What is the important learning we can focus on for the development of the blue economy? How do we sustain and improve on India’s global position as a leading producer of aquaculture? Key Highlights Since aquaculture was welcomed as a sunrise sector with great potential, we have not been able to develop it as a significant sector enriching the lives of people. It is clear that available laws must be enforced with greater vigour to control unviable and unchecked fisheries and aquaculture. The selection and diversification of candidate species is crucial from an environment perspective, and over-dependence on a particular species has been an obstacle to the growth of aquaculture. The PMMSY targets for 2025 bring hope, but need to be measured against previous targets set, and not achieved. Marine Spatial Planning, training, support, and capacity building of communities are important elements in the management of the blue economy. The selection and diversification of candidate species is crucial from an environment perspective, and over-dependence on a particular species has been an obstacle to the growth of aquaculture. If we stop to consider how important aquaculture is to the Indian economy, it is surprising that it does not feature in the public discourse like other aspects of agriculture or the food supply chain. Our country is second only to China in global aquaculture production, and approximately 74% of India’s fish supply came from aquaculture in 2019-20. While the Covid years impacted aquaculture through the shortage of seeds and feed due to restrictions on transport and movement, subsequent years have shown a return to more robust numbers of production. Beginning in the 90s, aquaculture began to be recognized as a sunrise sector offering huge potential for the Indian economy, and rightly so. After all, with a coastline that has been measured over 11,000 km in 2023-24, as well as ponds, wetland plains and brackish water areas, rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and lakes there are potentially millions of hectares that can be harnessed for the blue economy. However, the initial excitement around this sector has settled down to more sombre reports of the high costs of unchecked growth. Visible Costs of Fisheries and Aquaculture In Andhra Pradesh, the foremost state in aquaculture, damage to the environment is visibly affecting the lives of people in Krishna, East Godavari, West Godavari and Konaseema districts. Contamination of the soil and groundwater with harmful chemicals, salinity affecting crops and the availability of drinking water, allergies and health problems developing from people living in close proximity to shrimp cultivation ponds have all been reported. The problems have become so acute over the years that petitions have been filed with the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by affected villagers, and the Human Rights Forum (HRF) of Andhra Pradesh has been raising awareness among rural people about the harmful effects of unauthorised or illegal aquaculture ponds. One of the contributing factors to this situation is undoubtedly the over dependence on shrimp, which fetches a higher price than fish. This became the most sought-after species for aquaculture in the initial years. It requires brackish water with ten times more salt content than ordinary water, and farmers began sinking borewells up to 50 feet in coastal districts to access more salty water. They also discharged effluent from the aquaculture ponds into drains that irrigated nearby fields. This, plus the ammonia that was released into the air when aquaculture ponds were dredged and cleaned, began affecting the crops in a drastic way. Diseases such as vibriosis, White Spot disease, early mortality (EMS) or epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS) wiped out shrimp harvests and needed to be addressed with strong chemicals that further aggravated the harmful nature of the environmental impact. If the early years of aquaculture had seen a more scientific and regulated approach, with farmers being helped to select stock of diverse species, and understand the importance of Integrated Multi Species Agriculture (IMTA) such harmful effects could have been avoided. “In addition to the environmental impact of aquaculture on coastal land areas, unregulated fishing along our coastline, where not enough attention is paid to the need to protect vulnerable stock of fishes during breeding and growth life cycles, results in the decline of natural stock. ” This affects the availability of fish in the marine environment, impacting the livelihoods of fishing communities. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has highlighted the importance of conserving and managing fish stocks for long term sustainability. Over fishing of some species, and fishing during periods when fish have not yet reached adult sizes harms marine biodiversity. Our policies for fisheries must reflect a strong intent to prevent such a decline in stock and diversity. Regulation Within the Legal Framework All these developments reveal the need for a much more focused and informed regulatory approach to the management of the Blue Economy that will produce the desired results for the land, people, vegetation, wildlife and crops. The laws to regulate aquaculture and fisheries have evolved over the past few decades, but still present loopholes. Aquaculture activities were regulated under the Environment Protection Act (EPA) of 1986 till 2005. This Act classified aquaculture as a prohibited activity within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). Thus, any aquaculture operations in the coastal area required specific permission and were subject to strict environmental regulations enforced by the authorities established under the EPA. Large areas of agricultural land being converted to shrimp farming had led to environmental concerns raised by several Supreme Court rulings. Under the EPA, with the CRZ notification, coastal aquaculture was a restricted and monitored activity. When the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 came into effect, it replaced the EPA, and stipulated that aquaculture must be taken up in designated zones, and wetlands, agriculture fields, salt pan areas, mangroves, forests must be protected. If the provisions of this Act were strictly enforced, it would serve to protect both, the environment, and the aquaculture sector. Instead, corruption and its attendant compromises at each level from panchayat to State

Key Highlights As tensions rise across the Indo-Pacific and law of the sea issues become more salient, we have witnessed more submarine cable cleavages globally, along with new bureaucratic maneuvers by China to slow the laying of submarine cables. The importance of undersea and maritime domain awareness, including enhanced intelligence and cyber capabilities, is seemingly not lost on Japan’s defense establishment. China’s growing maritime presence, especially in the underwater domain, will continue to be a menace for many smaller nations across the region. China’s growing maritime presence, especially in the underwater domain, will continue to be a menace for many smaller nations across the region. In a new era of maritime great power competition, Japan’s government appears to be pushing forward in its growing embrace of the underwater domain through the sponsorship of new initiatives and other programs that bring together various partners and allies from across the Indo-Pacific. As examined below, Japan has invested significantly in recent years in the following two areas tied to underwater domain awareness: Increased regional and international cooperation and capacity building and more funding and support to grow its abilities to secure and monitor submarine fiber-optic cables across the region. Combined, Japan’s latest activities provide excellent examples and a model for other maritime great powers to emulate, especially as China’s maritime presence grows more significant and threatening in the underwater domain. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (or JICA) supported an increase to grant aid programs that provided Coast Guard vessels to like-minded partners and allies. Official Security Assistance (OSA) has only been formally adopted when it was referenced in Japan’s 2022 National Security Strategy (NSS), but the government’s embrace of security assistance has been evolving over the past two decades.[1] Increased Regional and International Cooperation and Capacity Building JICA first approved the donation of some of the first Coast Guard patrol vessels to Indonesia dating back to 2006. (JICA also provided funding to Indonesia in 2005 to stand up its coast guard.) Following the 2013 NSS, the government began to ramp up more of its security assistance programs systematically as it supported additional programming in maritime safety and security amidst a rising China. In 2015, JICA and the JCG donated assets to the coast guards of Djibouti and Vietnam. The six donated ships to Vietnam helped to build up both its Fisheries Surveillance Force and Coast Guard and were part of a larger 500-million-yen aid package dedicated to supporting maritime security. These aid packages were followed by vessel donations to the Philippines in 2016, Malaysia in 2017, Sri Lanka in 2018, and Kenya in 2019. In the Philippines, Japan donated 12 patrol craft, 13 fast boats, and a coastal radar surveillance system—by comparison, Kenya received 17 patrol vessels. In Sri Lanka, JICA financed two fast patrol craft and two offshore patrol boats as part of a recent $180 million package. Japan also regularly donates smaller and less expensive patrol craft, including a recent donation of 24 coastal rescue vessels to the Bangladesh Coast Guard in 2018.[2] In addition to vessel donations, the Japan Coast Guard (or JCG) has been actively involved with joint exercises, trainings, strategic dialogues, diplomatic outreach, and other capacity-building programs with numerous neighboring or regional nations since the late 1990s and early 2000s.  In the Bay of Bengal, Japan’s government has been actively involved with India’s Coast Guard since 2000 as part of its sustained presence across the Indian Ocean. The two nations regularly host the Sahyog-Kaijin exercises that now include the Maldives and Sri Lanka in an observer status. Beginning in 2013, Japan and Sri Lanka also established a Dialogue on Maritime Security and Oceanic Issues, including increased cooperation on maritime law enforcement, search and rescue missions, humanitarian and disaster relief, and environmental protection.[3] Japan’s government has similarly signed multiple memorandums of cooperation (MOCs) with the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, and Vietnam that include high-level meetings and joint maritime exercises. Japan also recently signed a Statement of Intent in 2018 with Australia’s Border Force, which does not have a coast guard or formal maritime law enforcement agency. Certainly, the bilateral relationship with Australia still has much room for growth and improvement. Across ASEAN and Indo-Pacific, the JCG has also begun to deploy Mobile Cooperation Teams (MCTs) to support local coast guards with a variety of capacity-building assistance. The MCT program began in 2017 when it deployed its first team to work with the Philippines Coast Guard. The JCG has since conducted around 15 MCT missions or more to other countries across the Indo-Pacific. The MCTs have also conducted workshops on IUU fishing, criminal investigations, disaster relief, search and rescue, and marine safety.[4] Aside from the MCTs, the JCG recently announced that it will construct a new multi-purpose patrol vessel, its biggest ever at 30,000 gross tonnage and a price tag of $480 million. It would also be the largest in the world, surpassing China’s Coast Guard vessel CCG 5901, the reigning titleholder. Japan’s multipurpose patrol vessel will be able to accommodate up to 1,000 persons and is expected to be ready for commissioning by 2029. International cooperation and collaboration must be recognized increasingly as a core mission of JCG—and will be key to enhancing more underwater domain awareness initiatives.[5] The Growing Importance of Securing Submarine Fiber-Optic Cables One additional component that is pushing Japan to become so vital to maritime security across the Indo-Pacific is the government’s ability to produce, protect, and repair the submarine cables that line the ocean floors. The estimated 540 undersea fiber-optic cables that line the World Ocean are responsible for transmitting more than 95 percent of voice and data traffic. This also amounts to around $10 trillion in financial transactions each day. Anything that disrupts the information and financial flows across these oceanic networks can have significant spillover effects.[6] “As tensions rise across the Indo-Pacific and law of the sea issues become more salient, we have witnessed more submarine cable cleavages globally, along with new bureaucratic maneuvers by China