The Bay of Bengal is entering an important period for its economic and environmental future. Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh are looking more seriously at the opportunities offered by fisheries, aquaculture, ports, coastal tourism, renewable energy and other ocean-based industries. For countries facing pressure to create jobs, improve food security, attract investment and strengthen economic resilience, the appeal of the blue economy is understandable. But the central challenge is not simply how to generate more economic value from the ocean. It is how to do so without weakening the ecosystems, fisheries and coastal communities on which that economic future ultimately depends.
This distinction matters because the term “blue economy” can easily be applied to almost any activity at sea. A sustainable blue economy requires a higher standard. Economic development must be accompanied by healthy marine ecosystems, credible science, effective regulation, the inclusion of coastal communities and institutions capable of managing competing uses of the ocean over the long term.
The Australia Awards Fellowship 2026 on Enabling a Sustainable Blue Economy in the Bay of Bengal (Indian Ocean) offered a useful opportunity to examine these questions comparatively. Funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the programme brought together 15 fellows from Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh and was led by the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) at the University of Wollongong. It also connected regional institutions, including the Pathfinder Foundation (PF) in Sri Lanka, the National Maritime Foundation (NMF)in India and the Bangladesh Institute of Maritime Research and Development (BIMRAD), with Australian researchers, policymakers and industry specialists.
The value of that programme was not simply exposure to Australia’s ocean industries. It also revealed the institutional architecture behind them. During February, study visits to Wollongong, Sydney, Canberra and Tasmania, the fellows encountered marine research, aquaculture, ocean governance, renewable energy and integrated ocean management as parts of a wider system rather than isolated sectors. The Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre’s engagement with the Fellowship, for example, brought together researchers, industry and government around offshore aquaculture, renewable energy and marine science. This reflected one of the central lessons of the programme: blue-economy development requires sustained links between scientific knowledge and real-world policy and investment decisions.
This lesson is particularly relevant to Sri Lanka. The country already possesses many of the basic ingredients of a blue economy: a strategically important maritime location, an established fisheries sector, coastal and marine tourism, important ports, diverse ecosystems and potential in aquaculture and emerging ocean industries. The problem is not a lack of possible sectors. The harder question is whether the country has sufficient research capacity, institutional coordination and regulatory systems to develop them sustainably. Australia offers useful lessons here, but it should not be treated as a model to copy mechanically. The Australian experience is valuable because it shows how economic opportunity can be supported by science, planning and regulation. Its 2026 Sustainable Ocean Plan, for example, brings ocean industries, environmental protection, climate action, First Nations participation, knowledge and national coordination into a single framework. The plan recognises that fisheries, energy, tourism, biodiversity, transport and coastal communities share the same marine space and therefore cannot be governed effectively in isolation.
For Sri Lanka, the lesson is straightforward. Fisheries policy cannot be separated entirely from coastal management. Marine tourism cannot be planned without considering ecosystems and existing users. Offshore energy cannot be developed without understanding fishing grounds and biodiversity. Port development affects coastal space, while climate change cuts across all of these sectors. A blue economy therefore requires stronger coordination among fisheries, the environment, tourism, ports, energy, research institutions and local government rather than another collection of separate sectoral initiatives.
Sustainable fisheries offer a particularly useful example of what can be learned from Australia. Australian Commonwealth fisheries use formal harvest strategies that link scientific assessments to decisions on catch limits. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority describes ecological sustainability as the priority within these strategies, while also seeking economically viable fisheries. This approach does not eliminate all fisheries-management problems, but it illustrates an important principle: decisions about how much can be harvested should be linked to evidence on what ecosystems and fish populations can sustain. This is highly relevant to the Bay of Bengal. Fisheries remain economically and socially important across Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh, but they also face pressure from overexploitation, climate change, habitat degradation, illegal and unreported fishing and competition between different categories of users. A sustainable fisheries model for the region therefore cannot be based only on increasing catches, expanding fleets, or improving export performance. It also needs better stock assessments, reliable catch data, monitoring, enforcement and long-term harvest planning.
The Bay of Bengal does not lack ocean resources. Nor does it lack ambition. What it needs is a stronger foundation for turning that ambition into sustainable development. Australia’s experience offers useful lessons in science-based fisheries management, integrated ocean planning, research-policy collaboration and institutional capacity.
Australia’s experience suggests that sustainability becomes much easier to defend when management decisions are supported by transparent scientific processes. Sri Lanka could strengthen this connection by investing more heavily in fisheries science and ensuring that research findings reach the institutions responsible for management. The same principle applies regionally. Fish stocks do not remain within administrative boundaries, and many fisheries challenges are shared. Regional scientific cooperation, comparable data and coordinated monitoring could therefore be an important part of a Bay of Bengal blue-economy agenda. The Australian approach also illustrates the importance of recognising that sustainable fisheries are not only about fish stocks. Modern fisheries governance increasingly considers bycatch, habitat impacts, ecosystem health and the economic viability of fishing communities. This broader approach is important for Sri Lanka and its neighbours because fisheries are embedded in coastal societies. Management decisions affect not only vessels at sea but also processors, vendors, traders, families and local economies.
Aquaculture is another area where Australian experience is useful. Tasmania demonstrated both the potential and the complexity of developing ocean-based food production. Advanced aquaculture facilities and marine research show how technology can improve production and monitoring, but the Australian experience also demonstrates that expansion must be accompanied by environmental assessment and public accountability. The lesson for Sri Lanka is therefore not simply to increase aquaculture investment. It is to develop aquaculture with stronger environmental baselines, disease monitoring, research on carrying capacity and clear systems for managing impacts before expansion becomes difficult to reverse. A further lesson comes from the relationship between research institutions and government. One feature repeatedly evident during the Fellowship was the role played by universities and specialist research centres in wider policy discussions. Institutions such as the University of Wollongong and ANCORS combine expertise in ocean law, fisheries governance, maritime security and blue-economy policy, while other Australian institutions bring marine science and technological knowledge into the same broader conversation. ANCORS defines the blue economy through the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources, while emphasising integrated and socially inclusive governance.
Sri Lanka has considerable research expertise of its own, but stronger connections are needed among universities, specialised institutes, ministries and decision-makers. Research should not end when a report is published. It should become part of how fisheries are managed, coastal development is assessed and emerging marine industries are evaluated. Continued cooperation with Australian universities and research centres could support this through joint research, postgraduate training, professional exchanges and technical collaboration.
The Fellowship also demonstrated why this cooperation should extend beyond Sri Lanka. Bringing together fellows from Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh made clear that the Bay of Bengal has many national differences but also a large set of shared maritime problems. Climate change, marine pollution, illegal fishing, fisheries sustainability and maritime trade cannot be addressed adequately by countries working entirely alone.
There is already a regional framework on which to build. BIMSTEC formally includes the blue economy within its areas of cooperation, while fisheries sits within its agriculture and food-security structure. The opportunity now is to turn broad commitments into more practical programmes. A regional sustainable blue-economy agenda could include shared fisheries research, joint training, exchange of marine data, capacity building in marine spatial planning, collaborative work on blue carbon and coastal resilience, and stronger links between universities and maritime research institutes.
This does not mean that Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh need identical policies. Each country has different resources, institutions and development priorities. Regional cooperation works best when those differences become a source of complementary expertise. India brings substantial maritime research and strategic capacity. Bangladesh has significant experience in aquaculture and coastal adaptation. Sri Lanka has its own fisheries knowledge, maritime position and institutional experience. Australia can contribute specialised expertise in ocean science, governance, fisheries management and institutional capacity building.
The aim should therefore not be to import an Australian blue-economy model into the Bay of Bengal. A more useful approach is to study the principles behind Australia’s experience and adapt them to regional conditions. These principles include linking research to policy, basing fisheries decisions on science, building environmental safeguards before industries expand, coordinating different ocean sectors, investing in monitoring and recognising that healthy ecosystems are economic assets rather than obstacles to growth. Australia’s new Sustainable Ocean Plan captures much of this thinking. It treats the ocean as an interconnected system and explicitly connects environmental health to the long-term success of the ocean economy. It also recognises that no single government agency, sector or community can address ocean challenges alone. That principle is particularly relevant to the Bay of Bengal, where both national and regional coordination remain essential. The case for establishing a sustainable blue economy in the region is therefore not based only on the prospect of new industries. It is also about protecting what already exists. Millions of people around the Bay of Bengal depend directly or indirectly on marine and coastal resources. Fisheries contribute to food security and livelihoods, while coastal ecosystems provide protection, biodiversity and economic value. If development weakens those foundations, short-term blue growth could undermine the longer-term blue economy.
Sri Lanka has an opportunity to help shape a different pathway. At home, that means improving the connection between marine science and government, strengthening sustainable fisheries management, coordinating blue-economy sectors, investing in environmental monitoring and involving coastal communities more meaningfully in planning. At the regional level, it means working with India and Bangladesh through stronger research and policy networks while using mechanisms such as BIMSTEC and IORA to support practical cooperation.
The Bay of Bengal does not lack ocean resources. Nor does it lack ambition. What it needs is a stronger foundation for turning that ambition into sustainable development. Australia’s experience offers useful lessons in science-based fisheries management, integrated ocean planning, research-policy collaboration and institutional capacity. The challenge for Sri Lanka and its neighbours is not to replicate those systems exactly, but to adapt the underlying principles to a region where livelihoods, food security and environmental sustainability are inseparable. A sustainable blue economy should therefore be understood not as the next phase of ocean exploitation, but as a different way of governing development. That distinction will determine whether the Bay of Bengal’s growing interest in the blue economy becomes a short-lived economic opportunity or a lasting foundation for regional prosperity.
