Integrated Coastal Zone Management For Lasbela and Gwadar

Lately, Think Tanks in Islamabad are getting concerned over Pakistan, becoming a maritime nation offering solutions through policy advocacy and economic analyses. Coastal tourism, business parks on the ports, and strategic investments in the marine resources have occupied the front pages. A specific aspect, so overlooked and indeed was for a long time denied real importance, is the management of the coastal belt as an integrated land-sea interface.

The coastal belt of Balochistan makes up more than 70% of the country’s total 1,001 kilometers long coastline. When development work started on the coast under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the multiple stakeholders with competing interests in the project and mainly, their management emerged out as a flaw. The southern coastal logistics business zone, among major cooperation areas of CPEC, aims at collaborating in fisheries, coastal tourism, and connectivity infrastructure between Gwadar and Karachi that have to pass through the coastal tehsils of Gwadar and Lasbela. Yet, it has not figured out ‘autonomy’ at local, provincial, and federal levels, the control over coastal and marine resources, and management within the 12 nautical miles and beyond. Which sector does what, where, and how? Who is answerable on the affairs of the coast? And all the controversies of it, with on-going militancy, brewing, sporadic, but present among the coastal population with a narrative of absolute control on land and sea resources of Balochistan.

In the port city of Gwadar, when the Eastbay Expressway project temporarily blocked the access of fisherfolk to their traditional beach and marine waters, the media was head over heels calling CPEC “development in reverse”. Issues inherent to the coastal region and similar to other marginalized parts of the country were projected out of disproportionally. However, all it requires an integrated approach from the beginning to look into multi-layered processes. For instance, for an amateur criticist, he must ask (i) who the executing agency of the project is? (ii) who is the sponsoring agency? (iii) whose jurisdiction the plan area comes under? (iv) Who was the contractor? An ambitious one might ask, who were everybody else during the bidding process? And (v) who signed the contract?

There are issues of jurisdiction when the authority is a federal subject, but the area is the property of the local government. The Gwadar Development Authority (GDA) at the same spot with Gwadar Port Authority (GPA) are tasked with roles not so related and are subject to different jurisdictions. For instance, under the 2002 Gwadar Master Plan, the port area, the beach, and the free zone were the jurisdiction of GPA, meaning the Ministry of Maritime Affairs because the port is a federal subject. The contract of the port design was awarded to Fourth Harbor Design Institute, a Chinese company, and the port operator was a subsidiary of another China Overseas Port Holding Company. For the Eastbay Expressway project, GPA was the sponsoring agency. Therefore, when fisherfolk organized sit-ins against the construction of Eastbay Expressway, GDA could never have intervened.

The federal government can legislate on the matters of ports, harbors, maritime navigation, carriage of goods and passengers by sea, and even port quarantine. When the fisherfolk demanded structural changes in the port development plan, the only authority, except for Chinese, was the federal government to address their grievances. As far as the illegal trawling is concerned, the provincial as well as the federal government, are responsible for policymaking. Because trawlers operate in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. At the national and international level, coordination and management of fisheries and other living resources beyond the territorial waters are the responsibility of the federal government. Inland fisheries, fishing in the territorial waters and aquaculture, the management of provincial fish harbors, are the responsibility of the provincial government.

Lately, the Ministry of Ports and Shipping has been renamed as the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and working on getting together an inter-ministerial committee to collaborate on maritime affairs. Such a framework is part of the broader scheme of management and planning that is Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). In Pakistan, the umbrella policy and legal framework are absent on ICZM. The Maritime Policy of Pakistan (2002) serves only an honorary mention while the Constitution recognizes integrated management of environmental pollution and ecology under the concurrent list and the exploitation of minerals, oil, and gas. The Balochistan Coastal Development Authority is the only area-specific statutory body established in 1998, which emphasizes the role of ICZM. However, it suffers a lack of funding and even the presence of a skeleton staff.

The experts blame the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment to give control to the provinces in matters of the coastal belt. While in reality, on the ports and harbors and anything that might benefit financially the local government, goes to the political elites at the center. When it is argued that autonomy is not a demon, there is a cure to such paranoia of hyper totalitarianism. The United Nations Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992 kick-started the idea of ICZM, and Food and Agriculture Organization framed a comprehensive manual that made way into the national agendas of many countries. The European Commission defines ICZM as a dynamic, multidisciplinary, and iterative process to promote sustainable management of the coastal region. It requires planning in the implementation, management, and decision making processes. ICZM uses the informed participation and cooperation of all stakeholders, particularly the coastal communities, to assess the societal goals in a given coastal region and to take action towards meeting these objectives. At the same time, it seeks to balance environmental, economic, social, cultural, and recreational objectives, all within limits set by natural dynamics. It has a direct impact on the every-day sustenance of the coastal people.

However, what appears to be obvious in theory, advocated in practice, is as much constrained. Other countries are also facing similar situations in coastal management. Even countries, for example, Turkey or Ireland, with a more fabulous presence in the sea and better records of governance, are still confronted with problems regarding the comprehensiveness of the ICZM framework that should cover “all aspects” of management of the coast and streamline the human-sea interaction. Nevertheless, there are best practices that can be learned from countries like Sweden or New Zealand who have large coastal areas yet have the most decentralized, participatory mechanism. This suggests that a collaborative effort and learning from each other is essential.

To protect coastal communities, scientists validated ICZM as a practical and integrated planning and management approach among diverse stakeholders. The intent is simple. It stimulates a sense of stewardship among the coastal communities and fisherfolk. Who are all across the first line defenders in the protection of global commons, our oceans, and the coasts, and this is where Pakistan should not leave them behind?