Tackling Marine Plastic Pollution: Leveraging Law and Policy for a Sustainable Future in Bangladesh’s Bay of Bengal

 

Md. Moqbul Hosain

Introduction

The Bay of Bengal, nestled between India to the west, Myanmar and Thailand to the east, and Bangladesh to the north, is a critical ecological treasure. However, amidst its scenic beauty and rich biodiversity, an alarming marine plastic pollution crisis threatens its stability. Particularly in Bangladesh, plastic waste has reached staggering proportions, affecting not only aquatic life but also the livelihoods of coastal communities.

Current State of Marine Plastic Pollution in the Bay of Bengal

Although integral to our daily lives, plastics have become pervasive contaminants in marine environments, drawing considerable international concern. (1) The most prevalent types of litter in coastal waters are plastic bottles and other plastic debris. (2) Observations reveal that the abundance of marine litter collected in these waters ranges between 0.14 and 0.58 items/m2. A recent study sampling marine litter at ten sites found aluminium cans to be the most abundant item (3500), followed by plastic bottles (3200). (3)

Despite being one of the world’s most extensive and diverse ecosystems, the Bay of Bengal faces significant pollution pressure from plastic waste, primarily flowing through the Ganga-Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers, traversing Bangladesh and India. (4) The Ganges, which flows through Bangladesh and India, contributes between 0.10 and 0.17 million tonnes of plastic waste to the ocean annually. (4) Plastics comprise the majority of marine litter in these waters, (3) making them the dominant contaminant in the marine ecosystem of Bangladesh.

Plastics can directly affect animals by entanglement and ingestion, resulting in malnutrition or suffocation in wildlife. (5) The issue has become more urgent as a result of some evidence showing plastic particles have been found inside living organisms. According to reports, marine plastic pollution affects certain creatures, such as fish, turtles, and birds. (6) However, some significant obstacles to reducing plastic waste from the Bay include inadequate law enforcement, lack of coordination among government ministries, divisions, NGOs, and the private sector, the absence of a dedicated agency to harness the potential of the Blue Economy, and insufficient systems in place to hold consumers and industries accountable for plastic disposal. (5)

Legal Framework and Policy Addressing the Issue

The Constitution of Bangladesh safeguards environmental quality under Article 32, expanding the right to life to encompass a ‘sound environment’. Judicial interpretations, exemplified in Dr. Mahiuddin Faroque v Bangladesh (1995) (7), have reinforced citizens' rights to seek redress under specific constitutional provisions. International agreements like the Basel Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) aim to prevent marine pollution. Still, their effectiveness in Bangladesh remains limited due to their soft law nature. While UNCLOS emphasizes reducing land-based pollution, the Basel Convention focuses on reducing hazardous waste. However, their implementation challenges persist, hindering Bangladesh's efforts to combat marine pollution effectively despite international obligations. (8)

At the national level, Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Act (BECA) 1995 and The Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974 deal with marine pollution. Section 8 of the Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act (TWAMZA), 1974, allows the government to regulate the measures that are important for preventing marine pollution and protecting the coastal and marine environment of the Bay of Bengal. Thus, it allows for distilling regulations to address pollution from land, sea, and airborne pollution with a special focus on plastic and microscopic plastics. This provision provides an understanding of how the government wants to ensure ecological rationality or viability of the environment as much as it supports developmental exercises. By focusing on pollution prevention, control, and ecosystem rehabilitation, it aligns with the international trends of sustainable coastal management to develop the ability to deal with the threats of marine plastic pollution and generate better prospects for the healthy existence of the Bay of Bengal. (9)

The section of the Act appears ambiguous as it does not clearly explain what measures will be taken, how the high seas will be kept pollution-free, or who will carry out the responsibilities. (8) Furthermore, under TWAMZA, a necessary measure has yet to be taken. Thus, it might be submitted that although it is implemented in writing, it does not exist. (8)

Moreover, the Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Act (BECA) 1995 prohibits the use of polythene bags under section 6A. Thus, this section permits the government to ban or regulate plastic products that are dangerous to the environment, like polythene bags, which control marine plastic pollution and hence support sustainable management of the coasts.

However, the High Court has directed the government in BELA v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and others (10) to enforce a suitable restriction on single-use plastic products, especially those that are often used. However, in reality, the section is dead because there is currently no viable substitute for the large-scale production and usage of polyethene in the nation for the transportation of products. (8) Moreover, Rule 3 of Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Rules 2023 allow application for remedial damages due to environmental pollution or degradation. As per the rule, the person aggrieved by pollution could apply for a remedy from the Director General.

However, other than designating a specific area for plastic, other environmental laws do not address the issue of plastic pollution. Acts pertaining to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems provide an example. For instance, regulations on water resources do not include any provisions requiring the removal of plastic debris from waterways or imposing penalties for contaminating tourist destinations. (5)

The Way Forward for a Sustainable Future

For Bangladesh to address the shortcomings in its legal framework concerning marine pollution, several recommendations can be drawn from effective international policies. Based on the current study regarding marine pollution in Bangladesh, a separate statute is proposed: the Marine Pollution Prevention Act, as there is no specific separate law for preventing marine pollution. (8) Taiwan's approach (11) of mandatory source segregation significantly improved waste management, evidenced by reduced plastic bags found on beaches. (12) The European Union's success in increasing recyclables in markets is attributable to waste directives enforcing recycling and discouraging landfilling. (13)

Similarly, Uruguay's Non-reusable Containers Law emphasizes extended producer responsibility and compelling disposal plans for used containers and waste, aligning with waste reduction and recycling goals. (14) Enforcing analogous strategies in Bangladesh could include obligatory segregation, assessing restrictions on single-use plastics, and enacting extended producer responsibility laws. Establishing appropriate regulations, taking the initiative of recycling, and promoting responsible product and disposal practices, as seen in successful international models, could substantially help Bangladesh combat marine pollution, mainly plastic. Apart from this, Bangladesh needs a devoted agency for Blue Economy to mitigate plastic waste in the Bay of Bengal, fostering collaboration among stakeholders. Incorporating Extended Producer Responsibility in the legal framework, making awareness campaigns, and coordinating efforts among stakeholders is crucial for effectively controlling marine plastic pollution for a sustainable future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite international commitments and legal frameworks, Bangladesh still faces significant obstacles in combating marine plastic pollution. Article 193 of the UNCLOS also requires the implementation of necessary measures to protect and preserve the aquatic environment, so new effective regulations must be created as soon as possible that incorporate preventive measures mandated by international agreements for preventing marine pollution. Improving cross-sectoral cooperation, supporting law enforcement, and creating entities specifically concentrated on the Blue Economy is essential. Crucial measures include assessing Extended Producer Responsibility, raising public awareness, and bolstering stakeholder cooperation.

MD. Moqbul Hosain is an LLM Student at the Department of Law, University of Dhaka. He can be reached at: hosainmoqbul@gmail.com.

 

References:

1.     Marcus Haward, ‘Plastic Pollution of the World’s Seas and Oceans as a Contemporary Challenge in Ocean Governance’ (2018) 9 Nature Communications 667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3

2.     Towhida Rashid, Sirajul Hoque and Sharmin Akter, ‘Pollution in the Bay of Bengal: Impact on Marine Ecosystem’ (2015) 05 Open Journal of Marine Science 55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2015.51006

3.     Md Saiful Islam and others, ‘Sources and Management of Marine Litter Pollution along the Bay of Bengal Coast of Bangladesh’ (2022) 185 Marine Pollution Bulletin 114362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114362

4.     Utpal Kumar Raha, B Ramesh Kumar and Santosh Kumar Sarkar, ‘Policy Framework for Mitigating Land-Based Marine Plastic Pollution in the Gangetic Delta Region of Bay of Bengal- A Review’ (2021) 278 Journal of Cleaner Production 123409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123409

5.     Md Mizanur Rahman, ‘Effectiveness of the Coastal and Marine Conservation Initiatives in Bangladesh: Analyzing the Drawbacks of the Legal, Policy, and Institutional Framework’ (2022) 18 Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19480881.2022.2111050

6.     Setyo Budi Kurniawan and others, ‘Current State of Marine Plastic Pollution and Its Technology for More Eminent Evidence: A Review’ (2021) 278 Journal of Cleaner Production 123537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123537

7.     Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque V. Bangladesh 55. DLR (2003) 69

8.     Md Milan Hossain and SM Shahidullah Mamun, ‘Marine Pollution in Bangladesh-Framing Legal Responses: A Critical Study’ (2021) 23 Environmental Law Review 210. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529211023458

9.     Md Wahidul Alam and Xu Xiangmin, ‘Marine Pollution Prevention in Bangladesh: A Way Forward for Implement Comprehensive National Legal Framework’ (2019) 35 Thalassas: An International Journal of Marine Sciences 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41208-018-0078-x

10.  Writ Petition No. 14941 of 2019 (20 January 2020)

11.  Ta-Kang Liu, Meng-Wei Wang and Ping Chen, ‘Influence of Waste Management Policy on the Characteristics of Beach Litter in Kaohsiung, Taiwan’ (2013) 72 Marine Pollution Bulletin 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.04.015

12.  Bruno Andreas Walther, Ning Yen and Chieh-Shen Hu, ‘Strategies, Actions, and Policies by Taiwan’s ENGOs, Media, and Government to Reduce Plastic Use and Marine Plastic Pollution’ (2021) 126 Marine Policy 104391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104391

13.  S Newman, E Watkins, and A Farmer, 'How to Improve EU Legislation to Tackle Marine Litter' (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2013) https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/IEEP_2013_How_to_improve_EU_legislation_to_tackle_marine_litter.pdf

14.  Victoria González Carman, Natalia Machain and Claudio Campagna, ‘Legal and Institutional Tools to Mitigate Plastic Pollution Affecting Marine Species: Argentina as a Case Study’ (2015) 92 Marine Pollution Bulletin 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.047

Blue Diplomacy: Navigating Geopolitical Challenges in the Bay of Bengal

 

C.A.M. Al Wahi

The Bay of Bengal, spanning approximately 2.2 million square kilometres, is the largest bay in the world. It is home to nearly 1.4 billion people across its coastal nations. (1) The bay boasts abundant natural resources, including fisheries, minerals, hydrocarbons, and maritime biodiversity, and serves as a vital hub for regional and global trade, security, and climate management. However, the region faces numerous challenges, including overfishing, pollution, piracy, unauthorized migration, maritime conflicts, and the impacts of climate change, all of which threaten its long-term sustainability. (2) Therefore, it is crucial to establish effective ocean governance to ensure the peaceful and prosperous development of the Bay of Bengal and its surrounding areas.

Ocean Governance refers to the management of ocean use and conservation, involving various actors such as states, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector. Governance occurs at multiple levels, including local, national, regional, and global. (3) To safeguard the maritime environment and the ecosystem services the ocean provides, governance must balance the often-conflicting demands of various sectors, such as fisheries, shipping, tourism, energy, and security. It must also address the legal domains of territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and high seas.

However, effective ocean governance is particularly challenging in a complex and dynamic region like the Bay of Bengal, where geopolitical factors such as territorial disputes, resource competition, and strategic alliances play a significant role in shaping the behavior of regional actors. For instance, longstanding maritime boundary disputes between India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, which have now been resolved, complicated regional cooperation on resource management. Additionally, external powers like China have increased their presence in the region through infrastructure development, heightening strategic rivalries and influencing governance approaches. (4) This intersection of geographical factors and political agendas highlights the need for cooperative frameworks that balance national interests with sustainable governance. (5)

Several factors shape the geopolitics of the Bay of Bengal, including the growing influence of China and India as key players in the Indo-Pacific, the bay’s strategic position as a link between the Indo-Pacific oceans, unresolved territorial disputes, and the influence of external powers such as the U.S., Japan, and Australia. (6) Furthermore, the emerging opportunities and challenges posed by the blue economy, digital economy, and green transition create both rivalry and cooperation, impacting maritime governance in the region.

A paradigm shift in ocean governance, based on blue diplomacy, is essential to effectively navigate these geopolitical challenges and unlock the region’s potential. Blue diplomacy refers to the strategic use of maritime policies, capabilities, and economic initiatives to achieve national objectives and maintain influence in the maritime domain. It seeks to prevent, mitigate, and resolve water-related conflicts in shared waters through the coordinated application of diplomatic tools, expertise, and cooperation mechanisms across various diplomatic tracks. (7)

Blue diplomacy can be implemented at various levels through bilateral and multilateral agreements, regional and sub-regional initiatives, confidence-building measures, joint projects, information-sharing, capacity-building, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Examples of blue diplomacy initiatives in the Bay of Bengal include BIMSTEC, IORA, BCIM-EC, MGC, BOBLME, Maritime Safety and Security Information System, and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation. (8)

However, blue diplomacy in the Bay of Bengal faces challenges, such as a lack of political will and trust among some actors, conflicting interests, power imbalances, overlapping regional frameworks, and gaps in legal and institutional frameworks. (9) To optimize the effectiveness of blue diplomacy, the following measures are essential:

1. Reforming regional and sub-regional structures like BIMSTEC and IORA by strengthening political commitment, institutional capacity, financial resources, and operational alignment to ensure better coordination of objectives, priorities, and agendas.
2. Improving dialogue and cooperation between key players, especially China and India, through regular consultation mechanisms such as ministerial meetings, working groups, and joint projects like patrols, research, and exercises.
3. Resolving potential maritime disputes in the region through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or adjudication, in line with international law principles like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
4. Enhancing non-state actors' participation in ocean governance and blue diplomacy by providing opportunities for engagement through public hearings, stakeholder forums, and advisory groups, and encouraging their roles in advocacy, monitoring, and innovation.
5. Implementing a blue economy strategy for sustainable and inclusive development in sectors like fisheries, tourism, energy, and transport, guided by best practices such as the ecosystem approach, precautionary principle, and polluter-pays principle.

The Bay of Bengal is a region of immense significance and potential but also faces substantial obstacles in terms of ocean governance and geopolitics within the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, adopting a new method of ocean governance—centered on the concept of blue diplomacy—is critical. Blue diplomacy fosters discussion, builds trust, and promotes cooperation among stakeholders, while effectively addressing shared challenges and opportunities. By adopting this approach, the actors in the Bay of Bengal can create a region characterized by peace, economic success, and contribution to global ocean governance and sustainable development goals.

C.A.M. Al-Wahi is a student at the Department of Maritime Law and Policy, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University, Bangladesh.

---

References

1. Henley, J. (2022, February). World leaders descend on France for ocean summit as Macron puts spotlight on seas. Retrieved December 13, 2023, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/08/blue-diplomacy-france-summit-puts-worlds-spotlight-on-oceans
2. Shidore, S. (2023, April 14). Climate Security and Instability in the Bay of Bengal Region. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/report/climate-security-and-instability-bay-bengal-region
3. Gutu, I. (2016). The Transatlantic Blue Diplomacy. CES Working Papers, 8(4), 666-680. Retrieved December 13, 2023, from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/198485
4. Water Politics: Between Desertification and Securitization - Time for a Blue Diplomacy. (2023, September 06). Retrieved December 14, 2023, from European Economic and Social Committee: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/press-summaries/water-politics-between-desertification-and-securitization-time-blue-diplomacy
5. Jahangir, J., & Ahmed, S. (2023, June). Embryonic World Order: Implications For Pakistan’s Foreign Policy, Geopolitical Agendas And Foreign Affairs. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(5), 958-971. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/16951/10728
6. Anwar, A. (2022, April 1). Positioning the Bay of Bengal in the Great Game of the Indo-Pacific Fulcrum. Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, Air University Press --. Retrieved December 14, 2023. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2980896/positioning-the-bay-of-bengal-in-the-great-game-of-the-indo-pacific-fulcrum/
7. Lee-Brown, T. (2022, August 13). Navigating maritime security in the Bay of Bengal. Retrieved December 14, 2023, from East Asia Forum: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/08/13/navigating-maritime-security-in-the-bay-of-bengal/
8. Benson, J. (2020, January 16). STABLE SEAS: Bay of Bengal. STABLE SEAS. doi:10.18289/OEF.2020.044
9. Safety4Sea. (2020, March 16). Bay of Bengal can achieve sustainable maritime security by setting priorities, report says. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from Safety4Sea: https://safety4sea.com/bay-of-bengal-can-achieve-sustainable-maritime-security-by-setting-priorities-report-says/

Blue Economy and Deep Seabed Mining: Sustainable Ocean Governance in the Bay of Bengal

Shah Maruf Uddin Ahmad

1. Introduction

Since settling its maritime boundary dispute with Myanmar and India in 2012 and 2014, respectively, Bangladesh has placed the concept of a ‘blue economy’ at the forefront of economic planning and development (1). Blue economy ‘fosters the idea of exploiting the untapped potential of the marine environment using smart solutions and innovations for increasing food security, improving nutrition and health,  alleviating poverty, creating jobs,  lifting trade and industrial profiles while protecting ecosystem health and biodiversity, and improving regional security and peace’ (2). Considering the (deep) seabed mining as one of the ‘emerging’ sectors of the blue economy, Bangladesh put it in the country’s Blue Economy Development Work Plan (3).

While deep seabed mining can be a window of hope for economic growth, the associated risks cannot be discarded altogether—seabed mining is inherently destructive for the marine environment (4). Hence, any such activity must be handled with due care, which requires, amongst others, a robust and nuanced legal and policy framework. This blog analyses how Bangladesh can approach the nuanced challenges posed by mining activities within its national jurisdiction of the Bay of Bengal to ensure a more sustainable ocean governance.

2. Deep Seabed Mining: The Current Legal and Policy Framework

Even a decade after getting the maritime boundary delimited, Bangladesh could not start deep seabed mining activity: it is still at the exploration stage, yet on a small scale. The Country has 15 deep sea blocks covering 52,397 square kilometres, which are believed to store enormous mineral resources underneath them (5). Recently,  17-103  TCF gas hydrates containing vast amounts of methane have been discovered in the Bay of Bengal (6). If these hydrates can be extracted, Bangladesh will ‘enter a new era of energy,’ reducing its import dependency, which is ‘the root cause of [its] energy crisis’ (7). Two US companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, also submitted proposals to explore the deep sea blocks (8). If the government gives permission, these companies must work under strict environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the specialized legal and policy framework to govern the country's environmental aspects of mining activities is grossly inadequate.

For instance, Bangladesh has no specialized legislation dealing directly with deep seabed mining, which defines the standards to maintain and prescribes punishment for non-compliance. While the Mines Act of 1923, the Mines and Mineral Resources (Control and Development) Act of 1992, and the Mining and Mineral Rules of 2012 govern onshore mining activity, they are silent on deep seabed mining. The Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act, 1974 also does not include ‘managing adverse impacts on the marine environment caused by seabed mining activities’ (9). This scenario contradicts the proposition that ‘sustainable deep sea mining activity should include clear legal framework, sustainable technology and the participation of the private and public sector under strong governance’ (10).

The state of the policy framework is also unsatisfactory. The Domestic Natural Oil/Gas Exploration Policy, 2019, only provides what will be done for gas or oil exploration but says little about how those explorations will be made, except stating that ‘appropriate scientific procedure’ will be followed in exploration. Besides, the government’s decision on the rigid terms of Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with international oil companies (IOCs) is unfavourable to most of the IOCs, evidenced by leaving midway all the companies (e.g., from the US and South Korea) primarily due to poor, rigid terms of the PSC (11). Consequently, the Model PSC has been updated recently to attract IOCs, creating more favourable conditions for them (12).

The government’s policy to update the PSC terms can be seen as a good move because it can attract more IOCs for exploration. However, without framing a comprehensive law or policy integrating other concerns (e.g., environmental), such an update may suggest that Bangladesh's approach to ocean governance is overly centred on economic priorities, placing growth above all other considerations. To avoid that fragmentation, the country needs to incorporate other paradigms in its ocean governance framework, including ‘maritime security,’ ‘ocean health,’ and ‘blue justice,’ each one of which offers ‘novel ways of conceptualizing maritime space and the problems associated with it’ (13). The following section explores how incorporating these approaches can lead to more sustainable ocean governance regarding deep seabed mining.

3. Towards a Sustainable Ocean Governance: An Integrated Approach

Emphasizing economic growth, the blue economy paradigm can ‘play an important role in the economic upliftment of the country in the context of poverty alleviation, ensuring food and nutrition security, combating climate change impacts’ (14). However, focusing only on the ‘blue economy’ deprives us of essential insights other ocean paradigms offer about the problems and solutions of ocean governance.

The ‘maritime security’ paradigm, for example, shows that ocean governance is linked to insecurities and threats from, among other things, disputes over seabed resources like hydrocarbons and direct attacks on mining installations and shipping, etc. (15). ‘Ocean health’ paradigm considers ‘the ocean as a sick patient,’ (16). It seeks to conserve and restore the marine environment degraded by human intervention (17). The ‘blue justice’ paradigm concerns distributive justice and suggests that activities (e.g., seabed mining) must ensure equal profits and burdens within the stakeholders (18).

These paradigms are based on entirely different priorities, though they address a common governing space—the ocean. In deep seabed mining, for example, the maritime security paradigm will suggest vigorous law enforcement to protect mineral resources and mining installations from attacks, etc. and resultant insecurity. At the same time, the blue economy will promote accelerated industrial exploitation to generate growth and employment opportunities and tackle the root causes of insecurity (19). In contrast, ocean health will suggest reducing or abandoning seabed mining altogether due to its harmful environmental effects. In comparison, blue justice will advocate that mining activities do not disproportionately affect coastal communities, especially in the case of marine pollution due to accidents from mining operations (20). To ensure a better governance framework, all these paradigmatic approaches must be considered to settle the space between the paradigms and balance existing tensions and contradictions. Isolative thinking of any single approach may ‘lead to contradictory policies, fragmentation and a lack of cooperation among maritime actors’; hence, attempts must be made ‘to build bridges and ascertain synergies between the paradigms and their communities of practice’ (21).

4. Conclusion:

The blog shows deep seabed mining can be an emerging blue economy sector with massive economic growth potential in Bangladesh. Still, it may pose a significant risk to the marine environment, which needs to be addressed from a cross-paradigmatic approach to ocean governance. Along with the ‘blue economy’ paradigm focusing on economic growth and marine resource exploitation, we need to incorporate three other paradigms: ‘maritime security’ which addresses marine threats and insecurities; ‘ocean health’ which necessitates conservation and restoration of aquatic environments; and, lastly, ‘blue justice’ which is associated with fair allocation of oceanic risks, revenues, access and control (22).

We should also integrate transdisciplinary scholarships in making ocean governance framework given that each paradigm is predominated by distinct academic disciplines—e.g. security studies, law and criminology (maritime security); economics and development studies (blue economy); marine biology, oceanography, fisheries science (ocean health); and environmental law, political theory and development economics (blue justice) (23). Such a transdisciplinary and cross-paradigmatic approach may help develop a sustainable ocean governance framework, integrating law, policy and environmental concerns.

Shah Maruf Uddin Ahmad is a Lecturer in the Department of Law at East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. This article was awarded First Prize in the inaugural Professor Habibur Rahman Law of the Sea Blog Competition in 2023.

References:

1. Blue Economy Development Work Plan’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh, 2021) 4 <https://mofa.gov.bd/site/page/ab254318-8f4a-423c-a3ef-733b80f28014/Blue-Economy-Development-Work-Plan> accessed 30 September 2024.
2.  Pierre Failler and others (eds), ‘Inputs for the Blue Economy Strategy of Bangladesh’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh and European Union Delegation, September 2018) 4 <https://mofa.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/mofa.portal.gov.bd/page/8846c44d_cbe6_4d2d_ac1b_ae05db4926f6/Inputs%20for%20the%20Blue%20Economy%20Strategy%20of%20Bangladesh%20v9.Final.pdf> accessed 28 September 2024.
3. ‘Blue Economy Development Work Plan’ (n 1) 4-5; Failler (n 2) 113.
4. Van Dover and others, ‘Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining’ (2017) 10 Nature Geoscience 464-465 <https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2983> accessed 28 September 2024.
5.  ‘Bangladesh makes renewed move to attract IOCs in offshore gas exploration’ Dhaka Courier (Dhaka) <https://dhakacourier.com.bd/index.php/news/Business/Bangladesh-makes-renewed-move-to-attract-IOCs-in-offshore-gas-exploration/7490> accessed 30 September 2024.
6. Eyamin Sajid and Kamran Siddiqui, ‘Big potential in Bay as 17-103 TCF gas hydrates found’ The Business Standard (Dhaka, 5 January 2022) <https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/gas-hydrate-found-bay-bengal-353539> accessed 15 November.
7. Moshahida Sultana Ritu, ‘Import dependence is the root cause of our energy crisis’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 20 March 2023) <https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/import-dependence-the-root-cause-our-energy-crisis-3276231> accessed 28 September 2024.
8. M Azizur Rahman, ‘After ExxonMobil, Chevron also intends to explore deep offshore’ The Financial Express (Dhaka, 26 September 2023) <https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/trade/after-exxonmobil-chevron-also-intends-to-explore-deep-offshore> accessed 28 September 2024.
9. Shushmita Ahmed, ‘Deep Seabed Mining (DSM) in Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal: Challenges and Opportunities,’ Bangladesh Centre for Ocean Law and Policy (BCOLP) Blog, 7 April 2023) <https://bcolp.blogspot.com/2023/04/deep-seabed-mining-dsm-in-bangladesh.html> accessed 28 September 2024.
10. International Seabed Authority (ISA), ‘Deep Sea Mining: Environmental, Legal and Technical Challenges for Developing Countries’ (ISA Briefing Paper 01/2014, Sensitization Seminar 7, Mexico, 2013) 1 <https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/orem-bp1-2014.pdf> accessed 30 September 2024.
11. Ashraful Islam Raana, ‘ExxonMobil proposal: A better opportunity, but much left to do,’ The Business Post (Dhaka, 12 April 2023) <https://businesspostbd.com/back/exxonmobil-proposal-a-better-opportunity-but-much-left-to-do-2023-04-12> accessed 15 November; Rahman (n 8).
12. See Bangladesh Offshore Model Production Sharing Contract 2023 <https://petrobangla.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/petrobangla.portal.gov.bd/npfblock/2023-09-18-08-07-e524e678a03352ebdf4b9fd7eb725e72.pdf> accessed 28 September 2024; Rahman (n 8).
13. Christian Bueger and Felix Mallin, ‘Blue paradigms: understanding the intellectual revolution in global ocean politics’ (2023) 99(4) International Affairs 1719, 1720-1721 <https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/99/4/1719/7198183?redirectedFrom=fulltext> accessed 30 September 2024.
14. Md Khurshed Alam, ‘Blue Economy –Development of Sea Resources for Bangladesh’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh, 31 October 2019) <https://mofa.gov.bd/site/page/8c5b2a3f-9873-4f27-8761-2737db83c2ec/Ocean/Blue-Economy--for-Bangladesh> accessed 28 September 2024.
15. See Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, ‘Clashes at sea: explaining the onset, militarization, and resolution of diplomatic maritime claims’ (2023) 29(4) Security Studies 637-670 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2020.1811458> accessed 28 September 2024; Bueger and Mallin (n 13) 1724-1726.
16. Bueger and Mallin (n 13) 1730.
17. Alice Vadrot, ‘Ocean Protection’ in Jean-Frederic Morin, Amandine Orsini (eds), Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance (Routledge 2020) 173-174.
18. See, generally, Chris Armstrong, A Blue New Deal: Why We Need a New Politics for the Ocean (Yale University Press 2022).
19. Bueger and Mallin (n 13) 1737.
20. ibid.
21. ibid.
22. ibid, 1721.
23. ibid, 1727-1736.

Jurisdictional Challenges in the Bay of Bengal's Growing Maritime Spaces

Md. Al Mehedi Hasan Talukdar

The Bay of Bengal, which borders eight nations—Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Maldives—is one of the world’s largest and most significant bodies of water, spanning over 2.2 million square kilometres. (1) Rich in natural resources like fish, oil, gas, minerals, and biodiversity, the Bay is essential to regional and international trade, security, and cooperation. However, the dynamic and complex nature of its maritime spaces, which have expanded significantly due to the implementation of international law and the resolution of certain maritime boundary disputes, presents numerous legal challenges.

A key factor contributing to the Bay of Bengal’s legal complexity is the variety of maritime zones established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. (2) UNCLOS governs various aspects of maritime governance, including zone management, environmental protection, dispute settlement, and cooperation. It establishes several maritime zones, such as the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the continental shelf, and the high seas. While coastal states exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights within their territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf, the high seas and the Area, which lie beyond national jurisdiction, are governed by international law. The jurisdiction and management of resources and activities within these zones differ for coastal and non-coastal states, making the Bay of Bengal’s legal landscape particularly intricate.

Due to the enactment of UNCLOS and the settlement of long-standing maritime boundary disputes—such as those between Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India—the coastal states' maritime zones in the Bay of Bengal have significantly expanded in recent years. In 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a landmark ruling on the maritime boundary between Myanmar and Bangladesh, determining the boundary line in the territorial sea, EEZ, and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles. (3) Similarly, in 2014, an arbitral tribunal defined the extent of Bangladesh and India’s maritime entitlements in the Bay, including their territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf. (4) As a result of these rulings, Bangladesh gained access to an additional 118,813 square kilometres of sea, more than twice the area it previously controlled. (5)

The expansion of maritime jurisdictions in the Bay of Bengal has transformed the legal and economic landscape, presenting new opportunities alongside significant challenges. One positive outcome is the increased potential for the exploration and extraction of non-living resources, such as minerals, oil, and gas, primarily located on the ocean floor and continental shelf. Coastal nations are actively developing these resources and seeking investments from both local and international partners. For instance, international oil companies have been granted access to parts of Bangladesh’s continental shelf for exploration. (6) The country has also submitted a claim for an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the UNCLOS-established Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). (7) Similarly, India and other coastal states like Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka have expanded their offshore oil and gas industries and submitted claims for enlarged continental shelves to the CLCS. (8, 9)

However, with these opportunities come new challenges, particularly concerning environmental preservation and the sustainable use of marine resources. Effective regulation is crucial to mitigate the environmental risks associated with the exploration and exploitation of non-living resources in the continental shelf and deep seabed. Additionally, the sustainable management of living marine resources, particularly fish stocks (which are mostly found in the EEZ and high seas), requires enhanced coordination among coastal states, regional bodies, and international organizations. Improved cooperation is necessary to avoid overfishing, protect biodiversity, and ensure the equitable use of shared resources.

The expansion of maritime jurisdictions also raises concerns about maritime security, navigation, and communication. Threats such as piracy, terrorism, smuggling, illegal fishing, and accidents pose risks to regional and global commerce and security. Maintaining peace and stability in the Bay of Bengal may require the use of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms, such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication, in accordance with UNCLOS and other relevant international agreements. To promote regional cooperation and ensure the efficient management of the Bay’s resources, joint development initiatives and frameworks for bilateral, regional, and international collaboration will be crucial. (10)

In conclusion, the expansion of maritime jurisdictions in the Bay of Bengal, driven by the evolution of international law and the resolution of maritime disputes, underscores the region's complexity. Coastal and non-coastal states, along with regional and international organizations, must work collaboratively to maintain the Bay of Bengal as a secure, thriving, and environmentally sustainable maritime zone for future generations.

Md. Al Mehedi Hasan Talukdar is a student at the Department of Maritime Law and Policy, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University, Bangladesh.

Photo Credit: Pushkar Anand Rathore

---

References:

1. Farhan, N. (2022). Bay of Bengal as Strategic Construct in the Maritime Space. Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies. Link
2. United Nations (2024, June 7). States Parties to United Nations Convention on Law of Sea Will Hold Thirty-Fourth Meeting at Headquarters. United Nations. Retrieved October 4, 2024, from Link
3. Al Faruque, A. (2012). Judgment in Maritime Boundary Dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar: Significance and Implications under International Law. Asian Yearbook of International Law, 18, 65–666. Link
4. Suarez, B. S. V. (2016). The Arbitral Award in the Bangladesh-India Maritime Delimitation in the Bay of Bengal and its Contribution to International Maritime Boundary Law: A Case Commentary. Maritime Safety and Security Law Journal, 2. Link
5. Patil, P. G., Failler, P., & Alam, K. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue on the Blue Economy of Bangladesh. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, 6(2), 1. Link
6. Ahmed, S. I. (2014). Exploration and Exploitation of Maritime Resources of Bangladesh: Implication for National Development. NDC Journal, 59. Link
7. Anderson, D. H. (2015). Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary. American Journal of International Law, 109(1), 146–154. Link
8. Ramnath, K. (2022). Making Maritime Boundaries in the Bay of Bengal. Law And History Review, 40(3), 561–578. Link
9. Long, R. (2017). Law of the Sea and Ocean Governance in Southeast Asia: Comparative European Lessons on Pragmatism and Principle. Brill | Nijhoff eBooks. Link
10. Talukder, M. a. M. H., Wahi, C. A., & Rabiul, A. (2024). Preserving the Bay of Bengal: A Legal Framework and Human Rights Probe of Bangladesh’s Maritime Environment. ResearchGate. Link

Beyond the Shoreline: Tackling Marine Plastic Pollution in the Bay of Bengal through Modern Technologies

Siam Shafi

The Bay of Bengal’s profound geostrategic importance renders emerging challenges there a global concern. The Bay remains pivotal in influencing geopolitical dynamics due to its advantageous geographical position, vast natural resources, and immense strategic importance as a maritime trade route. Particularly, the Bay of Bengal possesses historical significance as an economic corridor for commercial maritime trade routes connecting the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Fisheries of the Bay of Bengal play a significant role in meeting people’s protein demands. The Bay of Bengal yields approximately 6 million tons of fish annually, accounting for 4% of the global catch, and supplies protein for approximately 400 million people in the Bay of Bengal region (1). This write-up attempts to discuss the emerging challenges in the Bay of Bengal concerning plastic pollution and overexploitation of marine resources. To prevent plastic pollution and overexploitation of marine resources in the Bay of Bengal, the author addresses new policies and standards consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and emphasizes the use of modern technologies and effective ocean governance.

The Bay of Bengal annually receives 2.6 million tons of disposable plastic, transported via 18 transboundary rivers, carrying 15,345 tons of waste from single-use plastics daily, out of which 2519 tons arrive from India, while Myanmar contributes 284 tons (2). Around 443 microplastic particles were detected in the intestines of marine fish, namely H. translucens, S. gibbose, and H. nehereus, ranging from three to nine components on average for each species (3). Moreover, the digestive tracts of marine fish contain many microplastic particles, indicating widespread plastic contamination in the Bay of Bengal’s marine ecosystem. In addition, humans can ingest harmful chemicals derived from microplastic particles when they consume seafood. As a result, humans can contract a variety of fatal diseases, including cancer (4). Consequently, the presence of microplastics in the Bay of Bengal marine fish raises concerns regarding the food security of many people who rely on this protein source. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) identified several key issues in the Bay of Bengal, including the overexploitation of marine living resources (5). Overfishing marine species with extended life cycles and at the top of food chains causes irrevocable damage to the marine ecological equilibrium (6). The primary factors contributing to the decline in biodiversity include overfishing, the use of illegal and damaging fishing methods such as set bags and monofilament gillnets, and the vast collection of shrimp larvae (7). Further, overfishing can cause an ecological imbalance in the Bay of Bengal’s marine ecosystem due to the disappearance and dominance of certain marine species. Besides, many of the people living in the Bay of Bengal region fall under the poverty line and depend heavily on marine resources. For this reason, the ongoing deterioration of marine resources in the Bay of Bengal region can severely affect coastal people’s livelihood and overall economic development.

Even though there is an active Maritime Affairs Unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, the country requires a Ministry of Ocean Affairs (MOA) or a distinct ministry dedicated to marine affairs (8). The Ministry of Ocean Affairs (MOA) can greatly aid in dealing with marine pollution, bycatch, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. MOA will facilitate playing a crucial role in establishing and enforcing maximum allowable fish catch levels and maximum sustainable fish yield. Besides, several technologies like TrashBoom, Marine Microplastic Removal Tool, and TrashTrap may aid in collecting and removing microplastics from the ocean. TrashBoom is a swimming barrier that captures most floating plastics in rivers (9). In particular, TrashBoom is highly effective in capturing plastic debris, preventing it from flowing into the ocean. The Marine Microplastic Removal Tool is a specialized sand filter explicitly designed to capture microplastics directly, while TrashTrap has 97% efficiency in removing plastic debris (10). According to Article 61 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), States shall ensure proper conservation and management measures by considering the best scientific evidence available so that living marine resources are not endangered by overexploitation. To comply with the obligation, Bangladesh can follow the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for a sustainable ecosystem and to eliminate IUU fishing or overfishing practices in the Bay of Bengal. The historical decrease in overfishing in European countries became evident after the CFP was adopted. Some measures of CFP include setting total allowable catches, implementing quotas, establishing protected areas, and promoting selective fishing techniques (11). Article 266 of the UNCLOS further encourages States to foster the advancement and sharing of marine technologies. Considering this, Bangladesh is required to adopt a Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) system to reduce overfishing. REM comprises sensors, cameras, and GPS (12). Sensors monitor how the fishing equipment is used, cameras capture the fishermen sorting or discarding fish, and GPS indicates the boat’s precise location. Therefore, regulatory authorities can more effectively identify fishing law infringements by analyzing REM’s data and information. Although the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, in the case of BELA v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and others, ordered the Bangladesh government to ban single-use plastic products throughout the country (13), the government has yet to make visible progress in stopping the production and consumption of single-use plastic products (14). Accordingly, enactment of separate legislation related to plastic pollution prevention is urgently needed to combat the disposal of microplastics in the Bay of Bengal. To conclude, being a party to the UNCLOS, Bangladesh should consider these challenges by adopting new standards and rules.

 

Siam Shafi is a final-year undergraduate law student and a legal researcher at BRAC University. His areas of interest include Constitutional Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, and Law of the Sea. He may be reached at md.siam.shafi@g.bracu.ac.bd.

 

Notes:

(1) Islam, M. M. (2019, August 10). Alarming plastic pollution in the Bay of Bengal. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/environment/news/alarming-plastic-pollution-the-bay-bengal-1784278

(2) Environment and Social Development Organization. (2023, August 23). Historic Global Plastic Treaty should change the tragic tale of our River. ESDO. https://esdo.org/2023/08/historic-global-plastic-treaty-should-change-the-tragic-tale-of-our-river/

(3) Hossain, M. S., Sobhan, F., Uddin, M. N., Sharifuzzaman, S. M., Chowdhury, S. R., Sarker, S., & Chowdhury, M. S. N. (2019). Microplastics in fishes from the northern Bay of Bengal. The Science of The Total Environment, 690, 821-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.065

(4) Davey M. (2023, March 28). Plastics cause wide-ranging health issues from cancer to birth defects, landmark study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/29/plastics-cause-wide-ranging-health-issues-from-cancer-to-birth-defects-landmark-study-finds

(5) Elayaperumal, V., Hermes, R., & Brown, D. (2019). An Ecosystem Based Approach to the assessment and governance of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 163, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2019.01.001

(6) Batini, N. (Ed.). (2021). The Economics of Sustainable Food: Smart Policies for Health and the Planet. Island Press, p.203.

(7) Hossain, M., & Hasan, M. R. (2021). Dwindling Coastal Fisheries Biodiversity of Bangladesh: The Causes and Effects. Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research, 39(2), 105-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.54894/JISCAR.39.2.2021.111181

(8) Alam, M. W., Xiangmin, X., Ahamed, R., Mozumder, M. M. H., & Schneider, P. (2021). Ocean governance in Bangladesh: Necessities to implement structure, policy guidelines, and actions for ocean and coastal management. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 45, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101822

(9) Hirsch, K. (2022, March 3). Stopping marine plastic pollution from rivers requires efficient and cost-effective technologies. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/how-technology-can-help-us-stop-marine-plastic-pollution/

(10) Schmaltz, E., Melvin, E. C., Diana, Z., Gunady, E. F., Rittschof, D., Somarelli, J. A., Virdind, J., & Dunphy-Daly, M. M. (2020). Plastic pollution solutions: emerging technologies to prevent and collect marine plastic pollution. Environment International, 144, 106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106067

(11) Frost, H., & Andersen, P. (2006). The Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union and fisheries economics. Marine Policy, 30(6), 737–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.01.001

(12) Course, G. (2017). Remote Electronic Monitoring. WWF-UK. https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Remote%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20in%20UK%20Fisheries%20Management_WWF.pdf

(13) BELA v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and others [2019] HCD Writ Petition No. 14941.

(14) Roy, P. (2023, June 6). Ban on single-use plastic: No visible step to enforce HC order. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/ban-single-use-plastic-no-visible-step-enforce-hc-order-3338746

 

 

 

 

 

Safeguarding the Green Heart: India’s Initiatives in Preserving Seagrass Meadows in the Bay of Bengal

Sanya D. Kishwar, Kritika Vatsa, and Sadqua Khatoon

The Bay of Bengal (‘BoB’), often described as a “triangular basin spanning west to east between Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Malaysia” is a sprawling hub for trade and natural resource extraction.[1] Replete with minerals and fisheries, the Bay is a sustainer of livelihood, a tourist attraction, a revenue generator for the surrounding states and above all, a diverse marine habitat.[2] BoB’s “large marine ecosystem” shelters mangroves, sea grass beds and several endangered species.[3] Importantly, BoB is home to seagrass meadows.[4] Seagrass, an underwater plant, serves as a natural “carbon sink” by absorbing and storing significant amounts of carbon dioxide, making it a crucial element in climate change mitigation.[5] Additionally, seagrass has been found to filter coastal waters and enhance nutrient levels.[6] Though “under-represented” in climate change mitigation, seagrass ecosystems play a vital role in preserving the environment.[7] The United Nations Environment Programme emphasizes the significance of conserving and restoring seagrass meadows in the report, Out of the Blue, for effective climate change mitigation.[8] This blog attempts to discuss the preventive steps taken by India to conserve and restore the depleting seagrass meadows in Palk Bay, an inlet in the BoB. The authors comment critically on the role played by the state in climate change mitigation in the BoB region and attempt to list recommendations for better marine governance. 

Blue Economy as a threat to Palk Bay seagrass ecosystem

India harbours coastal and marine seagrass meadows, with Palk Bay identified as a significant area holding most of the country’s seagrass cover.[9] Hejnowicz et al. note that despite it being an efficient contributor to climate change mitigation, the conservation and restoration of seagrass meadows face insufficient attention.[10] There is a notable decline in the Palk Bay seagrass meadows, which are now being monitored as Ecologically Sensitive Areas by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management in India.[11]

The Blue Economy (‘BE’) concept, originating from the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, aims to foster sustainable coastal management and marine utilization in the BoB states.[12] Despite the focus on sustainable development, the BE model poses environmental challenges, many of which were discussed recently at the G20 Research and Innovation Initiative Gathering (‘RIIG’) Conference.[13] While overfishing and hydrocarbon exploitation have concerned BoB states for decades, the issues are taking a serious turn due to their increased impact on seagrass.[14] Fishing practices such as bottom trawling have depleted the seagrass meadows in Palk Bay.[15] Bottom trawling involves dragging heavily weighted nets across the sea floor to catch fish, resulting in the uprooting of seagrass meadows as well as causing harm to dugongs, slow-moving sea creatures now listed as “vulnerable to extinction” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.[16] India’s pursuit of a leading BE role has unintended consequences, with subsidies shifting local fishers to large-scale, export-oriented fishing, potentially leading to illegal practices like bottom trawling. This raises concerns about overfishing, increased contribution to marine pollution and seagrass depletion. Project Sagarmala’s port development adds to these issues, with the unregulated port expansion being perceived as “ocean grabbing” by critics.[17] Additionally, unsustainable tourism and coastal development projects further contribute to seagrass depletion.[18]  It is argued that India’s BE framework is short of the desired sustainable approach.

Preserving Palk Bay: Recommendations and Way Forward

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the member countries are required to report their yearly carbon emissions along with an account of their efforts in reducing it. Blue carbon, absorbed and stored in the ocean, is crucial for mitigating global warming.[19] The High-Quality Blue Carbon Principles and Guidance launched at COP27 guides the development and purchase of high-quality blue carbon projects and credits.[20] This framework aims to build confidence and momentum around blue carbon project development and investments. Notably, India has set a target to create a carbon sink of 2.50-3.00 billion tonnes by 2030, emphasizing the need to proactively conserve seagrass meadows, including blue carbon ecosystems.[21] One such step taken by the government is the Palk Bay Scheme, which was launched in 2017. The initiative aims at promoting deep-sea fishing to replace bottom trawling.[22] Apart from this, researchers from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in the state of Tamil Nadu have initiated the establishment of a dugong conservation reserve in the Palk Bay with an aim to preserve the natural seagrass habitat of dugongs by curtailing bottom trawling in the region.[23] While the scheme sounds promising, it should be coupled with schemes that promote sustainable diving and boating since they also contribute to seagrass depletion apart from bottom trawling. Organizations like PADI and the Reef-World Foundation have been advocating for eco-friendly practices since 2018, and similar efforts should be encouraged in Palk Bay for optimal seagrass preservation.[24] Additionally, leveraging advanced technology, such as geospatial mapping and artificial intelligence, for seagrass bed mapping, as demonstrated by the University of Southampton in Studland Bay, can aid in evaluating and restoring seagrass health.[25] Incorporating this technology as a mandatory step in the Palk Bay Scheme can enhance the initiative’s effectiveness. Adequate budget allocation by state governments to the fisheries sector for adopting sustainable fishing techniques is crucial. The Bay of Bengal faces challenges that require innovative solutions, and while modern technologies provide tools for monitoring and adapting, effective ocean governance remains essential. International collaboration, integrated management approaches, and a commitment to sustainability can pave the way for a prosperous and resilient future for the Bay’s maritime region.

The Bay of Bengal stands at a critical point where the imperative to harness technological advancements for economic growth must be balanced with a commitment to sustainable practices. The region’s rich biodiversity and economic significance demand a delicate balance to be struck, ensuring that progress does not compromise ecological integrity or jeopardize maritime safety. The surge in maritime traffic, facilitated by advanced navigation and communication technologies, heightens the risk of accidents and collisions, posing threats to both human life and marine ecosystems. The challenges and opportunities posed by modern technology in the Bay of Bengal necessitate a proactive and adaptive approach to mitigate environmental and safety concerns. By carefully navigating this balance, stakeholders can safeguard not only the region's ecological diversity but also human lives and the vitality of marine ecosystems.

Sanya D. Kishwar, Assistant Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India.
Kritika Vatsa, Student, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India.
Sadqua Khatoon, Student, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.

[This article achieved the second position in the 2023 Law of the Sea Blog Competition, hosted by BCOLP in memory of Professor M. Habibur Rahman (1946 – 2022).]

Notes:

---

[1] Naha, A. (2022). Geostrategic Significance of the Bay of Bengal in India’s Maritime Security Discourse. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 9(2), 47-64.  https://doi.org/10.2307/JTMS.9.2.47/. See also Karim, T. (2021, May 12). The Importance of the Bay of Bengal as a Causeway between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Asia-Pacific Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep32272

[2] Khan, A. (2019). Georesource potential and geohazard status of the Bay of Bengal vis-à-vis sustainable development of ‘blue economy’. BMJ, 3, 51; Rahman, M. A., Mahbub-E-Kibria, A. S. M., & Chowdhury, K. A. (2017). Economic Benefits from the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem Services. Int. J. Sci. Res., 6, 1994; Dandapath, P. K., & Mondal, M. (2013). Urbanization and its impact on coastal eco-tourism in West Bengal. International Journal Science and Research, 2(1), 115; Xavier, C., & Palit, A. (2023). Introduction. In Xavier, C. & Palit, A. (Eds). Connectivity and Cooperation in the Bay of Bengal Region (pp. 6). Centre for Social and Economic Progress; Golder M., Shammi, A., Rouf, M. (2022). Enhanced Awareness to Coastal Ecology: Protecting Endangered Species of the Bay of Bengal. Oceanography & Fisheries Journal, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.19080/OFOAJ.2022.15.555904

[3] Brewer, D., Hayes, D., Lyne, V., Donovan, A., Skewes, T., Milton, D., & Murphy, N. (2015). An Ecosystem Characterisation of the Bay of Bengal. Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project (BOBLME). 3. http://hdl.handle.net/1834/34573

[4] Patro, S., Krishnan, P., Samuel, V. D., & Ramachandran, R. (2017). Seagrass and Salt Marsh ecosystems in South Asia: An Overview of diversity, distribution, threats and conservation status. In Prusty, B., Chandra, R. & Azeez, P. (Eds.), Wetland Science (pp. 87-104). Springer.

[5] Holmer, M. (2018, November 1). Underwater Meadows of Seagrass Could Be the Ideal Carbon Sinks. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/underwater-meadows-seagrass-could-be-ideal-carbon-sinks-180970686/

[6] Short, F. T., & Short, C. A. (1984). The Seagrass Filter: Purification Of Estuarine and Coastal Waters. In Kennedy, V. (Ed.), The Estuary as a Filter (pp. 395–413). Elsevier.

[7] Daru, B. H., and Rock, B. M. (2023). Reorganization of seagrass communities in a changing climate. Nature Plants, 9, 1034-1043. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-023-01445-6

[8]  UNEP. (2020, December 11). Out of the blue: the value of seagrasses to the environment and to people. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/out-blue-value-seagrasses-environment-and-people

[9] Geevarghese, G., Akhil, B., Magesh, G., Krishnan, P., Ramachandran, R., & Ramachandran, R. (2018). A comprehensive geospatial assessment of seagrass distribution in India. Ocean & Coastal Management, 159, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.032

[10] Hejnowicz, A. P., Kennedy, H., Rudd, M. A., & Huxham, M. (2015). Harnessing the climate mitigation, conservation and poverty alleviation potential of seagrasses: prospects for developing blue carbon initiatives and payment for ecosystem service programmes. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00032

[11] Ganguly, D., Singh, G., Ramachandran, R., Bhatta, R., & Selvam, A. (2018). Valuing the carbon sequestration regulation service by seagrass ecosystems of Palk Bay and Chilika, India. Ocean & Coastal Management, 159, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.009

[12] UNCTAD. (2014). The Oceans Economy: Opportunities and Challenges for Small Island Developing States. UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditcted2014d5_en.pdf; Godfrey, S. (2016). Defining the Blue Economy, Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, 12(1), 58-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2016.1175131

[13] Martínez-Vázquez, R. M., Milán-García, J., & De Pablo Valenciano, J. (2021). Challenges of the Blue Economy: evidence and research trends. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00502-1; PIB. (2023, May 19). Scientific challenges and opportunities for a sustainable blue economy discussed at G20 RIIG Conference at Diu. Press Information Bureau. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1925547

[14] Vivekanandan, E., Hermes, R., & O’Brien, C. (2016). Climate change effects in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem. Environmental Development, 17, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.005; Singh, A. (2020, October). Towards an Integrated ‘Blue Economy’ Framework in the Bay of Bengal. Observer Research Foundation.  https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ORF_IssueBrief_411_BIMSTEC-BlueEconomy.pdf

[15] Purohit, M. (2017, November 28). Palk Bay: Trawled and damaged. India Water Portal. https://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/palk-bay-trawled-and-damaged

[16] Amoroso, R. O., Pitcher, R., Rijnsdorp, A., McConnaughey, R. A., Parma, A. M., Suuronen, P., Eigaard, O. R., Bastardie, F., Hintzen, N. T., Althaus, F., Baird, S. J., Black, J., Buhl‐Mortensen, L., Campbell, A. B., Catarino, R., Collie, J. S., Cowan, J. H., Durholtz, D., Engstrom, N., Jennings, S. (2018). Bottom trawl fishing footprints on the world’s continental shelves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(43), 10275-10282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802379115; Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C. L., Hughes, K. M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A., McConnaughey, R. A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J. S., Pitcher, C. R., Amoroso, R. O., Parma, A. M., Suuronen, P., & Kaiser, M. J. (2017). Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(31), 8301–8306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618858114; Marsh, H. & Sobtzick, S. (2019). Dugong dugon (amended version of 2015 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T6909A160756767.en

[17] Selvam, T. A. (2021). A study on Fisheries: Government schemes and support in India. International Journal of Applied Research, 7(8), 241–242. See also Damle, H. (2017, October 23). Financial Analysis of the Blue Economy: Sagarmala’s Case in Point Centre for Financial Accountability. CENFA. https://www.cenfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/blue-economy-financial-analysis.pdf; Singh, A. (2022). Port Development: history, present and future challenges. In Jadhav, P. & Choudhary, R. (Eds.), Infrastructure and Control (pp. 25–34). Springer. See also Barbesgaard, M. (2017). Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1377186

[18] Cummings, G., Greenberg, Z. (2022). Sustainable Tourism in the Context of the Blue Economy. In Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T. (Eds.), Life Below Water (pp. 1-14). Springer.

[19] Thomas, S. (2014). Blue carbon: knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches. Ecol. Econ. 107, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.028; Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E. C., Duarte, C. M., Valdés, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, L., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment. In United Nations Environment Programme. eBooks.

[20] Meridian Institute. (2022). High-quality blue carbon principles and guidance - Meridian Institute. https://merid.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/HQBC-PG_FINAL_11.8.2022.pdf

[21] Sharma, J. (2021, May 30). Enhancing Carbon Sink through Forestry in India. TERI. https://www.teriin.org/project/enhancing-carbon-sink-through-forestry-india

[22] Ramakrishnan, T. (2021, October 8). Palk Bay scheme to get a fillip: Murugan. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/palk-bay-scheme-to-get-a-fillip-murugan/article36901746.ece

[23] Chaitanya, S. K. (2021, September 4). India’s 1st dugong conservation reserve to be in Tamil Nadu. The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2021/sep/04/indias-1st-dugong-conservation-reserve-to-be-in-tn-2354056.html

[24] Reef-World. (2019, March 13). PADI and The Reef-World Foundation embark on a global venture to make sustainable diving the social norm. The Reef-World Foundation. https://reef-world.org/blog/2018/11/23/press-release-padi-and-the-reef-world-foundation-embark-on-a-global-venture-to-make-sustainable-diving-the-social-norm

[25] Eigaard, O., Bastardie, F., Hintzen, N., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Catarino, R., Dinesen, G., Egekvist, J., Fock, H., Geitner, K., Gerritsen, H., González, M., Jonsson, P., Kavadas, S., Laffargue, P., Lundy, M., Gonzalez-Mirelis, G., Nielsen, J., Papadopoulou, N., Posen, P., Pulcinella, J., Russo, T., Sala, A., Silva, C., Smith, C., Vanelslander, B., & Rijnsdorp, A. (2017). The footprint of bottom trawling in European waters: distribution, intensity, and seabed integrity. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(3), 847–865. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw194; Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute. (2023, July 6).  Southampton’s geospatial research informing seagrass conservation spotlighted in UK Geospatial Strategy 2030. University of Southampton. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/smmi/news/2023/07/06-geospatial-research-informing-seagrass-conservation.page