India’s draft policy recognises the importance of sustainable development through commitments to marine spatial planning, natural resource accounting and coastal livelihoods. The problem is not a lack of sustainability language in policy, but that the institutions built to deliver growth have outpaced those designed to restrain it. Sagarmala and Maritime India Vision 2030 aim to add more than 700 million tonnes of port capacity (Opens in new window) by 2030, while the Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 extends that ambition to mid-century. Ennore Creek, north of Chennai, illustrates the risk. Oil spills in 2017 (Opens in new window) and 2023 (Opens in new window), dredging, and port expansion have accumulated over time, with projects assessed individually and no single institution accountable for their combined impact.
The same challenge extends beyond India’s coastline. MAHASAGAR (Opens in new window), the maritime policy Delhi launched in 2025 as the “Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions”, positions India as a security and growth partner in the Indian Ocean. However, India’s maritime ambitions also depend on how it manages resources and ecological pressures that cross national boundaries. The recurring disputes between Indian and Sri Lankan fishers in Palk Bay (Opens in new window)demonstrate how competition over marine resources can become a livelihood and diplomatic challenge. For India, sustainable blue growth therefore requires not only domestic safeguards, but also cooperation with neighbouring states over shared marine resources.
Three policy shifts could help close the gap between India’s blue economy rhetoric and practice. First, the final Blue Economy Policy should establish marine spatial planning as a mandatory planning stage for major marine development, with cumulative ecological impacts assessed before projects are approved. Second, India should measure what its waters retain, not just what they produce, by incorporating ecosystem and fisheries health into national environmental accounts. Third, India should use MAHASAGAR, BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) and IORA (Indian Ocean Rim Association) to develop common regional standards for managing transboundary fisheries, marine spatial planning and sustainable blue finance, building on initiatives such as the BOBLME (Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (Opens in new window)) program.
India is far from alone: governments worldwide often label ocean growth “sustainable” without enforcing meaningful ecological limits – a practice known as “bluewashing (Opens in new window)”. India does not need to choose between a productive ocean and a healthy one. But it does need to judge successful blue growth by what the ocean is allowed to retain, not simply by what it produces. As its draft Blue Economy Policy remains unfinished, there is still time to embed stronger ecological safeguards into how maritime development is planned and assessed. If India gets that balance right, it could help demonstrate what a genuinely sustainable Blue Economy can mean in practice.
Leave a comment