Title: Crackdown on Illegal Sale and Distribution of Sapu-Sapu Fish in Jakarta as Authorities Seize Tons and Warn Public of Health Risks

On April 24, 2026, five men were detained in Jakarta Pusat by Satpol PP after being caught attempting to sell sapu-sapu fish, a protected species under Indonesia’s 1990 Conservation of Living Resources and Their Ecosystems Law, highlighting a persistent illegal wildlife trade that threatens aquatic biodiversity and undermines local fisheries management in the Greater Jakarta area.

The sapu-sapu, or suckermouth catfish (Hypostomus plecostomus), though native to South America, has become an invasive species in Indonesian waterways since its introduction in the 1980s via the aquarium trade. Its rapid proliferation in rivers like the Ciliwung and Cisadane has disrupted native ecosystems, outcompeting indigenous fish and altering sediment dynamics. Despite its ecological harm, the fish is harvested and sold in informal markets for its perceived medicinal value and low cost, creating a paradox where conservation laws criminalize both the protection of native species and the removal of an invasive one.

This tension was underscored by recent reports of thousands of dead sapu-sapu floating in Jakarta’s canals, prompting public concern over water quality and odor. While the fish’s tolerance for polluted waters makes it a symptom rather than a cause of degradation, its mass die-offs often signal severe oxygen depletion or toxic runoff—conditions exacerbated by urban waste and inadequate sewage treatment in densely populated districts like Kampung Melayu and Rawamangun.

Legal Ambiguity in Invasive Species Management

Indonesia’s current legal framework does not distinguish between endangered native species and harmful invasives when regulating trade, creating enforcement challenges. Under Law No. 5/1990, possession or sale of any protected species—including invasives listed by ministerial decree—can result in up to five years imprisonment and fines exceeding IDR 100 million. Yet, no clear exemption exists for those harvesting invasives for ecological management, leaving fishers and vendors in legal limbo.

As Dr. Siti Aisyah, marine biologist at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), explained in a 2024 forum:

“We cannot criminalize people for removing a species that is destroying our rivers, especially when the state lacks the resources to do it ourselves. The law needs to evolve to incentivize, not punish, sustainable invasive species control.”

Her call for reform echoes growing concerns among urban planners that punitive measures alone fail to address the root causes of informal economies tied to environmental degradation.

In West Jakarta, the Pemkot administration recently seized 217 kg of sapu-sapu in Cengkareng, not as part of a conservation raid but during a routine market inspection targeting unlicensed food vendors. This illustrates how enforcement often conflates public health regulation with wildlife protection, disproportionately affecting low-income vendors who rely on the fish for livelihood.

Economic Pressures and Informal Livelihoods

For many urban poor, selling sapu-sapu offers a low-barrier income source. The fish requires minimal processing—often grilled whole and sold with sambal—and fetches between IDR 15,000 to 25,000 per piece in roadside stalls. In areas like Pasar Minggu and Tanah Abang, where formal employment opportunities are scarce, such informal trade fills critical gaps in household income.

Yet, this economic reliance collides with municipal goals to clean up waterways. Jakarta’s 2025–2029 Regional Development Plan prioritizes river rehabilitation, including dredging and biofiltration projects along the Angke and Krukut rivers. However, these initiatives rarely incorporate community-based invasive species harvesting as a complementary strategy, missing an opportunity to align ecological goals with economic empowerment.

Community leader Bapak Rudi, head of the Kampung Pulo Fishermen’s Association, voiced this frustration:

“We see the fish everywhere. We know it’s harmful. But when we try to sell it to make a living, we get chased by authorities. If the city wants the river clean, why not pay us to catch it?”

His sentiment reflects a growing demand for participatory environmental management that integrates informal workers into official solutions.

Pathways Forward: Integrating Enforcement with Livelihood Support

Resolving this conflict requires rethinking how cities manage invasive species in urban environments. Models from Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which runs incentive-based removal programs for lionfish and pythons, show that combining public education, legal exemptions for humane harvesting, and partnerships with local cooperatives can reduce invasive populations while supporting livelihoods.

In Jakarta, such an approach could involve:

• Creating a special permit system for the humane harvest and sale of invasives like sapu-sapu, tied to hygiene and traceability standards;
• Partnering with urban agriculture cooperatives to process the fish into value-added products like fishmeal or pet food;
• Engaging environmental law attorneys to advise vendors on compliance and advocate for regulatory reform;
• Collaborating with local neighborhood units (RT/RW) to monitor harvest zones and prevent over-exploitation.

Without such integration, crackdowns risk pushing the trade further underground, increasing vulnerability to exploitation and reducing opportunities for data collection on invasive populations. They erode public trust in environmental enforcement, particularly when citizens see officials targeting the poor while ignoring industrial polluters.

The sapu-sapu dilemma is not merely about a fish—it reflects broader questions of equity in urban sustainability. As Jakarta grapples with flooding, pollution, and climate resilience, solutions must recognize that the people living closest to the problem are often best positioned to help solve it. Punishing survival undermines both justice and ecology.

For vendors, enforcers, and ecologists alike, the path forward lies not in choosing between conservation and livelihood, but in designing systems where the two reinforce each other. Until then, the sapu-sapu will continue to swim—not just in Jakarta’s canals, but in the tangled currents of law, poverty, and progress.