The Middle Way: Revitalization Without Sacrifice
By: Wari Wicatman
National food security is important. But the survival of coastal fish farmers is also part of food security. The National Strategic Project (PSN) will fail if it triggers social conflict. Learning from other cases, there are four requirements to prevent a shrimp farming PSN from backfiring:
**Problem** **Regulatory Solution** **Practical Example**
**Weak Cultivator Status** Expedite the IPHS (Land Use Permit) via SK.4967/MENLHK/2018. Legal cultivators can obtain a 35-year permit. In Pati, forest farmers obtain an IPHS and cannot be evicted by the PSN.
**Unfair Compensation** Deliberation and independent appraisal are mandatory under Law 2/2012. Not the NJOP (Value Value Added Tax). Kertajati Airport’s PSN uses market prices + crops
**Fear of losing jobs** 20% plasma scheme + mandatory training included in the PSN IPKH document Glenmore Sugar PSN, 30% of land for former sugarcane farmers
**Damaged environment** Mandatory AMDAL + 20% area for mangroves & communal wastewater treatment plants Vietnam requires 1 hectare of mangroves for every 5 hectares of ponds
*Conclusion: Don’t Choose Between Fish and Fishermen*
Revitalizing Pantura Ponds is a must if Indonesia wants protein self-sufficiency by 2030. A rundown pond the size of Monas will not feed 280 million people.
But food security isn’t just about tonnage. *Food security is also about the survival of its producers.* If 10,000 Indramayu fish farmers lose access to land, who will guarantee their children will be able to buy fish?
The government has legal instruments for a win-win situation: IPHS, KTHR, 20% plasma, and adequate profit compensation. It just requires the political will to work together, not to evict.
Because the ultimate goal of the National Strategic Project (PSN) isn’t just “modern ponds,” but “prosperous fish farmers.” If the farmers are dying, who is building food security for?
Indramayu, April 15, 2026.
——–
