When it comes to SDG 14, ‘Life Below Water,’ the United Nations has determined that state actors need to adopt proactive policies to establish sustainable oceans, seas, and marine resources ( UN, 2025). Among the issues related to this include the reduction of marine pollution, protection and restoration of sea ecosystems, establishing sustainable fishing practices, supporting small fisheries, the conservation of coastal and marine areas, as well as the reduction of marine pollution ( Andriamahefazafy et al., 2022; Haas, 2023; UN, 2025). Although these provisions seem straightforward, for littoral and archipelagic states such as Indonesia, the vast seas and oceans have proven to be a significant challenge to secure fully.

Indeed, within the Southeast Asian region, states have struggled to achieve SDG 14. As McElwee stated, in relation to life below water, “Southeast Asia faces pressing problems in balancing protection of key ecosystems like coral reefs, coastal mangroves, and the open sea” ( McElwee, 2025, p.32). Therefore, when it comes to ocean health, the region continues to be challenged by poor management of fishing stocks, cases of overfishing, IUUF, and maritime border management ( Chapsos & Hamilton, 2019; Pomeroy et al., 2016; Teh & Pauly, 2018). One of the primary challenges faced by Southeast Asian states relates to the issue of funding and technical support ( Alamsyahbana & Chartady, 2025). Therefore, despite the relative success in the region in establishing marine protected areas and enhancing efforts to protect mangroves ( Cros et al., 2014; Friess et al., 2019), management challenges remain ( Ahmad Kamil et al., 2017; White et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, despite the seemingly negative trend in the region, Indonesia appears to be making notable progress in SDG 14. As an archipelagic nation consisting of 17,504 islands and a coastline of 108,000 km ( BAPPENAS, 2023), Indonesia is on the right track in establishing a sustainable life below water. As reported by the Sustainable Development Report in 2025, Indonesia’s progress is categorized as moderately improving, which is a positive trend compared to the nation’s progress in other indicators such as SDG 15 ‘Life on land’ ( SDR, 2025). One may attribute Indonesia’s success in SDG 14 to the active presence of UN-sponsored activities across the nation. For example, in areas of North Kalimantan, South Sulawesi, Nusa Tenggara Barat, West Java, and South Sumatra, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization was active in implementing the SMART-Fish program (Sustainable Market Access through Responsible Trading of Fish in Indonesia) to strengthen the value chain of Indonesia’s fisheries commodities ( UN, 2025). However, this does not show the overall picture.

To decipher Indonesia’s positive trend in achieving the provisions of SDG 14, this study argues that the process is attributed to the vast domestic dynamics taking place among Indonesia’s policymaking bodies. Through this qualitative study, the analytical framework bridged is Barkdull and Harris’s 2009 conception of environmental foreign policy from the lens of the state as the level of analysis. As their study showed, understanding environmental foreign policy can be made by looking within the state and acknowledging that “[…] bureaucratic struggles take place within the state, and the stakes are the interest of the various agencies to secure and expand domain, resources, mission, and influence” ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009, pp.19–20). Therefore, this study argues that domestic institutions, bureaucratic politics, and policymakers’ roadmaps are the basic causal variables within a state-based level of analysis. The empirical investigation of this study focuses on SDG 14.4, which addresses issues of overfishing and illegal fishing from 2015 to 2024.

In understanding Indonesia’s progress toward SDG 14, situated within the context of environmental foreign policy, this study uncovers the unique conception of illegal fishing as a problem, highlighting its dual nature as both an environmental and security issue. Unlike issues such as establishing sustainable terrestrial ecosystems on land, the issue of illegal fishing, which Indonesian policymakers have been investing in countering over the past decade, has been classified as involving elements of sovereignty, maritime security, and maritime borders. Consequently, a review of domestic institutions reveals only slight disagreements over the methods of combating illegal fishing in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the causal variable of bureaucratic politics reveals only slight disagreements among the executive, which circulate around tensions over who should be responsible for securing Indonesia’s sea zones. Lastly, through Barkdull and Harris’s causal variable of policymakers’ roadmaps, this study demonstrates how relevant agencies within Indonesia’s policymaking bodies have developed case-relevant visions and missions, enabling Indonesia to make overall progress in achieving its SDG 14 objectives.

The stance taken in this study contradicts past studies that have argued Indonesia faces challenges in countering the target of regulating overfishing and illegal fishing. As past studies have shown, Southeast Asian states, such as Indonesia, have struggled to introduce effective practices in countering destructive fishing practices and regulating their maritime boundaries ( Ferrol-Schulte et al., 2015; Kotowicz et al., 2022). It is by no means the intention of this study to deny the encountered challenges, which indicate that the practice of illegal fishing persists in various parts of Indonesia ( Costa & Blanchard, 2016; Harruma & Nailufar, 2022; InvestSEA, 2023; IUUFRI, 2025; Mariska, 2020). Nevertheless, considering the progress and consistency of measures and policies introduced by the Indonesian Government, this study offers an alternative interpretation that acknowledges the progress made and examines the extensive internal political dynamics that contributed to these circumstances.

This study examines Indonesia’s environmental foreign policy, specifically its countering of illegal fishing, through the following framework. First, relevant literature on Indonesia’s policies in countering illegal fishing and SDGs in general is provided to reveal the novelty offered in this study. This is followed by an explanation of the analytical framework proposed, which aims to situate Indonesia’s illegal fishing-countering policies within the context of environmental foreign policy as understood through the lens of the state as the primary level of analysis, and domestic institutions, bureaucratic politics, and policymakers’ roadmaps as the basic causal variables. In the discussion section, these variables are bridged to facilitate an understanding of the empirical investigation in this study.

How has the existing literature interpreted Indonesia’s progress in SDG 14, ‘Life Below Water’? This section highlights several of the dominant discourses surrounding Indonesia’s progress in achieving the SDGs, along with specific studies that examine Indonesia’s efforts in establishing sustainable marine-based ecosystems and combating illegal fishing. This literature review does so by exploring the following: Indonesia’s SDG progress (interpretations), Indonesia’s efforts in achieving SDG 14, discourses around Indonesia’s illegal fishing-countering policies, and a conclusion that outlines the novelty offered in this study.

Within the context of the first relevant discourse, which is Indonesia’s progress on the SDGs, existing studies have mainly highlighted the challenges that lead to ineffective policies in achieving the SDGs. These hindrances are attributed to several diverse variables, which can be summarized as follows: local and regional values, coordination, and a lack of public accountability ( Novita et al., 2024; A. A. Putra et al., 2024; Rimba et al., 2025; Shahib & Abbas, 2025). Local actors and innovations were highlighted as key variables in several studies in 2025, underscoring the relevance of local innovations, understandings, and indicators in ensuring sustained consistency between Indonesia’s development and the SDGs ( Rimba et al., 2025). Brought to a larger context, Putra, Hasibuan, Tambunan, and Lautetu’s study showed the importance of regional-level values, stating the significance of the nexus between “[…] the principles of the SDGs and elements of regional development” ( Putra et al., 2024, p.1). As Rimba’s 2025 study noted, Indonesia’s unique values have led it to prioritize several key fields, including health, employment opportunities, education, and economic growth ( Rimba et al., 2025).

Meanwhile, a closer examination of the literature that inquires into Indonesia’s progress on SDG 14 reveals another unique academic discourse. The SDG 14 itself encompasses various problems, which is why several studies have focused on the sustainable conservation of mangroves and methods for countering marine pollution ( Pramudianto, 2024; Sasmito et al., 2023; Zulbainarni et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the majority of studies are committed to highlighting issues in fisheries, including those that undermine them (IUUF). A positive interpretation was offered in Rahmadani’s 2020 study, stating that through the Ministry of Marine and Fisheries Affairs (IMMFA), Indonesia effectively implemented policies to counter the increasing cases of illegal fishing within its maritime zones ( Rahmadani et al., 2020). In contrast, other studies have highlighted the lack of national planning and consideration of rights-based fishing regulatory frameworks as reasons for the observed stagnation in establishing sustainable fishing practices ( Rusmana et al., 2025; Zulbainarni et al., 2020).

However, as seen with the discourses above, there are not many interpretations made regarding illegal fishing-countering policies and the achievement of SDG 14. One explanation for this is that the issue of IUUF in Indonesia tends to be connected to security and policymaking discourses, rather than to sustainability. For example, one of the primary discourses in Indonesia’s IUUF countering policies is the process of securitization made by Indonesian policymakers. Within this context, scholars have argued that the issue of illegal fishing has been slowly but consistently raised as a significant national threat, leading to its eventual securitization through the mobilization of threat-responding resources to counter the issue ( Meyer et al., 2019; B. A. Putra, 2020; Raharjo, 2021). Interpreted within the context of security studies, these studies demonstrate how the speech acts of policymakers enable the development of unique and threat-responsive policies, consistent with the securitization logics introduced by the Copenhagen School ( Balzacq, 2005; Stritzel, 2007; Wæver, 1995).

Similarly, within the context of policymaking discourses, scholars have also sought to interpret the tensions over the best method for addressing the issue of illegal fishing by examining the state’s role. One of Indonesia’s signature IUUF-countering policies introduced during Jokowi’s leadership was the public bombing of illegally intruding ships ( Raharjo, 2021; Sary, 2019; Scarpello, 2020; Sukmawijaya & Lutfan, 2019). Scholars have interpreted the policy in different ways, with some focusing on the topic of effectiveness, trickle-down effects, image, as well as measuring whether the policy did counter future cases of IUUF or remained the same ( Mubarok & Candidate, 2017; Mufrohim & Setiyono, 2020; Raharjo, 2021; Tarigan, 2018). Consequently, the vast empirical studies conducted on this discourse have led to the conclusion that different domestic stakeholders/agencies within Indonesia hold varying views on the urgency of adopting coercive methods in countering illegal fishing.

Considering the existing studies on illegal fishing and Indonesia’s progress towards SDG 14, this study offers a unique contribution. Past studies have not attempted to interpret Indonesia’s progress on SDG 14, specifically within the context of countering illegal fishing practices, as they are confined to sustainability-based discourses. Meanwhile, any attempts to make sense of Indonesia’s IUUF-countering policies have been confined within the securitization discourses. This study offers a different interpretation, as it perceives that Indonesia’s positive progress in countering IUUF has mainly been taken for granted. Contextualized as an environmental foreign policy, this study provides insight into the various dynamics surrounding how stakeholders pursue their goals and adopt differing interpretations to counter IUUF within the context of the SDGs. As a norm, Agussalim, Umar, Tobing, and Larasati (2019) argued that Indonesia’s compliance with the SDGs can be understood through the incorporation of certain SDG norms into national frameworks ( Agussalim et al., 2018). This study expands on that discussion by examining the different framings and interpretations adopted by stakeholders relevant to countering IUUF in Indonesia.

To provide an alternative insight, this study is informed by the environmental foreign policy conception of Barkdull and Harris (2009), which focuses on the state level of analysis. In this, it is acknowledged that there are multiple agencies relevant in the case of environmental issues, and that “[…] the jostling and bargaining that takes place among the agencies occurs apart from processes occurring in society” ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009, p.20). Consequently, by zooming in on the policies and interests of the relevant agencies, this study is able to understand the different policy preferences espoused, which lead states to take a particular direction in their environmental foreign policy. Looking at the empirical investigation of Indonesia’s positive trends in countering IUUF as a means to achieve one of the targets of SDG 14, this section explores ways in which the basic causal variables within state-level analysis (check and balances/domestic institutions, bureaucratic politics, and policymakers’ roadmaps) influences the policies undertaken. Within the context of environmental foreign policy, the state level of analysis leads to the exposure of the different ideas, influences, and interests towards policies, and acknowledges that state actors “[…] move independently of both systemic and societal factors to pursue their own preferences” ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009, p.29).

The first variable examines checks and balances, focusing on the distribution of power within the state. An example of this is an exploration of the relations between the executive and legislature within the state ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009). As some past studies have shown, in understanding why certain states undertake puzzling environmental foreign policies in the fields of climate change, environmental negotiations, and countering marine pollution, studies have looked at different institutions within the state and the interactions among them ( Barkdull, 1998; Bryner, 2000; P. G. Harris, 2001; Sussman, 2004).

Bridged to the context of Indonesia’s environmental foreign policy, the variable of checks and balances ultimately asks who has the authority to determine the policy directions for Indonesia? Within the context of the SDGs, the Indonesian policymaking bodies are guided by the Presidential Regulation No. 59/2017 ( Shahib & Abbas, 2025). Therefore, unlike the case studies presented, which focus on the nexus between legislature and executive in democracies such as the US, policy dynamics in Indonesia, in the context of the SDGs, are limited to discussions of policies undertaken to achieve the sustainability targets. Therefore, the criticism is not expected to prompt a change in policies or exceed the level of veto rights.

The second causal variable looks at bureaucratic politics. As Barkdull and Harris argued, this variable focuses on the “[…] power struggles among the various agencies and departments of the executive branch” ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009). Studies in the past have highlighted the competition and dynamics among the executives in understanding environmental policy dynamics ( Deudney, 1990; Falkner, 2013; Hopgood, 1998). As the context of each state is different, this variable first requires studies to identify which agencies have executive power to implement policies within a given environmental foreign policy issue, before highlighting the vast political dynamics.

In the context of Indonesia’s IUUF-countering policies, the variable of bureaucratic politics enables this study to highlight the extensive debates and tensions among executive members relevant to the safeguarding of Indonesia’s oceans. As many studies have pointed out in the past, the safeguarding of Indonesia’s maritime zones is marred by chaotic scenes due to the involvement of multiple ministries ( Afriansyah et al., 2024; Laksmana, 2022; Laksmana & Supriyanto, 2018; B. A. Putra, 2023). These include the IMMFA, Indonesian Maritime Security Agency (IMSA), Indonesian Coordinating Ministry on Maritime and Investment Affairs (ICMMI), Indonesian Navy, Indonesian police, and customs ( Laksmana, 2022; B. A. Putra, 2023). As a means to counter IUUF, the incorporation of diverse policies and interests enables this study to identify areas where cooperation and conflict occurred, ultimately leading to the progress observed within the context of Indonesia’s progress in SDG 14.

Lastly, Barkdull and Harris’s theoretical framework highlights the importance of policymakers’ roadmaps. In this context, it is recognized that state actors have an interest in “[…] maximize tax revenue, legitimacy, autonomy or regime” ( Barkdull & Harris, 2009, p.31), which leads government actors to undertake policies that enhance these resources. Ultimately, building on the ideas of Goldstein and Keohane (1993), policymakers’ roadmaps are understood as principled beliefs that guide state actors in their actions and inform policies on specific issues.

Within the context of environmental foreign policy and Indonesia’s IUUF countering policies, several policymakers’ roadmaps can be referenced. In a broader context, Indonesia’s policy directions are consistent with the Indonesian National Medium-Term Development Plan (INMTDP), which is updated at the start of a new president’s term. In relation to IUUF, several other roadmaps have acted as guidelines. These include the Plan of Action on Indonesia’s Maritime Policy for 2021–2025 (PAIMP), Indonesian 2045 Vision, as well as Blue Economy Development Framework for Indonesia’s Economic Transformation (BDEF). These policy roadmaps have been utilized by policymakers as guidelines to synchronize the divergent policies undertaken by the executive. Therefore, it is expected that, although the interests and policies of domestic stakeholders differ, the presence of these policymakers’ roadmaps allows for the unification of these divergent methods by a single goal, thereby facilitating a positive outcome in achieving the SDGs. In the following sections, Indonesia’s conception of the ‘blue economy’ is presented as the underlying idea/norm introduced by the Indonesian Government as a destination and means of development to achieve the vast number of long-term development and economic goals of the government.

The following section will be structured as follows. First, as a means to bridge the causal variable of domestic checks and balances, the section examines the extensive domestic contestations and debates that have taken place between the legislature and executive regarding countering IUUF. Within the same section, tensions between the executive are also highlighted regarding the question of how best to address the rising IUUF within Indonesian waters. Through the causal variable of bureaucratic politics, a dynamic highlighted is the various methods employed by relevant executive bodies to secure Indonesian waters. Last, the relevant policymakers’ roadmaps are elaborated in detail, signifying the ultimate goal of addressing SDG 14.4 through sustainability-grounded ideas for economic development.

As the largest archipelagic nation in the world, Indonesia’s progress on SDG 14 has been notable. After years of battling against IUUF, Indonesia is now on the right track to display decisiveness in ensuring sustainable life below the waters. How can we make sense of Indonesia’s progress, which is categorized as moderately improving? To decipher this trend, this study argues that progress can be attributed to several domestic dynamics within Indonesia’s policymaking bodies.

Exceeding discourses of environmental studies, this study argues the relevance of Barkdull and Harris’s 2009 conception of environmental foreign policy. Specifically, it argues that the state level of analysis provides considerable explanatory power due to its consideration of the basic causal variables of checks and balances, bureaucratic politics, and policymakers’ roadmaps, which manifest power, interests, and ideas in the context of international relations. To demonstrate the relevance of the theoretical framework, this study focuses on Indonesia’s response to IUUF as a means to achieve progress in SDG 14, specifically in establishing sustainable fisheries.

The first causal variable looks at domestic institutions as a means of checks and balances. As the framework posits, it is expected that environmental foreign policies are influenced by the differing interests between the legislative and executive branches within the state. As seen with Indonesia’s countering of IUUF, the primary agency, IMMFA, has introduced IUUF-countering policies that have been heavily criticized by Indonesia’s IHR, which includes bombing and sinking illegally intruding boats. The discourse introduced by IHR members against these policies is that the actions contradict the intention of establishing sustainability within Indonesian waters, as they exacerbate environmental degradation. Meanwhile, there have also been criticisms from fellow executive agencies, notably the ICCMIA, which proposed auctioning as a better solution towards countering illegal fishing practices. Consequently, the checks and balances within the state led to changes in policies, but did not alter the eventual aim of establishing sustainable fisheries in Indonesia.

Besides the domestic checks and balances, the positive progress towards SDG 14 can be understood due to the causal variable of bureaucratic politics. In this, the highlight is on the divergent policies taken by Indonesia’s policymaking bodies. However, these policies are united by the same goal, which ultimately enhances Indonesia’s progress in achieving sustainability within its waters. Considering IMSA’s active presence in the Indonesian seas, the continued IMMFA approach to respond decisively to IUUF, as well as ICCMI’s fisheries-based management areas, these policies are undertaken simultaneously and are not generally considered disagreements among the actors. One factor that helps fuel the simultaneous approaches taken is the heavy security element attached to the issue of IUUF, which is understood as extending beyond environmental discourses, as they relate to issues of sovereignty, maritime border disputes, and the maintenance of Indonesia’s territorial integrity.

The last causal variable looks at policymakers’ roadmaps. As the two previous variables highlight divergences in policies, this variable examines why the progress on SDG 14 has indicated a positive trend. The argument presented is that Indonesia’s conception of a ‘blue economy’ has inspired a balanced approach to sustainability and economic progress among various Indonesian policymaking agencies. The concept of the blue economy can be identified in several of Indonesia’s strategic long-term policymaking roadmaps, including the National Long-Term Development Plan, INMPTDP, BDEF, PAIMP, and Indonesia’s Ocean Policies. Therefore, as an idea, the blue economy has been able to lead relevant Indonesian bodies to take decisive actions to counter IUUF as a means to establish sustainable fisheries within the state.

Not Applicable.