Opinion – Arju

Thinking about justice and equity in Bangladesh’s fisheries: Where to start?

Early on the night of March 16, 2021, police opened fire on a small fishing boat and killed a young fisherman named Mohammad Masud in the Meghna River. The shots were fired in the river north of Chandpur, the town famous for its well-known trading center of ilish (anglicized as hilsa) – Bangladesh’s most prized fish. Twenty-four-year-old Mr. Masud and his fellow fishermen went fishing during a ban season imposed by the government to protect juvenile ilish. Police said they opened fire in self-defense after the fishermen threw brick chips and attacked the police with sticks (United News of Bangladesh, 2021). When a local journalist went to the home of the deceased Mr. Masud, he found that the family of the poor fisher did not have even a ‘handful of rice’ to feed themselves (Hossain, 2021).

Official estimates tell us that the catch in mixed-species open-water fisheries has been increasing throughout the last decade. Catch in the ilish fishery is also rising; this is the single largest fishery in volume and economic value. Still, fishing families like Mr. Masud’s are either ultra-poor or poor. Fishers go hungry during fishing ban seasons. Armed police, coast guard, and navy patrol the fishing grounds to enforce ban seasons. In recent years, the air force has also conducted aerial surveillance (Ministry of Defence, 2018). During such a ban season in 2020, at least 5533 fishers were jailed (Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, 2020). How did conservation in Bangladesh become so heavy-handed and militarized while the poverty in fishing communities is still proverbial?

Systematic economic and environmental injustices to peasants and fishers date back to the British colonial takeover in Bengal. Exploitation and draining of resources were the main goals of the British colonial authorities. The British East India Company, and later the British monarchy, used a diversity of legal, financial, and trade mechanisms (Mukherjee, 2010) to industrialize England at the expense of the local economy and society in Bengal. To do that, the colonizers uprooted the Indigenous and customary rights to land and environmental commons. The colonial administration took control of water bodies and aquatic commons.

The British East India Company established its new land administration and revenue regime by the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793. It transferred all lands as estates to a newly created small group of Zamindars. Rivers and other open water bodies in or adjacent to such estates were now effectively privatized and part of the estates of these Zamindars. Unlike the previous local revenue collector Zamindars, these new Zamindars had legal proprietorship over the land and virtually no oversight by the civil administration. Without proprietorship and right to public access, the fishers had to pay high rents to the Zamindars and their suzerainty. The absence of tenure rights also diminished the environmental stewardship of fishers.

Later, the colonial administration introduced more legal instruments (Singh & Gupta, 2017), and ultimately there was no public-access fishery in inland and inshore waters. All rivers and open water bodies were divided among Zamindars as their jolmahal (water estate). Only the offshore areas in the Bay of Bengal were an exception. In marine fisheries, the main priority of colonial administration was securing new supply for the urban center of Kolkata (Jenkins, 1911, 1938), the main seat of the British colony in South Asia.

After the colonial empire, we did not see any significant efforts by the independent national government to address distributive and procedural injustice to artisanal fishers. When the British empire was forced out, the newly elected democratic government abolished the colonial Zamindar system and reformed land tenures by enacting a new law, the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. Successive governments have changed land laws to alter provisions related to existing landowners (Jabbar, 1978). But they did not fully implement fundamental and direct tenure reforms to benefit landless people, such as sharecroppers and traditional fishers. To date, there is no process in place to restore the indigenous and customary tenure rights of fishers.

Instead, the national land and revenue administrations took over all jolmahals in rivers and other water bodies previously owned by colonial Zamindars. Officially stated policy of authorities is to lease out jolmahals to fishers. But the government does not invest public funds in fisheries cooperatives, and fishers do not have access to private investment from the formal financial sector. Public agencies responsible for leasing jolmahal lack accountability and transparency. Consequently, in almost all cases, the fishing rights in jolmahals have always been bought by non-fisher investors.

The rent-seeking governance regime in open water fisheries has been continued for decades aggravating distributive injustices to traditional subsistence and artisanal fishers. Sustaining the fisheries and fishing habitats is not a priority of the lessee or the lessor agencies in the government. The fishers have been working as either laborers under lessees who are the owners of small-scale commercial fishing units or earning extraordinarily little as artisanal fishers after paying rents.

In 1986, the national fisheries agency tried to use the New Fisheries Improvement Policy to address access issues of subsistence and artisanal fishers. The fisheries agency started to take control of three hundred jolmahals from the land administration. The officially stated goal was to start leasing those jolmahals out to ‘genuine’ fishers and introduce fishing license for them. But the fisheries agency failed to achieve the goals. Later in 1995, the government abolished all jolmahals in the rivers and streams and effectively introduced riverine open-access fisheries (Thompson & Hossain, 1998). But other jolmahals in floodplains and other wetlands are still in force and still being leased out to date.

Abolishing private-access fisheries in the rivers could have been an opportunity to start working for equity and justice in artisanal fisheries. Newly introduced open access fisheries in the rivers partially improved access for riverine fishers. But there have been no legal reforms to recognize customary tenures of traditional artisanal fishers. The government does not invest in artisanal fishing communities to enable them to secure a fair share of the income from fisheries. As a result, the fishers have been unable to fully use that window of opportunity. Like marine areas – where fishing was open access from the beginning; structural barriers to equity and justice rooted in tenures, local political-economy, and the state’s economic programs also remained the same in riverine fisheries. So, the rural poor have benefitted little from riverine open-access fisheries.

The peasants and fishing communities did not stand a chance against regional and national policy priorities (such as World Bank led Structural Adjustment Programs, and Flood Action Plans) that resulted in degraded and reduced habitats of open water fisheries. For decades, open water fisheries were shrinking due to a wide range of pressures. Reduced water flow in transboundary rivers due to dams, barrages, and diversion of water in the upstream countries also significantly impacted the aquatic ecosystems in Bangladesh. Industrial and agricultural runoffs have polluted the water and impacted water quality. Changes in land use including intensive farming, flood control measures, water infrastructure, draining for agriculture and land development, and encroachment drastically reduced and degraded the habitats of open water fisheries (Ali, 1997). Especially, water engineering including embankments impacted fish biodiversity, population, and unit value of the catch (Halls, 1997).

No efforts have been made to-date to restore and conserve fisheries’ habitats, to stop or mitigate impacts of those external threats to fisheries. Rather, in the wake of shrinking open water fisheries, the government prioritized expanding aquaculture. Wealthy landowners in the rural areas have benefitted from profitable aquaculture expansion that is often responsible for reducing and degrading habitats of open water fisheries in Bangladesh. When in the late nineties, Bangladesh was experiencing a decline in a total estimated catch in open water fisheries including the single largest contributor among the species – ilish – none of these factors were prioritized to address in fisheries management plans. For instance, the Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP) in 2003 was mostly used to establish seasonal no-take zones and ban seasons.

The management plan started with a target to protect jatka (juvenile ilish less than 23 CM in size). Several top-down interventions have been gradually placed since 2003 to increase the ilish catch. These interventions include spatial and temporal restrictions on fishing, limitations on the use of fishing gears and size of ilish at the catch, regulations for fishing vessels, and distributing food-grains as rations among an extremely limited number of fishers during the fishing-ban season.

For the implementation of the conservation measures under the HFMAP, the most notable temporal interventions for the conservation of ilish is two different fishing ban-seasons; one to protect the brood ilish and another to protect the jatka. To protect the brood (mature and about to spawn), there is a 22-days long ban on catching, carrying, transporting, offering, selling, exporting, or possessing ilish fishes in the country; days of this ban period is evenly divided before and after the first full moon of Bengali month of Aswin (usually in October). And the second ban is to protect jatka; the ban is for seven months from November 1 to May 31 every year, during this time, catching, carrying, and selling of jatka (juvenile ilish less than 25 cm in size) is prohibited.

The government relies on heavy-handed enforcement to force subsistence and artisanal fishers to comply with these interventions. The government do not compensate fishers during the fishing ban seasons. Although, in 2004, the authorities have started to distribute limited amount of rice as ration through the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) (Haldar & Ali, 2014). In the absence of any compensation, the authorities implement strict enforcement to force the fishers to comply with fishing ban seasons. For instance, from 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 fiscal year, the mobile courts imposed 2,462 prison sentences and fined 106,509 USD to law-breaking fisherfolks under jatka and brood ilish conservation activities (Md Monirul Islam, Mohammed, & Ali, 2016). The mobile courts are in fact non-judicial summary courts run by ‘executive magistrates’ embedded with law enforcing agencies

All seasonal no-take zones of ilish, aka, sanctuaries are in Ganges and Meghna River systems, and coastal near-shore waters of the Bay of Bengal. There are two declared Marine Protected Areas in offshore waters to protect megafauna species of conservation interest. Planning and designation of these riverine and marine protected areas were done in a way that did not adequately consider social outcomes. Consequently, these protected areas underperforming in ‘effectiveness and social equity’ (M. Mahmudul Islam, 2021). Most of the factors (M. Mahmudul Islam, 2011) behind endemic and proverbial poverty of fishers in Bangladesh can be traced back to the absence of distributive and procedural justice for fishers. Yet, from the beginning of state interventions to govern and manage open water fisheries, the erratic efforts were hardly participatory (Ali, 1997). More than two decades later, that ‘hardly participatory’ approach in fisheries governance has morphed into heavy-handed top-down enforcement-based and increasingly militarized conservation.

The government does not see the well-being of fishing communities as an integral part of sustainability in fisheries. Instead, the authorities are focused on increasing the volume of catch (or ‘production’ as the government says) at any price. Equity and justice for fishers is not a priority of the government as per the existing fisheries policies and plans such as National Fisheries Policy 1988, The Marine Fisheries Act 2020, The Eighth Five Year Plan, and the Workplan for Marine Fisheries Resources Management. The threats to open water fisheries as described by Ali, 1997 are largely unmitigated and still exacerbating the problems in artisanal fisheries. On the other hand, the old pattern of ownership over the means of fishing operations; capital, boats and gears, and other support equipment and infrastructure continues today both in inland and marine fisheries. And now new uses of inland and marine waters in Bangladesh are creating new threats to artisanal fishers. These new uses include unregulated navigation and shipping, sand dredging, rapidly increasing unsustainable economic activity in coastal and marine areas, coastal roads and other mega-infrastructures, military installments, ports, and power plants.

Fishery improvement and enhancement projects failed to remove structural barriers to procedural and distributive justice in the backdrop of such external threats, and systematic deprivation of land rights and tenures of artisanal fishers. For more than a decade, I have been closely observing politics and natural resources governance in Bangladesh. To me, it is clear that, the rural poor whose lives and livelihoods are most intricately related to open water fisheries have very few meaningful democratic ways to change the state’s economic programs and development priorities to change this course. But still, justice in artisanal fisheries is not widely discussed on the national level. For instance, civil society groups are not concerned that fishers are being arrested and jailed after summary trials during fishing ban seasons (Siddique, 2018).

Recently we had a series of conversations on the national level about the need and urgency of environmental justice for artisanal fishers. Late in 2020, I facilitated a series of dialogues about equity and justice in Bangladesh’s fisheries. OXFAM in Bangladesh organized the events as part of the Transboundary Rivers of South Asia (TROSA) program. A significant number of stakeholders – fishers, fisheries managers, fisheries practitioners in NGOs, leaders of civil society organizations, leaders of environmental NGOs, members of the academia, journalists, and other communicators took part in the events.

Although due to public health concerns amid the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, we hosted the events online. And the number of participants was not enough to adequately representing all stakeholders in fisheries. Fisheries are only sustainable when the wellbeing of fishing communities is guaranteed; small-scale fisheries stakeholders are now aware of that. Stakeholders are yet to determine how they can influence related policies to deliver environmental justice for artisanal fishers. In line with those discussions, I am sharing my observations about scenarios in Bangladesh’s small-scale fisheries. I hope these observations will help stakeholders who are willing to engage in policy advocacy for equity and justice for artisanal fishers.

The main strength of fisheries in Bangladesh is small-scale artisanal fishing. Annually, the artisanal fishers bring most of the catch. And these artisanal fishers in Bangladesh are very clear-eyed about what needs to be changed to remove structural barriers to equity and justice in fisheries. The colonial British administration de-commonized open water fishery habitats. And the process of decolonizing water and fisheries governance is yet to run its’ course. The land reform that started with the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 largely excluded restoring customary tenures of traditional artisanal fishers. Abolishing riverine jolmahals in 1995 did not protect the exclusive rights of traditional artisanal fishers. Consequently, the existing water and fisheries governance regime in Bangladesh does not recognize the customary tenure rights of traditional artisanal fishers, or it does not accommodate customary fisheries governance practices.

Influential actors in the development and conservation sectors of Bangladesh consider small-scale fisheries as a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. The fundamental problems with colonial water and fisheries governance and tenure rights are generally not acknowledged. Instead, the dominant narrative is centered on the assumption that SSF is difficult to manage because of data limitations. This narrative also uses wicked problems of SSF as justifications for prioritizing intensive aquaculture (often by encroaching open water fishery habitats) as an alternative to open water fisheries. This is surprising that, in this age and time, many small-scale fisheries researchers and practitioners in Bangladesh still believe in the debunked myth of the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Many often use this narrative to undermine any discussion about the necessity of equity and justice in fisheries. Discussing the futility, irrelevance, and racist roots of the tragedy of the commons myth is something we should do more.

The supposed lack of data should not be a massive challenge. Western science is not the only system of knowing. Despite external adversity and the absence of the policy-support, a small number of traditional artisanal fishing communities still uses local ecological knowledge and wisdom for effective and ecologically sustainable fishing. A few cooperatives of traditional fishers are still functioning even if limited in scopes. But fishers’ knowledge and customary governance practices are not well documented and not reflected in fisheries governance. Facilitating inter-generational learning among fishing communities is also not happening. Positive changes in policy framework and tenures will enable many other fishing communities to revive their indigenous and local fisheries governance system.

At least half of the people in small-scale fisheries are women. Particularly women are leading shore-support in fishing, post-harvest, and processing activities. In the post-harvest sector, particularly in fish-drying yards and shrimp processing plants, women fish-workers work in hazardous conditions with slave-wages risking their health. There is a significant number of women fishers too. But women are not acknowledged as a part of small-scale fisheries in the national public sphere. The government, NGOs, CSOs, and the media exclude women fishers from conversations on fisheries.

Fishers think they are not getting a fair share of income from the river fisheries. The lions’ share of the income in the fisheries sector is going to the traders because they own the capital, and the fisherfolks need to borrow from them to finance fishing operations. Traditional artisanal fishers say that they have valid grievances about corruption in the distribution of food-grain rations for fishers during fishing ban seasons. But in final consideration, they prefer public investment so that they can build and own boats and gears and can self-finance fishing operations. Traditional fishers want abolishing of private-access fishing and reform of open-access fisheries to secure exclusive fishing rights of artisanal fishing communities. On the other hand, fishers who work as laborers in small-scale commercial fisheries want good job opportunities. Because to begin with, they are not formally recognized as laborers and not employed as per the labor laws. But these opinions of fishers are rarely heard in relevant forums. Because almost all the time, people who are not genuine traditional and artisanal fishers get invited to participate in such forums related to fisheries.

There is virtually no representation of traditional artisanal fishers in fisheries governance and management. Small-scale commercial fishers and fish-workers are not represented in the SSF associations. SSF associations are led by and consist of owners of fishing boats and businesses. It is nearly structurally impossible for artisanal fishers in the existing fisheries governance regime. Inclusion of fishers in policy advocacy run by non-government actors for more just and equitable governance is also difficult. Because programs by both government and non-government organizations are designed in a way that in the long-term only suitable for local political leaders, informal moneylenders, fish traders, and owners of commercial fishing units to participate. Both traditional and small-scale commercial fishers lack organizing capacity due to poor economic situations and political powerlessness. Fishers are not enabled to organize at a minimum level that is necessary for the representation.

The public agencies responsible for water, fisheries, and wildlife management are yet to take equity and justice for small-scale fishers seriously. For instance, the fisheries agency – Department of Fisheries does not have any policy framework, capacity, or resources to ensure the participation of artisanal fishers in fisheries policymaking. The volume of ‘production’ is the only success indicator for the Department of Fisheries. Environmental justice is not a mandate for the department, and it has no activity designed to ensure equity and inclusion in fisheries. The fisheries agency is heavily focused on aquaculture expansion. Most of the activities with conservation components are concentrated on the ilish fishery and constrained by project-based time and limited resources.

Fishers say the stories of increased income of artisanal fishers due to ilish conservation is not evidence-based. Because of inflation and the rising cost of fishing trips associated with fuel, engine, boat building, and fishing gears; the net income of fishing families is still decreasing or stagnant in the best-case scenario. The existing temporal measures for ilish conservation did not consider the diversity of fishing gears and indiscriminately ban all fishing gears during ban season even if those gears are not harmful to juvenile ilish. Even after rising catch-effort, if individual fishing units can catch more fish (ilish, for instance) than before, that does not mean more income for them. The distribution of income in fisheries has not changed, and in many cases, is skewed against the artisanal fishers.

These are my observations as a practitioner, but of course, I believe, is helpful to start thinking about environmental justice in Bangladesh’s small-scale fisheries. A better understanding of the current scenario in Bangladesh’s small-scale fisheries is a prerequisite for finding the most suitable leverages for stakeholders to push for changes.

References

Ali, M. Y. (1997). Fish, Water and People Reflections on Inland Openwater Fisheries Resources of Bangladesh. Dhaka: The University Press Limited.

Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha. (2020, November 7). Mother Ilish Conservation Campaign implemented successfully. Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2020/11/07/mother-ilish-conservation-campaign-implemented-successfully

Haldar, G. C., & Ali, L. (2014). The cost of compensation. Transaction and administration costs of hilsa management in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/15522IIED

Halls, A. S. (1997). An assessment of the impact of hydraulic engineering on floodplain fisheries and species assemblages in Bangladesh (University of London). Retrieved from https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/7704/1/Ashley_Stewart_Halls-1998-PhD-Thesis.pdf

Hossain, S. (2021, March 17). Nihoto jele masud er barite ek mutho chal o nei. Daily Star. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/bangla/শীর্ষ-খবর/নিহত-জেলে-মাসুদের-বাড়িতে-এক-মুঠো-চালও-নেই-211257

Islam, M. Mahmudul. (2011). Living on the Margin: The Poverty- Vulnerability Nexus in the Small-Scale Fisheries of Bangladesh. In S. Jentoft & A. Eide (Eds.), Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries (pp. 71–96). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1582-0

Islam, M. Mahmudul. (2021). Social Dimensions in Designing and Managing Marine Protected Areas in Bangladesh. Human Ecology, 49(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00218-z

Islam, Md Monirul, Mohammed, E. Y., & Ali, L. (2016). Economic incentives for sustainable hilsa fishing in Bangladesh: An analysis of the legal and institutional framework. Marine Policy, 68, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.005

Jabbar, M. A. (1978). Land Reform in Bangladesh. In Agrarian Structure and Rural Change. Report prepared for the First FAO World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. (pp. 134–148). Dhaka: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

Jenkins, J. T. (1911). The fisheries of Bengal. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 60(3083), 146–166. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41339946

Jenkins, J. T. (1938). The Fisheries of Bengal — Can They be Improved and Developed? Current Science, 6(8), 373–375. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24204411

Ministry of Defence. (2018). Operation of “Mother Hisla Protection Campaign 2018” by Bangladesh Air Force. Retrieved from Inter Services Public Relation Directorate (ISPR) Website website: https://www.ispr.gov.bd/en/operation-of-mother-hilsa-protection-campaign-2018-by-bangladesh-air-force/

Mukherjee, A. (2010). Empire: How colonial India made modern Britain. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(50), 73–82.

Siddique, E. M. K. (2018). Hilsa watch: Evidence-based advocacy for inclusive fisheries governance across shared Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) river basins. Retrieved from https://cng-cdn.oxfam.org/asia.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/Oxfam-TROSA-Learning-Brief-HILDA-Watch.pdf

Singh, V., & Gupta, S. K. (2017). Modern Acts, Conservation of Fish and Colonial Interest: Inland Fisheries in Mid-Ganga Diara Ecology, India. In A. M. Song, S. D. Bower, P. Onyango, S. J. Cooke, & R. Chuenpagdee (Eds.), Inter-Sectoral Governance of Inland Fisheries (pp. 122–133). Retrieved from http://toobigtoignore.net/research-highlights-1/e-book-inter-sectoral-governance-of-inland-fisheries/

Thompson, P. M., & Hossain, M. M. (1998). Social and distributional issues in open water fisheries management in Bangladesh. Rome.

United News of Bangladesh. (2021, March 16). Fisherman killed during police raid in Meghna river. The Financial Express. Retrieved from https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/national/fisherman-killed-during-police-raid-in-meghna-river-1615884204

AI in Conservation: Communities’ control over the decision-making process

Fishers and honey collectors in the Sundarbans

Imagine a tropical forest region, a seascape or mangroves, where big data on the society and ecology— on biodiversity, the behavior of peoples as individuals and the community— are being collected through data sensing and other methods and used in a larger Artificial Intelligence project. The machine— the computers and so on— will, of course, learn in the process. Still, from the beginning, the decision about what information to acquire and what and how to use that information is decided by specific (human) stakeholders. Gradually machine learning will take its course and will take AI processes forward. AI will acquire data and set rules for data-use to decide about the access to nature by communities about natures’ commons. AI will determine nature conservation and what is not; it will choose where, when, and how to intervene for conservation.

In recent years, several non-governmental organizations based in North America and Europe embraced AI in nature conservation. The plans and actions of these conservation NGOs have significance for communities all across the world. Because narratives promoted by these big NGOs and their work heavily influence policies and resource allocation outside North America and Europe, unfortunately, it appears that conservation groups who have international influence are yet to recognize that AI is an automated decision-making process. None of these groups are addressing the question of communities’ participation in and control over AI. But the success of these NGOs will mean that, in the coming decades, AI will increasingly determine the extent of control over natures’ commons enjoyed by local and indigenous communities across the world.

For instance, the largest association of nature conservation groups— the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is currently drafting its program for the 2021-2024 period. The IUCN has identified Artificial Intelligence as one of the main enablers to achieve its goals related to core program areas. It seems the use of big data, machine learning, and AI is considered the most critical enabler in the future programs of the IUCN. But there’s no word about safeguarding against the autonomous superpower of AI to harm; nothing is mentioned about whether there will be efforts to ensure communities’ participation in AI and communities’ control over big data.

If you take a serious look into the current state of the AI field, you will see that basic premises of discussions on AI in the governance of nature conservation should at least consider the following;

AI is a simulation of the human intelligence process owned and run by big data monopolies that also simulate all human biases and aggravate violation of rights and accelerate injustices.
AI is an autonomous decision-making process that has independent power to harm individuals and communities by violating privacy and other rights and has inherent features to aggravate the current state of global inequality through the unequal distribution of resources.
To date, AI innovations and applications are primarily run and owned by a few big data monopolies. Suppose communities do not have ownership of big data. In that case, AI processes and tools have inherent capacities to be used in the disempowerment of people and to hinder equitable governance of nature’s commons.

Unfortunately, while conservation groups are embracing AI, none of these discussions are present. After decades of community work to secure environmental rights and justice, inclusion, and participation, and establishing the concept of free and prior and informed consent— why is this happening all over again when it comes to AI? I see three main reasons. Firstly, conservation groups consider AI as a mere technological tool that is innovative and can tremendously enhance the operation of nature conservation governance. Secondly, conservation groups fail to recognize that the AI processes are still business products owned by a very few giant corporations with a total monopoly on the powerhouse of AI— the big data. Lastly, conservation groups do not recognize that AI is resource-expensive, and the absence of AI is not necessarily the main challenge for many communities to conserve nature’s commons.

These limitations of big conservation groups’ position about AI should be seriously addressed. Members, supporters, and patrons of conservation NGOs should know better that AI isn’t just an innovative technological tool that state or non-state actors can use to implement nature conservation interventions; it’s much more than that. AI brings a very high level and extent of automation to the decision-making process. It will determine who gets to decide about what interventions are necessary and when and how to intervene.

To date, the main powerhouses of AI— the Big Data are owned by invasive, non-transparent, and unaccountable corporations who have established their monopoly in the business. So, AI has all the inherent biases against marginalized communities in every nation and innate capacities to be used against marginalized communities (e.g., indigenous nations, artisanal fishers, and vulnerable gender groups) whose livelihoods practices offer protection to nature against unsustainable extractive industries. So, without ensuring the democratization of AI, it will be dangerous for vulnerable communities to welcome it in the management of environmental commons to which their life, livelihoods, and cultures are deeply connected. Deployment of AI without securing direct control over the data by communities can undo decades of efforts in environmental justice; and participatory and inclusive governance of nature’s commons.

AI is resources-expensive. Nature conservation management is doable with the less; it will be counter-productive to welcome such a resource-expensive process indiscriminately. The efficiency in nature conservation governance promised by Artificial Intelligence is helpful for indigenous and local communities only if they have the political power, opportunity of direct participation, and authority to control such an automated decision-making process. Imagine artisanal fishers or indigenous communities who aren’t allowed to participate in governance directly. Then outside actors bring AI into the scene without ensuring democratization of the ownership of the big data. In that case, AI will be used to justify injustices against communities.

Conservation groups should make it very clear that when they talk about Artificial Intelligence, big data, data sensing, and machine learning— they recognize AI as a highly automated decision-making process with inherent biases and inherent power to harm communities. Secondly, conservation groups should prioritize democratizing such processes before deploying AI in nature conservation. And lastly, it should be recognized by conservation groups that democratization of AI does not only mean that communities have the right to know or see (access) about what’s going on. Instead, it means communities own the big data, and the communities have total control over the processes related to AI.

Featured Photo: Fishers and honey collectors in the Sundarbans— the largest continuous mangrove forest in the world. Photo by the author.

Integrating SDG14 and Blue Economy into the next Five-Year Plan in Bangladesh

Recently, after being asked by the officials of the Planning Commission in Bangladesh, Professor Dr. Kazi Ahsan Habib of Aquatic Bio-resource Lab at the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, I have submitted a Concept Note about how the government can integrate SDG14 and Blue Economy into the next Fiver-Year Plan. Following is a summary of the Concept Note.

As a highly climate-vulnerable country, Bangladesh needs to focus on building resilient communities. To do that, particularly in Low Elevation Coastal Zones (LECZ), SDG14 targets and Blue Economy offer windows for the public agencies to mobilize resources, as both are the priorities of the public agencies for the last couple of years. But the progress made in the Blue Economy sector is very negligible. It is not even integrated into any long-term plan yet. In this context, the next 8th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) is an excellent opportunity to integrate SDG14 and Blue Economy in national planning.

Healthy coastal and marine ecosystems and protection of biodiversity could be the main powerhouses to build resilient communities through creating new job opportunities and social benefits. There are many options for people-based solutions where it’s possible to do more with less in coastal and marine conservation. So, for Bangladesh, mobilizing resources is not the main challenge. Rather the most important tasks are to building capacity in terms of knowledge, trained human resources, and policies towards integrating Blue Economy into long-term national planning such as the next FYP.

Goal 14 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development,” can be the best available source of framework for a national pathway to incorporate blue economy in the 8th FYP because SDG 14 targets are focused on increasing knowledge and research capacities as well as the transfer of technologies. The public agencies already have a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of SDGs. If necessary, a separate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of Blue Economy can be adopted once setting the targets are done.

Based on recommendations made at the 2nd Marine Conservation and Blue Economic Symposium held in Dhaka in 2017, we think the targets mentioned above should be included in the 8th FYP to progress towards a ‘blue economy’ in Bangladesh.

Major Core Targets: Building an Ocean-literate citizenry and reviving coastal economies through the restoration of ecosystems.

Poverty: To reduce extreme poverty in the coastal region and create good jobs for underemployed populations, resources should be allocated to restore Chakoria Sundarbans and other ecologically collapsed or degraded habitats through private land-owner conservation schemes.

Fisheries: To reduce extreme poverty and offer good jobs through leveraging fisheries sub-sector, first, public investment should be mobilized to make sure that millions of fishers either own their necessary boats and gears or they are employed as fish workers. Secondly, Similar to large-scale industrial fishing, marine commercial fishing also should be recognized as a formal economic sector. Taxations should be extended to it (before that, a classification and certification process need to be completed to identify and classify recreational, subsistence, artisanal, and commercial fishing); and third, initiating the process for sustainable certification of marine industrial fishing with any of the global certification consortium.

Transportation and communication: First, building necessary infrastructures and implementing Ballast Water Management in all seaports. Secondly, ensuring all coastal embankments, roads, and protection infrastructures comply with ‘living shoreline’ standards; third, reclaiming and maintaining the intra-coastal waterways in the central and western coast and the greater Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin areas.

Environmental sustainability: Creation of an autonomous institution to operate a public grant mechanism for coastal and marine research and extension. It will ensure that public agencies have continuous knowledge and community support through the works of a next-generation professional workforce in participatory conservation.

Urban settlements: In light of rising sea levels and extreme weather events, there should be sectorial targets to re-build coastal and riparian urban settlements as ‘Ocean friendly’ using new and modified public and private infrastructures.

Energy and infrastructure: A reasonably ambitious target should be set for marine renewable energy generation.

We hope our proposal will be helpful for the Planning Commission to integrate SDGs and Blue Economy into the 8th Five-Year Plan more effectively. We also call on the Civil Society Organizations, Educational and Research Institutions to work together to help public agencies achieve a sustainable blue economy.

Mainstreaming biodiversity: reasons to be hopeful in Nepal

“Nepal is endowed with all necessary resources for prosperity from vast natural and cultural heritage to social and biodiversity, dynamic and self-reliant people,” these are the words of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and Mr. Prime Minister is totally right. On the occasion of Nepalese new year on April 14, 2018, the PM addressed the nation to outline the “unprecedented momentum to economic development” that government has planned. And here comes the undeniable question of mainstreaming biodiversity into economic and development activities. Is Nepal prepared to mainstream biodiversity into this new national momentum?

To sustain any economic development, we need to consider biodiversity as a part of the diversity of resilience in the society, rather than looking at biodiversity as a merely exploitable resource. As pointed out by Co-chair of Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Dr. Madhav Karki from Nepal during the recent publication of latest regional assessment reports in Medellín, Colombia, at the 6th session of its Plenary, biodiversity has an unfortunate relationship with unsustainable economic development.
Dr. Karki pointed out, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services contributed to the rapid average annual economic growth of 7.6% from 1990 to 2010 in the Asia-Pacific region, benefitting its more than 4.5 billion people. This growth, in turn, has had varying impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The region’s biodiversity faces unprecedented threats, from extreme weather events and sea level rise, to invasive alien species, agricultural intensification and increasing waste and pollution.” The assessment reports up to 45% anticipated loss of habitats and species in the Asia Pacific region by 2050 if business continues as usual. But there is hope also, the assessment reports 22.9% and 5.8% respective increase in forest cover in North-East Asia and South Asia from 1990 to 2015.

And, Nepal can claim it’s part in raising the hope for conservation which is related to forest coverage.

In Nepal, most of the habitats are provided by terrestrial forest and Himalayan range located between 60 to 8848 meters above sea level. Being a landlocked country, local communities heavily rely on forest resources. As a young conservationist based in Nepal, it’s a good thing to report that Nepal still has a national forest cover of 44.7%. It was 39.6% in 1998. Generally, we can consider it as a good indicator for biodiversity, and to my view, it has a lot to do with how local communities treat the forests. Over 1.7 million hectares (about 26 percent) of forests have been managed as community forests in the country. Nepal is a party to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other international conventions related to conservation and management of biodiversity and natural resources. As a state, we are committed to protect biodiversity and enhance environmental protection.

At the same time, direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts on natural systems are intensifying; effects of climate change is putting the habitats under pressure. But the state is not fully prepared to mainstream biodiversity into the national political process, and help the social mainstreaming of biodiversity. In Nepal, we have been practicing community-based conservations tools in conserving biodiversity for more than two decades, and the state has institutionalized many practices. To include local communities in the natural resource management, there are very strong rules and regulations in place. Successive governments have been strengthening relevant legal structures by formulating different instruments such as Community Forest Directives 1995, Scientific Management of Forest Guideline 2014, Buffer Zone Management to enable local communities stewardship of biodiversity. The main instruments in the forest management regime, namely Nepal Forest Act 1993, and Forest Regulations 1995 also accommodate many provisions for participation by local communities.

Overall these regulations have helped to strengthen community-based biodiversity and sustainable forest management and the rights and responsibilities of participating communities. But still facilitating the implementation of these policies are not considered as a priority by the state and we see the reflection of that in the national budget. Not only poor allocation of the budget is a hindrance, but lack of prioritization also been reflected in the activities of different line agencies of the government who oftentimes fail to coordinate among themselves.

As we see it, in Nepal, major challenges to mainstream biodiversity into the state are political instability, uninformed policies and leadership, and knowledge gaps. Information about the importance of biodiversity is not prioritized in the formal education sectors. In the societal spheres, inequitable access to conservation benefits, lack of economic alternatives to ecosystem goods, lack of environmental communication, cultural-religious factors that influence local communities’ behavior in ways that impact biodiversity are the major challenges.

Local communities oftentimes take part in activities of Community-Based Anti-Poaching Unit, Buffer Zone committee etc. On the other hand, the challenges they face in terms of their livelihoods are huge. For instance, wild animals destroy the agricultural farms of the villagers residing near the forest. This type of human-wildlife conflict is seen in most of the buffer zones of the forest. But effectively reducing HWCs through developing alternative sources of income for the communities are not prioritized on a national level. Although government and development partners say, they are on the path to support local community to earn their livelihood through appropriate livelihood methods.

What brings us hope is that we are aware of the future that the Nepalese society is vying for; which will base on the social justice and peace.
Nepali society is vertically and horizontally stratified, vertically in terms of caste, class, and gender and horizontally in terms of religion and culture. But now slow change is happening and the discrimination and stratification are just limited to very remote and rural areas where the messages of a modern ‘national imaginaries’ and formal education has not reached yet. We believe Nepali society is flexible and the systems and cultural practices are blended according to the comfort of the people. Nepali culture too promotes love for animals and plants, and in Hindu culture, some animals, plants, rivers are sacred.
So, we think in new path towards a nation of diverse and resilient communities, if biodiversity is mainstreamed into the economic policies on national level and reflected in the budget of central and local governments, it will not be very difficult to find workforce in the forest communities who are willing to be the stewards of biodiversity and sustainability.

Particularly, we have one other strong reason to be hopeful; as per the demographics, youth population from 16-40 years counts to around 40% of the total population in Nepal. If you add the population below 16 too, then the percentage comes to about 70%. Hence, there are huge prospects of change if this generation moves on the right track. The flexibility, widened boundary of thoughts, access to social media are some of the values induced socially, culturally among the Nepali youths, which I consider as preparedness for social mainstreaming of biodiversity. If this young population is given access to satisfactory education and minimum resources, they will find their way to contribute to sustainability and conservation.

Dipesh Gurung is a environmentalist based in Nepal. Currently he works as a Program Officer at Environmental Camps for Conservation Awareness. He can be reached via dipeshgurung03 at gmail dot com

Is Blue Economy a threat to climate, community, and wildlife?

Whose Blue Economy? Questions of climate, community, and wildlife

Let’s be honest about this; throughout the last three years, I’ve been writing on the theme of ‘Blue Economy’ and its relation or lack thereof with conserving marine and coastal ecosystems, wildlife, and the communities. I mean, I was telling the same story on different occasions to the different audience and of course with new contexts and characters again and again. So, the chance was very slim that, they’re going to be anything totally new in this piece. But there is now, a lot. It’s because in the first couple of months of this year we’ve seen some important developments within the Bangladesh government agencies.

The latest in the series is establishing the Blue Economy Cell under the Energy, Power and Mineral Resources Ministry. The mandate of the Blue Economy Cell includes explorations of off shore fossil fuel and deep sea mining. In contrast to the globally accepted norms and principles of sustainability, the government has taken the position that extraction of marine resources and industrializing the coastal region are the main tenants of building a new economic sector which it describes as a ‘sustainable’ economy.

In these times of changing climate, when a total collapse of coastal ecosystems, declining biodiversity, and dwindling fisheries have left millions of coastal people without nature’s service and benefits and exposed them to soaring sea and salinity; the government’s new approach to Blue Economy is certainly scary. We all know how unsustainable coastal development and the maritime economy is responsible for degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity loss, and let me convince you about how this ‘extractive’ blue economy in Bangladesh will make the situation worse for both the human and wildlife along the coast and in the sea.

Communities suffering from fossil fuel driven economy and industrial food production

Since 2012, I’m traveling across the coastal region very frequently. Let’s take the east coast as an instance. If you travel from Chittagong to Teknaf, either by the beach or through the mangroves and hills, when approaching the sea through Bangladesh’s southernmost localities, stories of vulnerable communities and threatened diversity of life in a densely populated coast will gradually unveil them before you. You’ll pass through water and soil salty enough for destroying agriculture, you’ll meet communities taking boat journeys across the ocean for a ‘paying job’ and finally the hilly roads will take you to the Bay of Bengal where the fishesh are disappearing.

Global warming induced sea level rise and more frequent extreme weather events are already making life measurable here in one of the world’s most densely populated countries. On the hill; shrub, coarse grasses and bamboos have taken place of degraded forests. These hills originally were covered by Dipterocarp forest. Deforestation continues, mainly due to illegal logging and agriculture. Farming for betel-leaf, betel-nut, and banana is dominant in the hills and forest lands. Farming increases the risk of soil erosion on the hill slopes. The hills were extensively drained by creeks and small waterfalls, but now, during monsoon when heavy rainfall continues the saturated hill soils are prone to landslides causing deaths and damage to properties.

Communities living here in the tidal floodplains and low hill ranges are largely affected by degradation of mangroves, beach and dune systems. Mangroves are largely degraded and deforested, the total Chakoria Sundarban forest is gone but the bare mud flats and the inter-tidal zone still provides ground for crab fishing to hundreds of families here. Overall dependence on marine-fishing has decreased rapidly. Bombay duck, Greenback mullet, Gold-spotted grenadier anchovy, Ramcarat grenadier anchovy, Tongue soles, Bigeye ilisha and Pama croaker traditionally formed the main catch. Fishers say it seems that these fishes aren’t available now in nearshore shallow areas they usually fish in. They now need to go too far off shore which they can’t due to lack of the seaworthy boats. Due to intermittent floods and salinity intrusion, agriculture, aquaculture or salt farming is also very difficult now.

At least one in every six families here have a member currently working in ‘Melesia’ (as they pronounce ‘Malaysia) as ‘undocumented’ and illegal migrant workers. And of course, they’ve traveled to Malaysia by mechanized boats evading the reluctant eye of Bangladeshi border guards and with the help of Burmese and Thai corps in most cases. Most of the family I’ve encountered is happy in this regard because they say migrant workers are sending home a good amount of money. How they use the money from Malaysia? Back home the family can afford school for their kids or build a new boat with a hope that there are more fish in the sea, which is not the case in the most instance as it turns out. But still, all they have got is the sea.

Unfortunately, the sea is losing the habitats and the diversity of life it used to host. The only coral ecosystem in the Bangladesh’s waters around Saint Martin’s Island is almost lost. Unsustainable fishing and tourism are killing important marine wildlife such as Sharks and Sea Turtles. As we know, the sea turtles and top predator sharks play important role in the marine ecosystem. Cox’s Bazar, once the world longest beach used to see nesting of mother turtles in thousands, now it came down to few dozen annually. The nesting beaches are almost lost to coastal development; the last remaining part of the beach is being encroached by a under-construction road dubbed as the Marine Drive. Threatened species of sharks are being caught indiscriminately, the local population of this top predator of the ocean is not managed as a fishery nor protected as wildlife in Bangladesh. Land and vessel based pollution is rampant which in conjunction with the global warming and ocean acidification has sucked out the dissolved oxygen from a huge part of the Bay of Bengal, as a recent study shows. The study published back in January in the science journal Nature Geoscience reveals a new ‘dead zone’ appears to be emerging in the Bay of Bengal, in waters extending from 100m to 400m in depth.

Better standard of life on the lands largely depends on a healthy sea, so how’ll be living for Bangladeshi people on a dead sea? If we do not change the course of our economic activities, the environmental degradation and climate vulnerability which are common throughout the total coastal region will get worse. An estimated 40 million people in coastal Bangladesh, crammed into the world largest river delta. Under the huge pressure of Ocean acidification and pollution, the sea is not only failing to serve the communities but becoming dangerous and unpredictable also with more frequent extreme weather events.

Unsustainable economy, ecological collapse and climate vulnerability

With less than 1oC of global warming, the loss, and damages from frequent cyclones, floods, salinity intrusions, and droughts are mounting for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people in the Bengal delta. People are losing their lives and livelihoods. On May 27, 2009, cyclonic storm Aila sustained only three minutes but ‘resulted in 190 fatalities and at least 7,000 injuries across the Khulna and Satkhira Districts. Across 11 of the nation’s 64 districts, approximately 600,000 thatched homes, 8,800 km (5,500 mi) of roads, 1,000 km (620 mi) of embankments, and 123,000 hectares (300,000 acres) of land were damaged or destroyed.’ The damage estimated was $295.6 million (2009 USD). The loss and damage of such a scale were for the second time in two years. Just in November 2007, At least 3,447 deaths have been reported from the cyclone Sidr, with total damages came close to $450 million.

This interface of the unsustainable economy, ecological collapse and climate vulnerability could have been avoided if the nations of the world, as well as Bangladesh, followed the approach of Green Economy that is ‘decoupling environmental degradation from development’. But the most striking irony is, the policy makers of the world’s one of the most climate vulnerable country- Bangladesh are still pursuing the process of traditional unsustainable development in the name of ‘Blue Economy’. While the inception and gradual developments of the idea of blue economy testify that it is, in fact, the green economy’s latest version customized for coastal and marine areas, recent developments in the government of Bangladesh shows no indication of this understanding. Things like dirty coal or destructive tourism in critical coastal ecosystems were not even supported by the green economy approach, but the government is now trying to justify a coal-based energy policy and unsustainable coastal mega-infrastructure spree in the name of blue economy.

It is important to note that, ‘blue’ is the new ‘green’ and that not every maritime economic activity is to be considered as ‘blue’. The United Nation’s framework on Blue Economy and the World Wildlife Fund’s Principles for a Sustainable Blue Economy is pretty clear that blue economy is not a synonym for the maritime economy. This hustle and bustle about the blue economy in Bangladeshi bureaucracy started during the time of maritime boundary dispute resolution with neighboring Myanmar and India. After the verdict of ITLOS, exploring offshore fossil fuel and leasing blocks to Big Oils became hassle free. But importance on the extraction of fossil fuel or deep sea minerals or promoting more destructive tourism practices (allowing vessels in the coral ecosystem of St. Martin’s Island for instance) is not a positive gesture for sustainable or at least environmentally passive maritime economy.

For a more nuanced understanding of blue economy approach, Bangladeshi policy makers should take a look at the much-acknowledged book ‘The Blue Economy’. The author Gunter Pauli puts the principle of this approach ‘Nature evolved from a few species to a rich biodiversity. Wealth means diversity. Industrial standardization is the contrary’. As the ocean is the main regulator of our planet’s climate system, the idea means and includes protection of marine ecosystem and diversity of life, so that the oceans, the lungs of our planet can operate normally, and support livelihoods for the global population with its ecosystem services and benefits.

Prospects and challenges for ‘blue’ Blue Economy

The government should follow globally acknowledged frameworks and principles to bring sustainability in maritime economic activities and any other development project in coastal areas. They have got really nice and easy way to do that; that is the leading international instrument to incorporate sustainability as the main mantra of development- the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Total 169 targets under 17 goals are meant to guide the transition of development towards sustainability for next 15 years. Among them goal 14 deals about Ocean, it is titled ‘Conserve and sustainability use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’.

As a goal making exercise, nations and other interest groups came together, discussed new goals and adopted them. It is more or less suitable to act as an ‘accountability standard’ for nations’ journey towards sustainable development. The UN and other inter-governmental bodies will devise strategies facilitate capacity building; mobilize financial mechanisms to help the nations in achieving the targets. Particularly, SDG 14 stressed on increased scientific knowledge and research capacity as well as the transfer of marine technology, which will enhance the capacity of countries like Bangladesh in marine science and technology.

Once scrutinized according to local pretext and needs, Ocean SDG can be standard of accountability for Bangladesh’s own quest towards marine conservation and blue economy. On a national level, Bangladesh needs to scrutinize the targets to set priorities, to determine, on what targets we need to do more work before we may proceed. Considering present scenario and status of Bangladesh’s coastal and marine social-ecological systems the priority areas for investment should be; restoring marine and coastal ecosystems, science-based management of sustainable marine fisheries, significantly reducing land-based marine debris and nutrient pollution and ensuring full access to marine resources to small-scale artisanal fishers. These are the sectors where Bangladesh still is in need for policy and strategy formation before starting work.

National Environment Policy, National Fisheries Policy, Coastal Zone Policy, Biosafety Guidelines of Bangladesh and National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) 2015-2020 should be revamped according to the demand of Ocean SDG. In addition, we need to devise appropriate strategies, policy frameworks and National Program of Action (NPoA) regarding Ecosystem Restoration, promoting community-based cooperative enterprises in deep sea fishing, Fishing Monitoring and Regulation, Bycatch reduction, Marine Debris and Nutrient reduction, Ballast Water management and prevention of Invasive Aquatic Species.

We need to restore marine and coastal ecosystems in appropriate cases and establish sustainable management. Chakoria Sundarban and Coral colonies of St. Martin’s Island are among coastal and marine ecosystems of Bangladesh which are totally degraded and requires restoration works. Due to lack of scientific research and survey, we are not sure about the extent of our marine subsystems which are degraded to the level that they ceased to provide ecosystem service and benefits, hence need restoration. Identifying the subsystem in the bay of Bengal and coastal water and delineating their boundary for further conservation management should be the priority. A NPoA is a good point to start with.

A science-based management plan for sustainable marine fisheries is the second important target to achieve. Assessment of marine fish stock and determining Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by intensive field investigation is the starting point in this process. Management plans should be triggered by proved Stock and MSY. The amount of discarded bycatch, especially from Shrimp trawling, need to be significantly reduced (at the present the bycatch ratio is 8:1). Bottom Trawling and Shrimp trawling can be considered for an extended temporary ban, given the damage to juvenile fish populations, predator loss, marine mammals and turtles, seabed communities and fin-fishes. Marine Fisheries Ordinance and Rules of 1983 need to be amended to meet the demands of improved management. Coordination between government agencies and private sector should be institutionalized for full observation of Bangladesh Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing.

Protecting reserve in at least 10 percent of marine and coastal area based on scientific information is needed to be achieved also. It’s a tricky one. If one can just decide not to consider ‘based on scientific information’ part, protecting the reserve is then just a matter of declaring a reserve and increase the ‘percentage’ in the paper, which was done before in Bangladesh. To initiate the process of effective reserve protection Bangladesh needs standardization of protected area categories according to IUCN standard. A policy framework for planning, establishing, managing and evaluating the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) which will include ‘reserve’ as a category needs to be drafted. Instead of depending on anecdotal reference or legends, the whole process of triggering MPAs should be scientific research.

Significantly reducing marine debris and nutrient pollution demands the establishment of efficient solid waste management, recycling and organic agriculture and less importance on aquaculture. From policy aspect, we have an advantage in this regard as we already have our Marine Pollution Ordinance 1977 and NPoA for Reducing Land-Based Marine Pollution. To adjust with the demand of SDG 14 we just need to amend these instrument to address the requirements of the survey, monitoring and removal of marine debris, reducing micro-plastic pollution by consumer products and other industrial waste, vessel based pollution like ballast water and Invasive Aquatic Species.

Ensure full access to marine resources to small-scale artisanal fishers is the most important part to make the marine fisheries sector more inclusive. Legalization of huge fleets of artisanal fishing boats should be the first priority. An institutional form of coordination between Department Fisheries and Marine Mercantile Department of Department of Shipping to run registration and licensing activity is the first step. In the long term, ways to motivate, facilitate and promote small-scale artisanal fishing cooperatives in deep sea fishing can be an effective process to transfer more access and control to coastal communities over their natural resources.

While SDG is the main mantra of sustainability now, the base-rock of sustainability is ‘going local’. Globally it is evident that management of natural resources is more effective when the responsibility rests on the local community. Participatory research and locally-led conservation efforts should be the guiding approaches for policy reorganization for bringing sustainability in maritime economic activities. To facilitate the transition, not only the resources for climate mitigation and adaptation but the development budget under the government’s Blue Economy initiative also need to be solely invested in restoring and protecting coastal and marine ecosystems.