conservation measures.

Conservation efforts on Pari Island aim to protect biodiversity, preserve mangrove species, support habitat restoration, and slow the island's sinking. However, independent community efforts without the support of institutional governance changes (continued island privatization) will still result in Pari Island and the Thousand Islands sinking by 2050. Institutional governance must be inclusive, with the active involvement of local communities.

To avoid conflicts arising from island privatization, the government needs to take several steps. First, clear regulations are required to define the boundaries of privatization, including who has the right to manage marine resources and under what conditions. Second, designate specific zones for traditional fishing and tourism activities, thereby reducing spatial conflicts. Third, involve local residents in decision-making processes regarding marine resource management. Fourth, provide education and training to fishers on their rights and how to negotiate with other parties.

Furthermore, to mediate any ongoing conflicts that arise in the future, it is necessary to establish a mediation forum or institution that can serve as a platform for all parties to discuss and find solutions to emerging conflicts. Through inclusive institutional strengthening and collaboration between all stakeholders, maritime privatization conflicts can be better managed. Comprehensive and inclusive solutions will ensure that all parties benefit while maintaining the sustainability of marine resources.

Note: Special thanks to Salisu Garba and Dewi Jasmine Abyani M, who provided literature and data to improve this article