Editorial

Since its inception, the Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, has been envisioned as being eclectic in scope, providing publication space to interdisciplinary research on wide-ranging issues related to the maritime domain including geopolitics, maritime security, climate change, blue economy and ocean governance. The contents of the current issue of the JIOR, published in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, illustrate a complex reality in the Indian Ocean region today; namely the juxtaposition of the urgent imperative of community centric, ecologically sustainable and socially just development of the Indian Ocean maritime space, in the new epoch of the ‘Anthropocene’, ‘described as a dangerous and unpredictable era in which fossil-fueled ways of life undermine the planetary systems on which human societies depend’ (Lövbrand et al., 2020, p. 1), and renewed assertions of classical geopolitical competition and rivalries among the major powers of the Indo-Pacific (Chaturvedi, 2020).

It has been rightly noted that,

Sustainability is a complex matter. Economic development models, the world food supply, nature conservation, poverty reduction or distributive justice – all these aspects play a part in the sustainability debate. Looking back into the past, however, it is evident that the individual themes were often considered in isolation from one another and studied separately. Depending on the historical situation, certain questions took precedence, and others were put on hold until they in turn had become urgent. (IOI, 2015, p. 12)

A common, crosscutting message that appears from most of the contributions to this issue of JIOR is that, while retaining the elasticity of scale and sensitivity towards ontological plurality, we need a holistic-systemic approach towards maritime affairs and challenges in the Indian Ocean region that captures linkages, interplays, intersections, spillovers and entanglements.

More than two decades ago, Lewis and Wigen (1999) had discussed wide ranging implications of ‘shifting the maritime realm from the margins to the center of discussion’ and thereby recentering the focus on ‘world’s major seas into focus as lively zones of contact (and conflict)’. This in turn, they pointed out, had revealed the ‘role of littoral societies, not merely as the peripheries of one or another territorial civilization but as diverse, cosmopolitan communities in their own right.’ At the same time, ‘designating maritime basins as the locus of attention’ had acted as a catalyst for bringing researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds together in innovative collaborative projects (Lewis & Wigen, 1999, p. 165).

The JIOR, mindful of the usefulness of bottom-up, community-centric approaches to maritime domain and fast multiplying ecologically insensitive and unsustainable uses and abuses, remains in search of more such interdisciplinary contributions. This issue of JIOR opens with a thought-provoking article by Sengupta, ‘The oceans as new regions: emerging narratives and the Bay of Bengal’, who persuasively argues in support of approaching ‘region-ness’ in ‘aqua-political’ rather than geopolitical terms. This in turn, she argues, requires new geo-spatial imaginations and a new vocabulary of international relations. Against the backdrop of changing geopolitical equations and shifting alliances in the Indo-Pacific –‘one of the geo-oceanic systems’– she meticulously maps out the emerging multifaceted contours of the Bay of Bengal as a ‘new’ region with associated regional organizations such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Her key argument is that the maritime turn in ‘Area Studies’ is graphically evident in the manner in which delimitation of certain ocean spaces as ‘natural regions’ is taking place. Those interested in the problematic of binary imaginations of space are likely to find Sengupta’s appeal for ‘newer imaginations where oceans emerge as significant to strategic and economic understanding of the global system as continental spaces’, thought-provoking.

On 24^th September, every year, the World Maritime Day is celebrated globally, under the auspices of International Maritime Organization (IMO), to remind diverse stakeholders of the maritime domain and humanity at large that ocean is a medium that forces us to think differently about the concepts of sovereignty, security and sustainability. The overarching central theme of this year’s Maritime Day (24^th September 2020), ‘Sustainable Shipping for Sustainable Planet’, invites academic and policy attention to how COVID-19 pandemic could also serve as a catalyst for cross-sector, sub-regional, regional and international cooperation.

In keeping with this, the next article by Kularatne, ‘Sri Lanka’s legal framework for marine pollution control: an evaluation of the Marine Pollution Prevention Act, No. 35 of 2008’, invites attention to the imperative as well as the challenge of meeting obligations under international conventions/instruments dealing with marine pollution through domestic legislation, agencies and policies. Inviting attention to Sri Lanka’s location along key shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and heavy traffic passing through its EEZ and visiting its ports, the article provides a meticulously researched assessment of Sri Lanka's Marine Pollution Prevention Act No. 35 of 2008 –administered by the Marine Environmental Protection Authority (MEPA)– for protecting Sri Lankan waters from pollution. Kularatne identifies the major weaknesses in the existing provisions, including those aimed at imposing criminal and civil liabilities for offenders, to effectively control pollution from ships, harbors/ports, facilities used by ships and offshore petroleum exploration projects. He further draws attention to relative neglect of land-based sources of pollution, and the need to address unclear provisions for ballast water disposal. The concerns and questions raised in this article and recommendations offered have relevance beyond the shores of Sri Lanka and call for more such critical assessments in other parts of the Indian Ocean region.

The concept of Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has slowly but surely invited the attention of both scholars and policy makers for reasons that are increasingly becoming obvious and compelling. As pointed out in a recent major study focusing the past, present and future of maritime/marine spatial planning (Zaucha & Gee, 2019, vii), a number of critical questions demand and deserve answers:

… what is the relationship between MSP and the ecosystem approach to marine management? Is MSP contributing to the sustainable development of the ocean? How inclusive are MSP processes in practice? Other challenges are emerging at the intersection of theory and practice, such as how to account for the social benefits of MSP or various understandings of spatiality. Questions have also been raised regarding MSP as a form of ‘ocean grabbing’.

These questions are important no doubt but it appears highly unlikely that similar answers would be forthcoming from diverse regions, sub-regions, state and non-state actors and agencies.

In the light of above, needless to say, the need of the hour is meticulously researched ‘case studies’ that capture diverse perspectives, priorities and experiences in MSP in the Indian Ocean region. The article by Mannan, Nilsson, Johansson and Schofield, ‘Enabling Stakeholder Participation in Marine Spatial Planning: The Bangladesh Experience’, is a timely and seminal contribution by some of the leading experts in the field. It pluralizes the concept of MSP, highlights its diverse temporal and spatial aspects, underlines the critical importance of stakeholder engagement early in the process, and illustrates its usefulness for Bangladesh in harnessing Blue Economy potential. As Bangladesh works out its MSP in the cove-shaped Bay of Bengal, through institutionally integrated stakeholder participation, minimising potential for conflict and maximizing prospects for both inter-sectoral –fisheries, ship recycling, shipbuilding, shipping, oil and gas exploration, tourism, wind energy and military– and inter-agency cooperation will remain a key challenge. Bangladesh, by locating MSP within her larger national vision and strategy could strike a balance between economic dividend and sustainable use, and thus contribute to building trust and cooperation among countries of South Asia.

The next article by Rasowo, Orina, Nyonje, Awuor and Olendi, ‘Harnessing Kenya’s Blue Economy: Prospects and Challenges’, offers a critical examination of the prospects of Kenya’s pursuit of Blue Economy. While Kenya –-with a coastline of about 640 kilometers, area of territorial waters of 9700 km² and EEZ of 142,400 km— is gearing up to harness the huge potential of Blue Economy, the authors argue that it cannot be harnessed unless there is investment in human resource development, capacity building, marine education/training, and marine scientific research. Conspicuous by its absence, the authors note, is marine spatial planning to steer Kenya through its pursuit of Blue Economy, enabling integration of various policies and actions in key sectors including fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, blue biotechnology, ports and shipping. The authors also note how the COVID-19 crisis needs to be factored in when creating plans for blue economy growth. The authors also delve into various problems which need to be resolved; such as the problem of IUU fishing, and maritime boundary disputes, especially with neighbouring Somalia.

Against the backdrop of fast degrading marine ecosystems of the world ocean and increasingly felt need for establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the article by O’Leary, Goodman, Tuda, Manchumu and West, ‘Opportunities and challenges in achieving co-management in Marine Protected Areas in East Africa: a comparative case study’, explores the value and possibilities of using community engagement in co-managing MPAs. Casting a comparative perspective, the authors examine the management principles and practices of two reserves –the Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve in Kenya and the Mafia Island Marine Park in Tanzania– and argue that integrating communities and community leaders in decision making, could facilitate building improved co-management regimes irrespective of their diverse geographical locations. The article offers useful insights that could be usefully learnt by policy makers interested in establishing MPAs in other parts of the Indian Ocean Region and beyond, including the need to ensure adequate human and financial resources, community capacity building, strong social networks, and participatory government regimes in which communities are involved in participatory monitoring and enforcement.

In his editorial to the special issue of JIOR on ‘Africa and the Indian Ocean’, Timothy Doyle (2013, p. 133) had succinctly remarked, ‘Africa, with its rich natural beauty and resources, its diverse and vibrant cultures, and its resilient and inspired peoples, will increasingly play a pivotal role in the future of the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean region.’ Scholars from Africa are in the forefront of new geopolitical thinking and theorizing about management and resolution of maritime conflicts. The article by Kadagi, Okafor-Yarwood, Glaser, and Lien, ‘Joint management of shared resources as an alternative approach for addressing maritime boundary disputes: The Kenya-Somalia Maritime Boundary Dispute’, proposes an innovative joint management approach for resolving the Kenya-Somalia maritime boundary dispute which is currently being litigated in the International Court of Justice. They briefly explore the history of the Kenya-Somalia dispute and its geopolitical and socioeconomic implications. Underlining the value of a joint management approach to resolving maritime boundary disputes, the authors focus on the case of fisheries, which are ‘significant drivers of community livelihoods’, providing socioeconomic benefits to millions in both the countries. Needless to say, developing a conciliatory framework through joint management approach to straddling fish stocks and fishing by Kenya and Somalia will enhance the prospects of both the livelihood security of their coastal communities and better diplomatic relations between the two countries. Developing such a framework also has relevance for other countries facing overlapping maritime claims and disputes in the IOR.

This edition of JIOR concludes with two fascinating book reviews. Shivshankar Menon, in his insightful review of Medha Bisht’s seminal study, Kautilya’s Arthashastra: philosophy of strategy provides a number of thought-provoking reflections in response to the question raised by the author: ‘why has the Arthashastra been ignored or pushed to the margins of international IR scholarship for so long?’ The review by Vivian Louis Forbes of the volume edited by Jonathan Fulton, Regions in the Belt and Road Initiative, highlights the two key questions addressed by various case studies: ‘what are the domestic political and economic drivers impacting the level of BRI cooperation?’ and ‘how has the response of countries to China’s BRI overtures varied by level of development?’

A heart-warming trend –graphically revealed by diverse disciplinary and geographical locations of contributors to JIOR over the years—is interdisciplinary collaborative research on baskets of issues that relate not only to the Indian Ocean but the World Ocean at large. We would continue to welcome, encourage and meticulously nurture this trend.