Historically, oceans have been perceived as a global commons,  that are freely accessible and beneficial to all, rooted in  Mare Liberum doctrine. However, increasing economic pressures, resource depletion concerns, and also the influential "tragedy of the commons" narrative have propelled a lot of discussions and practices of ocean privatization. This paradigm shift suggests that private ownership or exclusive rights can or may lead to more efficient management and sustainable use of marine resources.

Pulau Pari, a small inhabited island in the Thousand Islands archipelago, Jakarta, has become a significant focal point of a protracted and layered agrarian conflict. This conflict primarily involves the local community, who have long inhabited the island, against some powerful corporate interests that are seeking to control the island's land and coastal resources. Beyond the land dispute, the "#SavePulauPari" case also highlights the devastating and direct impacts of the global climate crisis on vulnerable island communities, leading to a significant lawsuit filed by island residents against the global cement giant, Holcim. The conflict in Pulau Pari demonstrates how global crises, such as climate change as well as neoliberal economic expansion leading to privatization, can interact and also create layered injustices at the local level, requiring a very holistic analytical approach that goes beyond a single disciplinary lens.

Ocean privatization is formally defined as the sale of oceans to private individuals or companies. This implies the transfer of ownership and control over marine spaces and resources from public or communal hands to private entities. This idea has very deep roots in libertarian as well as anarcho-capitalist theories, where prominent thinkers like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard advocated for extending private property rights to the oceans. They argued that this would foster better management, increase resource quantity (e.g., through aquaculture by "electronically fencing fish"), and effectively address issues like piracy and what they termed the "tragedy of the commons". 

Concepts of Ocean Ownership in Global (Mare Liberum vs. Mare Clausum)

Globally, the historical philosophical and legal debate between Mare Liberum (freedom of the seas, advocating open access for all) on one hand and Mare Clausum (closed seas, asserting national sovereignty over maritime territories) on the other hand, forms the fundamental start point for understanding ocean ownership. Indonesia, as an archipelagic state, adopted the Mare Clausum concept in order to effectively protect its vast marine resources from foreign exploitation, thereby asserting state control and sovereignty over its vast territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. For example, In Maluku, the sea is traditionally considered communal property (hak ulayat) under the Petuanan system, where customary rules like Sasi regulate the timing and also the methods of resource extraction to ensure sustainability. In North Sulawesi as well, customary claims might specifically apply to certain fish species (e.g., Mallalugis fish) or also dictate the use of traditional fishing gear. In Aceh, although the sea is broadly viewed as "God's property" and thus belonging to all humanity, local Panglima Laot institutions play a crucial role in managing specific coastal areas, enforcing community-based rules for sustainable fishing and conflict resolution. The stark contrast between the state's constitutional claim of "state ownership"  and the diverse customary concepts of "communal/God's property" illustrates a fundamental tension that exists within Indonesia's legal and governance landscape of its marine resources.

Forms of Ocean Privatization in Indonesia

In the Indonesian context, ocean privatization does not manifest frequently as the direct sale of vast open ocean stretches, but rather it manifests primarily as the privatization and control of coastal areas and near-shore waters, largely driven by tourism and industrial development. This highly crucial distinction is very vital for understanding the direct and tangible impacts on local communities, as it directly affects their daily lives, livelihoods, as well as their continued access to essential resources at the crucial land-sea interface, rather than abstract control over distant ocean expanses. Common observed forms include Physical Control and also Exclusive Ownership: Private ownership of previously natural or publicly accessible beach areas, frequently accompanied by the installation of physical barriers such as buoys, flags, or concrete structures that effectively block public access; Exclusion from Public Spaces: The takeover of public facilities and the blocking of access roads to beaches, thereby limiting the ability of local communities to freely engage in recreational activities, perform religious rituals, or conduct traditional economic activities; Legal Mechanisms: The granting of concessions or long-term contracts to private companies for the management and operation of ports, piers, and other marine facilities previously under government control; Policy-Induced Privatization: Government policies, such as the quota-based Measured Fishing Policy (PIT), which divides fishing zones for industrial and local fishermen, can inadvertently centralize state control over marine resources.  Indonesia's constitutional adoption of the Mare Clausum concept grants the state a lot of significant sovereign power over its marine resources. This occurs through the issuance of concessions, permits, and also the implementation of specific policies (such as the Measured Fishing Policy) that effectively transfer control and/or grant exclusive access rights to private entities. 

Analysis of Arguments For and Against Ocean Privatization

Proponents of privatization put forth  a lot of several arguments centered on increased efficiency, economic growth, as well as improved resource management. 

• Economic: Privatization is claimed to boost state revenue, for instance, from the sale of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) or concessions, and to reduce the government's financial burden.
• Governance: A key argument is that privatization can shift the paradigm from "good government", from the frequently used inefficient and state-centric model to "good governance", a more collaborative approach involving the state, private sector, as well as civil society, leading to more highly effective and accountable public services.
• Environmental: The core theoretical justification inherent here is that private ownership can prevent the "tragedy of the commons" by encouraging responsible management and also long-term investment in environmental protection.
• Constitutional (Indonesia): In the Indonesian context, some arguments suggest that privatization aligns with Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution and the principle of economic democracy. This interpretation indicates that while vital sectors are controlled by the state, this control can be maintained through regulation as well as strategic direction, allowing private sector participation for efficiency and also in order to effectively achieve "the greatest prosperity for the people".

Despite some arguments in favor, ocean privatization faces a lot of significant criticism due to its potential negative impacts:

• Economic: Some critics argue that privatization frequently leads to  highly significant tariff increases for essential services as private companies prioritize profit maximization for shareholders over and above public affordability. This can paradoxically reduce state revenue in the long run by selling off profitable state assets, leaving the government with only loss-making entities. 
• Social: Privatization strongly undermines public access and control over common resources, leading to the the dispossession of local communities from their traditional livelihoods, cultural practices, as well as their public spaces. This can highly aggravates social inequality, leaving the poor with limited or no access to essential resources, potentially violating fundamental human rights. 
• Environmental: Environmental: The inherent profit motive of private entities can also compromise environmental standards, leading to over-exploitation of resources, increased pollution, as well as a lot of irreversible ecological damage.  These concerns encompass the destruction of very vital coral reefs, depletion of fish stocks, and even the introduction or spread of invasive species that completely disrupt ecosystems.

Agrarian Conflict and Climate Crisis in Pulau Pari

The agrarian conflict in Pulau Pari is a very good example of how ocean and coastal privatization can lead to land grabbing and ocean grabbing, with serious implications for the constitutional rights and livelihoods of local communities. The land dispute on Pulau Pari and the criminalization of its residents began in 2015 when PT Bumi Pari Asri (PT BPA) claimed ownership of 90% of the island's territory. This claim included the homes of approximately 300 families, Pantai Pasir Perawan (Virgin Sand Beach) managed by the residents, and even the local school and pier, all asserted through Right to Build (HGB) certificates. The Pulau Pari community had been managing tourism independently since 2011, including the development of Pantai Pasir Perawan. The conflict escalated into legal proceedings against the islanders. Sulaiman, also known as Khatur, the head of RW 04, was the fifth resident to face legal action in this dispute, accused of land encroachment and facing an indictment hearing on May 8, 2018. The charges against Khatur, filed by PT Bumi Pari Asri, included forcing entry into a house (Article 168 KUHP) and land encroachment (Article 385 KUHP). This was not an isolated incident. In 2015, another resident, Edi Priadi, was sentenced to prison for alleged land encroachment involving PT Bumi Pari Asri. In 2017, three other residents, Baharuddin, Mastono, and Mustaghfirin were charged with illegal levies for collecting entrance fees to the beach they managed. In response to these legal actions, dozens of Pulau Pari residents staged a handcuff protest at the North Jakarta District Court on May 8, 2018, to show solidarity with Sulaiman and protest what they called the "criminalization of Pulau Pari residents". They carried banners stating "Save Pulau Pari" and "Blind Law to the Common People," and displayed photos of the four other residents who had been legally entangled in the land dispute. Lawyers representing the Pulau Pari residents, from LBH Rakyat Banten and LBH Jakarta, successfully challenged the corporation's process of gaining land titles. The National Ombudsman declared that the process involved maladministration. The Ombudsman found procedural irregularities, abuse of authority, and disregard of legal obligations in 62 Certificate of Ownership (SHM) and 14 Right to Build (SHGB) certificates on Pulau Pari, after an investigation involving the North Jakarta Land Office, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning (ATR), and the DKI Jakarta Provincial Government.

The agrarian conflict in Pulau Pari has had very significant and detrimental impacts on both the community and the environment:

• Loss of Land and Access: Communities lose sovereignty over their land and are declared "illegal residents" on private land, potentially leading to ultimate eviction or limited access. 
• Threatened Livelihoods: Traditional livelihoods such as fishing and also self-managed tourism are additionally highly threatened as a result of restricted access to beaches and waters on the islands.
• Criminalization of Residents: Residents defending their rights also continuously face legal entanglement and criminalization, creating fear as well as uncertainty.
• Environmental Damage: Although privatization is frequently claimed to improve environmental management, in practice, the focus on profit can neglect or completely ignore sustainability issues.

Beyond the land dispute, Pulau Pari is also on the frontline of the climate justice struggle. In 2022, four Pulau Pari residents, Bobby (Mustaghfirin), Arif, Edi Mulyono, and Asmania filed a lawsuit against PT Holcim in a Swiss court for its contribution to the climate crisis impacts threatens the island and their livelihoods. The cement industry, with cement as its main component, is responsible for approximately 8% of annual global CO2 emissions, making it a significant "Carbon Major".  Studies show that the Swiss Holcim Group is one of the 108 largest emitting companies globally, having produced over 7 billion tons of cement between 1950 and 2021.

The climate change impacts experienced by Pulau Pari residents include:

• Sea Level Rise: Eleven percent of the island's surface has been lost to the sea, and most of the island could be submerged by early 2050.
• Tidal Floods and Extreme Weather: Rising sea levels, storms, high waves, and extreme weather leading to increasingly frequent and extreme floods. The tidal floods in 2019 and 2020 were the largest ever recorded on the island.
• Threatened Livelihoods: The human rights of Pulau Pari residents are threatened as their livelihoods, such as tourism and fishing, will be destroyed.
• Well Water Contamination: Residents' well water has been contaminated by saltwater intrusion due to rising sea levels, rendering some wells unusable.

The lawsuit demands that Holcim be held accountable for the threat to the safety of Pulau Pari residents, compensate for material losses, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 and 69% by 2040, and bear the costs of necessary climate change mitigation actions in Pulau Pari, including mangrove planting and/or flood defenses.

Recent developments show ongoing mitigation and advocacy efforts. In August 2025, ARYADUTA Menteng, in collaboration with the Penjaga Laut community, planted 1,000 mangrove seedlings in Pulau Pari to protect the coastline, restore marine habitats, and raise environmental awareness. Pulau Pari has experienced a reduction in land area from 45 hectares to 41 hectares due to mangrove damage, over-exploitation, and the impacts of climate change. Despite positive efforts like mangrove planting, legal and advocacy struggles continue. The Save Pulau Pari Coalition continues to fight for land rights that they have inhabited and cultivated for generations.

Ocean privatization in Indonesia often appears not as outright sale of seas, but as enclosure and control of coastal waters through concessions, quotas, and physical occupation. This frequently clashes with customary communal ownership, fueling agrarian conflicts where corporate rights override local claims seen in land grabbing as well as criminalization of residents that are living peacefully on those islands. Though privatization is justified by efficiency and conservation, in practice it also increases inequality, job loss, as well as environmental harm. The “Blue Economy” agenda also worsens this by accelerating resource exploitation and marginalizing resident communities. The Pulau Pari case illustrates these various tensions: disputes with PT Bumi Pari Asri show corporate encroachment on community rights, while the climate lawsuit against Holcim depicts global emissions’ impact on vulnerable islands. As such, ocean privatization frequently prioritizes capital and corporate profit over social justice, human rights, as well as ecological sustainability, creating continuous cycles of dispossession and vulnerability for coastal communities.

Recommendations and Conclusion 

Based on the analysis above, a new and very  holistic and just approach to ocean and coastal governance in Indonesia is urgently required that includes:

• Strengthening Recognition and Protection of Customary Rights: The government must proactively recognize, protect, as well as integrate the principles of customary rights (hak ulayat) as well as traditional management practices within the national legal framework
• Revising Policies Facilitating Coastal Enclosure: Policies that indirectly encourage the privatization and enclosure of coastal areas, such as the allocation of tourism zones or industrial concessions without community participation and consent, need to be reviewed and reformed completely in order to ensure public access as well as environmental sustainability.
• Increasing Transparency and Accountability: The process of granting permits, concessions, as well as land certificates must be highly transparent and accountable, involving active community participation and also oversight by independent institutions like the Ombudsman.
• Prioritizing Community-Based Economic Models: There should be encouragement and support for marine economic models managed by local communities, such as community-based tourism and sustainable small-scale fisheries, which are more aligned with the principles of economic democracy and public welfare
• Integrating Climate Justice into Resource Governance: Recognizing and addressing the impacts of the climate crisis serves as a strong and integral part of ocean and coastal governance. This includes holding large corporations accountable for their emission contributions and also allocating resources for community-led mitigation and adaptation actions.
• Strict Environmental Law Enforcement: Strengthening law enforcement against environmental violations, over-exploitation by private entities, and also ensuring that marine protected areas are genuinely safeguarded from destructive activities.
• Community Education and Empowerment: Enhancing the capacity as well as awareness of coastal communities regarding their rights, environmental issues, and advocacy mechanisms in order to enhance and strengthen their position in facing privatization pressures as well as climate change.