The Fishing Wars Between Sri Lanka And India Intensify. “Bottom Trawling”, What’s The Cost Of That Fish And To The Environment?

There’s a battle brewing in the calm waters between India’s southern tip and Sri Lanka’s northernmost coast, and no, it’s not about land or politics. It’s about fish. The lifeblood of countless fishermen from these coastal villages is caught in a crossfire that’s as much about livelihoods as it is about national boundaries.

The Palk Bay, with its rich biodiversity and calm currents, has become a contentious fishing ground, and the fallout is great—not just for humans but also for the environment.

A Brief Look Into the Palk Bay Dispute

Historically, the waters of the Palk Bay were an open resource for fishermen from both sides. It was a free-for-all, with no formal regulations. However, things changed in the mid-1970s when India and Sri Lanka signed maritime boundary agreements in 1974 and 1976.

These agreements drew a clear line in the water, demarcating what’s known as the ‘Fisheries Line’, alongside the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL). This made cross-border fishing illegal, turning the previously harmonious coexistence into a brewing conflict.

The “Pink-Gold Rush” and the Rise of Trawling

In the 1960s, India was struggling with a financial crisis and turned to seafood exports to boost its economy. This led to the so-called “Pink-Gold Rush,” with prawns becoming a hot commodity. The Indian government began subsidizing motorized boats and trawlers for fishermen, leading to a dramatic shift from traditional fishing methods to industrial-scale operations.

Trawling, a process where heavy nylon nets scrape the seabed, became the norm in places like Rameswaram. While it was great for catching seafood in bulk, however, trawing isn’t exactly eco-friendly—is notorious for destroying marine habitats.
By the late 1970s, Indian fishermen started feeling the pinch as their local fishing grounds were overexploited. The logical (though illegal) next step? Encroach into Sri Lankan waters. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka was seeing its own internal strife, which further complicated matters.

Bottom Trawling. A Very Destructive Method

“Bottom trawlers” are fishing vessels that typically drag large fishing nets along the seabed, scooping out everything from eggs and baby fish to marine vegetation, in addition to the target catch of fish or shrimps. For several decades, Indian fishermen from different coastal states, including Tamil Nadu, have used the practice that has boosted India’s seafood exports and yielded high profits.

After discussing the issue in a 2016 bilateral meeting, India and Sri Lanka set up a ‘Joint Working Group’ that, among other things, agreed to “expedite the transition towards ending the practice of bottom trawling at the earliest.”

However, there has been no respite, according to Tamil fishermen living along Sri Lanka’s northern coast, who are among the worst affected in the island’s protracted civil war that ended in 2009. Fifteen years since, they have been unable to rebuild their livelihoods, primarily because of the damaging effects of bottom trawling by Indian fishermen.

Sri Lanka banned the practice in 2017 and imposed stiff fines on foreign vessels in 2018. Despite the moves, and the ceaseless appeals from their northern Sri Lankan counterparts, Tamil Nadu fishermen are yet to give up the destructive practice.

On the other hand, daily wage Tamil Nadu fishermen engaged by the trawler owners are frequently arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy on charges of engaging in illegal fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, and the vessels are seized. The arrests so far in 2024 total over 530, more than double last year’s figure. Over 400 of those have been released and repatriated, official updates showed.

Sri Lanka’s Civil War and Its Impact on Fishing

The early 1980s saw Sri Lanka descending into a brutal civil war. The Tamil minority, many of whom were fishermen, found themselves at the center of an armed struggle. The Sri Lankan Navy imposed security zones, restricting local fishing activities. This left Sri Lankan waters relatively unguarded, making them an easy target for Indian trawlers.

For the Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen, it was a double blow. Not only were they dealing with the fallout of a civil war, but their livelihoods were also being undermined by overfishing and encroachments. The stage was set for a conflict that continues to simmer to this day.

A Critical Analysis From an International Law Perspective

The fact is that by promoting the trawler fleets, state governments in India have not ensured compliance with international laws related to the preservation of marine resources. This could weaken India’s position in international forums such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The rationale for avoiding international litigation remains a complex issue with political, economic, and social ramifications. While India and Sri Lanka signed multiple bilateral agreements (June 28, 1974, and March 23, 1976) to delimit the maritime boundary in accordance with UNCLOS, these agreements were expected to define maritime zones and peacefully resolve overlapping jurisdictions.

However, the modified equidistant line approach used in the 1974 Boundary Agreement caused further confusion rather than resolving territorial disputes. This ambiguity, coupled with the incentives of high yields from trawler fleets, led to non-compliance among fishermen.

India could also be held liable under Article 206 of UNCLOS for failing to evaluate the potential environmental impact of projects like the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) on Sri Lanka’s marine ecosystem.

Under Part XII (Articles 194 and 204) of UNCLOS, India is obligated to adopt precautionary measures to prevent marine pollution. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has previously ruled, as in the South China Sea case, that actions causing substantial environmental harm require reporting under Article 206. Similarly, bottom trawling by Indian fishermen is destructive to the seafloor and the marine ecosystem.

Under Articles 123 and 197 of UNCLOS, both India and Sri Lanka are required to cooperate, provide prior notification, and consult on shared environmental issues. However, India has failed to engage meaningfully with Sri Lanka, even as Sri Lanka sought consultation and information exchange. The delay in forming a Joint Working Group on Fisheries (JWG) reflects a lackadaisical approach by both governments.

The Last Bit

Both India and Sri Lanka have expressed support for the legal framework established under UNCLOS for resolving maritime disputes.

International litigation could be an effective way to draw global attention to the issue and push both nations to take stringent measures. Given the consequences for the marine environment and the livelihoods of fishermen, a definitive ruling is crucial for the welfare of both nations and their ecosystems.

Sri Lanka values India’s support, particularly during its economic crisis in 2022, and recognizes the importance of strong bilateral ties. Sri Lankan leaders, including those from the Malaiyaha Tamil community, have called for greater understanding of the fisheries issue, emphasizing its environmental and human costs. Resolving this conflict requires political will, not just to protect livelihoods but also to safeguard the fragile marine ecosystem that sustains them.

So, the next time you relish that plate of seafood, spare a thought for the fishermen battling it out in the Palk Bay and the delicate balance of nature caught in the crossfire. The real cost of that fish might be higher than you think—for both humanity and the environment.