1. Introduction
The maritime sector is the backbone of the global economy, considering its significant share (80–90%) in international trade by volume [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It involves multiple sub-sectors: shipping, ship-building, ship recycling, marine fisheries, ports and harbors, tourism, marine archeology, and offshore/onshore mineral resources, which have mutual interplay [7]. The shipping sector is challenging due to intense competition in the market and the constantly advancing technology. The maritime sector is thus complex, capital intensive, and requires long-term planning for sustainable development [8]. The business-as-usual operations of the maritime system have rendered many challenges to the environment and sustainability, which have emerged as a non-traditional security threat and need a well-coordinated and coherent response mechanism [9]. Generally, it is observed that different sector-specific policies drive national maritime economies in a discrete manner. They have a likelihood of gaps between national environmental obligations and international commitments, particularly in developing countries such as Pakistan [10]. In Pakistan, National Maritime Policy (NMP) 2002 is an umbrella policy that covers all aspects related to the maritime sector, including the cross-cutting segment of the environment and sustainable development [11]. However, stakeholders argue that sector-specific policy instruments are not coherent with the NMP and environmental strategies, which is a major challenge for maritime governance in Pakistan. The situation demands the integration of different sectoral perspectives and interests in a coherent set of actions for decision-making [12] and to produce more powerful tools and products for all parties involved [13]. This can be achieved by exploiting synergies and complementarities, as well as filling gaps among distinct policy areas in order to achieve common and shared goals [14].
The concept of coherent maritime policy is based on the premise that the oceans are a common and essential resource for society [15]. Retaining this useful resource will require a holistic approach to be used in order to conserve and restore marine ecosystems [16]. Handling maritime regions to reconcile the discordant needs of shielding their ecological stability and exploiting their natural resources needs adequate guidelines and the combination of various sectoral strategies in a coherent set of measures [17]. A coherent maritime policy recognizes the need for greater coherence across a range of policies that impact the achievement of environmental and sustainable development goal 14 (SDG-14) [10].
Pakistan has a unique geographic location with a coastline that is approximately 1001 km long and covers an area of 240,000 km2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with a continental shelf area of 50,000 km2 [18]. Moreover, the Gwadar port of Pakistan is becoming an ideal hub due to its unique strategic placement in the region. It is anticipated that the port will captivate trade from Central Asia, Afghanistan, China, and other countries because of its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz (SoH), a vital shipping route connecting the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea. The geo-strategic positioning of Gwadar enables Pakistan as a growth catalyst for international trade through the sea [19]. With globalization, the shipping sector has made a remarkable contribution to the socio-economic development of the country [10]. The shipping sector involves over 90% of seaborne trade by volume in the context of Pakistan [6]. Therefore, Pakistan has to focus on the development of the maritime sector, particularly in ship construction, improving port infrastructure for docking modern vessels with greater cargo carrying capacity, ship recycling, the modernization of sea-going vessels with greener technologies, and the expansion of the national shipping fleet that will rise in the coming decades [20].
The “Ministry of Maritime Affairs” is a federally controlled state body in Pakistan that governs the shipping sector. Gwadar Port Authority, Pakistan Marine Academy, Karachi Port Trust, Port Qasim Authority, Mercantile Marine Department, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, and Ports and Shipping Wing are among the main public organizations working under the ministry. In addition, the Government Shipping Office is responsible for maintaining a record of seamen to ensure the implementation of shipping rules and regulations as per the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 2001. It also includes recruitment, facilitation, and welfare of seamen in their employment and examination of the papers of merchant ships [21]. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) is the country’s national flag shipping carrier, established in 1979 by the merger of the National Shipping Corporation and Pakistan Shipping Corporation to serve as a part of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs responsible for the coordination of all stakeholders in the maritime sector. On the other side, port authorities are established for the planning, development, management, and maintenance of the port [22]. The Maritime Zone Act 1976 (MZA) is losing its importance as it is too old and has not been amended over time. Other challenges in the maritime economy also need to be updated in the NMP 2002. For this purpose, the government should unify the developmental goals of the marine economy and its associated industries to address the emerging challenges of sustainable development.
Contextually, shipping sector governance should address all detrimental effects on the environment [23], though the overall impacts are relatively lower than the other positive factors. Major problems such as pollution (due to ballast water and other wastewater discharges, particularly in and around harbors) and harmful air emissions, including GHGs and other solid waste-related aspects, need immediate attention. At the same time, COx, NOx, and SOX emissions from ships correspond to about 2–3%, 4–9%, and 10–15% of global anthropogenic emissions, respectively [24]. The environmental and socio-economic aspects related to recycling operations for end-of-ships at Gadani Yard also have concerns in the context of a cradle-to-grave approach for the overall sustainability of the shipping sector. Since the latency of these detrimental compounds is varied and the interactive reaction of chemicals between the pollutants is irregular, there is a need for better estimates of emissions from ships [24]. It is pertinent to mention that a business-as-usual environmental case is no longer an option for the shipping industry, as there would likely be more competitive business along with a fine system as per the norms of the ‘polluters pay principle’ [24]. Countries well-prepared to engage in fleet modernization and greener technologies will become more competitive over time as a result of better efficiency and the ability to take advantage of sustainable financing programs [25]. Consequently, international organizations associated with the maritime sector are focusing on environmental pollution and the socio-economic well-being of communities.
In this context, the most important governing instrument is the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973, by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) [26]. The MARPOL (73/78) regulates operational pollution internationally, covering a number of impacts due to shipping activities [26]. Besides the MARPOL, other international treaties address specific types of ship-related pollution, such as oil, garbage, sewage, and air pollution. Many other conventions and guidelines address issues such as accidental pollution, liability, compensation, and ballast water (invasive species). The IMO is in charge of the majority of these instruments [27]. Many organizations, communities, and governments, fortunately, recognize the need for a more consistent, integrated, equitable, and scientific approach to ocean economic development management [28]. Many developing countries, including Pakistan, have ratified multilateral environmental agreements. Although Pakistan has realized the importance of maritime safety, marine resource protection, and environmental conservation as related governance arrangements were made on a time-to-time basis, there are issues in its implementation mechanism. This is due to a lack of coherence and coordination across policy, legal and institutional frameworks both at federal and provincial levels, which is further exacerbated after the 18th and 19th amendments in the National Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Besides, concerns also prevail due to the factor of maritime blindness on a mass scale.
The Government of Pakistan attempted to restructure the maritime sector through the promulgation of the NMP in 2002 to accrue long-term benefits from the maritime sector. However, the policy is now two decades old and is not covering emerging needs, particularly in the context of sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Climate Agreement 2015, and other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including all instruments under the umbrella of the IMO. A question arises as to whether or not the existing maritime policy is coherent with the requirements of the shipping sector pertaining to sustainability. In this context, a need was realized to examine the coherence of the NMP 2002 across the governance framework for sustainability in Pakistan. The study aimed at analyzing the extent to which the NMP 2002 is aligned with national or provincial commitments and international obligations pertaining to the environment and sustainable development requirements for the shipping sector. Thus, the study examined the environmental and sustainable development measures that are mainstreamed in the NMP, 2002, vis-a-vis the sectoral economy of the shipping sector that involved and analyzed maritime policy coherence and its implications across national and provincial commitments and international obligations.
Considering the increasing global focus on ensuring environmental, social, and economic safeguards for the growing trends of the maritime economy, the governance of the shipping sector is central. Therefore, this study very timely identifies the gaps and examines coherence across governance frameworks at all tiers, i.e., international, national, and sub-national. The selection of the PCI framework, along with the combination of qualitative and quantitative tools for methodological purposes, proved fruitful in assessing the coherence of various governing instruments against the objective of sustainability in the shipping sector. On the one hand, the presented framework covers the sustainability requirements. On the other hand, it portrays shipping sector requirements to align both for vibrant and coherent governance. The study contributes a new approach to analyzing the maritime governance framework with a focus on the sustainability of the shipping sector. The study demonstrated a way to use criteria and indicators for the identification of gaps that can be replicated in all sectoral economies involved prior to promote sustainability and improve business as usual practices.
2. Methodology
The study involved a principle, criteria and indicator (PCI) framework to develop coherence indices for pairwise analysis of relevant governing instruments by covering the national and international context of the shipping sector in terms of environmental requirements. It is pertinent to mention that the sustainability of the shipping sector is critically important in the context of a very large maritime zone of Pakistan in the Indian Ocean. The scope of the study is limited to the governance of operational aspects of only active sea-going vessels, and it does not include the recycling industry for end-of-ships.
In order to meet the objective and scope of the study, a sustainability model approach based on three (03) guiding principles, seven (07) criteria, and twenty-eight (28) indicators was developed and analyzed for twenty-one governing instruments. Besides this coherence, indices for a pairwise analysis of relevant governing instruments by covering the national and international context of the shipping sector in terms of environmental requirements were also developed.
2.1. Selection of Tools and Methods
The study utilized a combination of both qualitative and quantitative tools and methods for data collection and analysis, which are widely practiced and reported for similar scope and nature of studies [29]. Firstly, it gathered and reviewed existing literature on the maritime economy of Pakistan involving different sectors and subsequently narrowed down to the shipping sector by employing widely practiced standard content analysis techniques [30].
Secondly, it scrutinized the relevant national and international governing instruments for the shipping sector on the pattern of policy coherence analysis reported in literature [13]. Identification of keywords regarding indicators of sustainability criteria was performed prior in order to carry out content analysis.
Thirdly, application of MCDA’s SMART scoring for NMP coherence, keywords, and PCI framework (multi-criteria) for sustainability was formulated by employing Problem Tree Analysis Technique [13,29]. A SMART scoring-based analysis matrix was developed for the shipping sector through In-house Discussion (IHD) sessions with experts on similar pattern of work reported in literature [29]. Based on the SMART score, coherence of NMP and its implications across national and provincial commitments and international obligations was analyzed. Figure 1 provides a detailed illustration of the methodological framework.
2.2. Development of PCI Framework
The PCI framework comprising three (03) principles, seven (07) criteria, and twenty-eight (28) composite indicators was formulated. The logical relationship of following three selected guiding principles is described in Figure 2:
Principle of Coherence 1 (PC-1)—Ensure environmental protection;
Principle of Coherence 2 (PC-2)—Promote socio-economic well-being;
Principle of Coherence 3 (PC-3)—Vibrant governance of sectoral policies and law.
The model approach is based on the understanding that necessary requirements for environmental protection are centrally addressed in sectoral policies, legal instruments, strategies, and course of action. It also promotes socio-economic well-being by balancing related aspects vis-à-vis sectoral needs, and it makes available all necessary instruments to ensure vibrant governance. These principles and criteria are not only applicable to maritime sectoral economies but also to all other sectors of the national economy. Widely accepted tools for coastal and marine management, for example, Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool (InSAT) and System Approach Framework (SAF), also identify principles of environmental quality and socio-economic well-being as key management objectives for maritime management [31]. Further, the criteria for each principle were chosen in a way to provide detailed insight into all aspects of the shipping sector. Similarly, the composite indicators for each criterion were selected to present a complete picture considering the complexities and dimensionality of the shipping and maritime sectors. For each principle, criteria, and indicator, a systematic coding mechanism (See Supplementary S1) was adopted to help in data analysis.
2.2.1. Scope of PC-1, Its Criteria and Indicators
‘Environmental Protection’ was selected as the first Principle of Coherence (PC-1) to study the key aspects related to environmental pollution, biodiversity conservation, and climate change. For the purpose of analysis, two (02) criteria, i.e., maritime pollution control and climate response and ecosystem conservation were selected. The first criterion covered the aspects of GHG emissions, alternative fuels, climate change adaptation and resilience strategies, air pollution control, ballast water management, and water pollution. The second criterion covered only one dimension, i.e., spatial planning of ship routes for biodiversity protection. Detail criteria and indicators are tabulated in Supplementary S2.
2.2.2. Scope of PC-2, Its Criteria and Indicators
‘Promote Socio-economic Well-being’ was selected as the second principle (PC-2) by taking into consideration the complex and multi-dimensional concept that encompasses health, education, public services, age, education, business, entrepreneurship, and employment for the well-being of communities. Socio-economic aspects of the shipping sector may positively or negatively impact the environment, which is mainly determined by patterns of resource use. Furthermore, it also entails livelihood opportunities for coastal communities through direct or indirect employment in the value chain of the shipping sector [32]. For the purpose of analysis against PC-2, two (02) criteria and six (06) indicators were formulated. The first criterion deals with the social well-being of workers and coastal communities; therefore, indicators selected cover aspects related to social justice, gender discrimination, provision of livelihood, labor rights, improved working conditions, and the training of workers. The second criterion deals with sustained economic growth and covers aspects related to economic diversification and the blue economy. Indicators and scope-wise keywords are listed in Supplementary S2.
2.2.3. Scope of PC-3, Its Criteria and Indicators
‘Vibrant Governance of Sectoral Policies and Law’ was selected as the third principle (PC-3) that encompasses policies, laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements. This principle covers all aspects related to social, environmental, and economic activities in oceans and seas, including the shipping-sector-related operational aspects, which need to be regulated through adequate and up-to-date governing instruments. In this context, three (03) criteria and ten (10) indicators were developed. The first criterion deals with basic response mechanisms in terms of policy and legal instruments. The basic response mechanism comprising institutional design, arrangements, and activities is crucial to govern by determining the priorities for any sector of the economy, particularly for the aspects of sustainability, and plausible solutions to ensure well-coordinated, best, and most efficient practices [33]. The shipping sector is no exception. Thus, the basic response mechanism criterion is assessed against four composite indicators, i.e., policy and legal instruments, international obligations, institutional mandates, and coordination.
The second criterion in PC-3 deals with actors’ capacity. The governance of the shipping sector involves all types of stakeholders, including the government’s line departments, private sector, civil society, academia, and local communities. The majority of these actors have a direct influence on the shipping business and its governing instruments both at national and international levels. The capacity of all actors is important for various roles to cater the emerging needs in terms of environmental sustainability and maintaining the whitelisting of the flag carriers vis-à-vis international obligations and national governing framework at a federal and provincial level. It is pertinent that strengthening and building capacities for improved institutional performance would result in a better alignment of goals to meet the demands of the economy and labor market. In this context, four composite indicators were formulated to assess NMP coherence against the criterion of actors’ capacity covering aspects of capacity building and stakeholder engagement.
The third criterion deals with performance systems which are based on periodic monitoring and reviews. However, it is a dependent variable that relies on all other variables, including the system design, institutional arrangements, activities, actors’ capacity, active engagement, etc. It is also important to consider that the employees are working effectively [34] and the shipping operations are environmentally sound. In this context, two composite indicators were formulated to assess NMP coherence covering aspects related to compliance monitoring and periodic review of policies and legal instruments. Selected indicators and scope-wise keywords are listed in Supplementary S2.
2.3. Collection, Short Listing, and Classification of Governing Instruments
The secondary data in terms of relevant governing instruments and related literature (primary sources of information including journal-based articles and research reports) under the scope of this study were gathered through internet browsing (search engines include Google and Google Scholar) and by exploring ministerial and other sources including libraries of different institutions such as International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI), National Institute of Maritime Affairs (NIMA), Maritime Study Forum (MSF), National Defence University (NDU), Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), etc. Based on a detailed literature survey, all data regarding relevance were first shortlisted and then classified into three different categories, i.e., (i) governing instruments directly linked with the shipping sector, (ii) governing instruments indirectly linked with the shipping sector, and (iii) other primary/secondary supporting documents. Considering the context of relevant international governing instruments for the shipping sector, there is a long list of documents/agreements which encompass environmental, socio-economic, and cross-cutting governance areas in the context of sustainability. These instruments either directly regulate or indirectly deal with aspects of maritime economy, particularly the shipping sector (including merchant shipping and other segments of maritime economy associated with sea-going vessels). There are 31 main binding instruments and their extensions in the form of protocols and agreements (making a total of 59 instruments), including amended versions that govern the maritime sector effectively [35]. In the context of international obligations, Pakistan is signatory of more than 25 MEAs, including four IMO instruments directly related to the subject environment for the shipping sector. In addition, Pakistan has also signed thirteen IMO’s binding instruments, which cover socio-economic and cross-cutting aspects of governance.
Pakistan has signed at least 17 IMO’s instruments, the Paris Climate Agreement, 2015, and adopted SDGs 2015 after promulgation of NMP, 2002. In addition, some important developments occurred in national context after NMP, 2002, such as the 18th Amendment in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, promulgation of the National Environmental Policy, 2005 [36], National Climate Change Policy, 2012 [37], Climate Change Act, 2017 [38], Disaster Risk Management, 2015, National Sustainable Development Strategy, 2017 [39], etc. which reflect that the NMP, 2002, document is outdated and hence, its coherence with the sectoral governance framework for sustainability in the shipping sector needs to be examined. For this purpose, a total of twenty-one governing instruments were shortlisted and categorized as (i) instruments that directly relate to the shipping sector and (ii) instruments that indirectly relate to the shipping sector. The selected instruments under the aforementioned two categories were further sub-classified on the basis of the nature of the instruments, i.e., constituent, regulatory, and distributive. Table 1 enlists the instruments in categories and classes.
2.4. Development of Scoring Scale for Policy Coherence
Ratio scale was adopted for scoring/rating against the contents of the selected governing instruments in order to analyze the level of NMP coherence with them in terms of sustainability parameters. Table 1 provides details of a scoring scale for NMP coherence vis-a-vis environmental governance requirements for the shipping sector in Pakistan.
2.5. Development of Coherence Matrix
First, each document was screened using different keywords, which were prepared against indicators (See Supplementary S2). The screening process was accomplished by exercising two options: (i) computer-based ‘word finding option’ in a soft version of the document and (ii) reading the contents of the printed document. Relevant content was highlighted in both soft and print versions of the document. Different color flags (i.e., green flags for PC-1, orange flags for PC-2, and blue flags for PC-3) were placed on respective pages of the document.
Upon completing the screening process for each document, a detailed content analysis was performed and weighted against a predefined scoring scale (Table 1) for the draft rating of each indicator. Initial draft rating was then re-examined and validated by experts in In-House Discussion (IHD) sessions which were held on time-to-time basis through physical presence at campus as well as using online mode via Zoom. Consultation was also performed with six (06) relevant experts by inviting them to IHDs. A total of 25 IHDs were held prior to finalizing the scoring matrix by re-examining and validating the draft rating of all documents selected under the scope of this study. Scoring/rating matrix was developed in Excel Microsoft 365.
2.6. Data Management, Coherence Analysis
For the purpose of compilation and further in-depth analysis, all scoring data entries were performed in MS Excel Office 365. Cleaning and sorting of data were performed to produce pairwise coherence analysis sheets, tables, and graphs. Pairwise data arrangement was performed so that principle-based, criteria-based, and linkage-based (relevance of governing instruments vis-a-vis its type, nature, and direct/indirect relationship with shipping sector) coherence indices were developed and analyzed in a systematic way.
3. Results
Table 2 shows shortlisted and categorized governing instruments for the shipping sector. A total of twenty-one documents were examined; fourteen at the federal level, four at the provincial level, and three at the international level.
In terms of policies and legal instruments which directly relate to the shipping sector, NMP, 2002, and MMP, 2001, were selected. NMP, 2002, acts as an umbrella policy and covers all aspects of the maritime sector, while MMP, 2001, specifically relates to merchant shipping. MSO, 2001, MSMR, 2021, and PMS CHDSS Rules, 2009, represent regulatory instruments to regulate practices or processes by limiting the discretion of individuals and agencies or otherwise regulating human behavior. In this regard, MSO, 2001, provides power and functions of merchant shipping institutions, ship registration process, coastal shipping, manning of ships, and accidents. MSMR, 2001, deals with safe manning practices on ships, including minimum wage and working hours. PMS CHDSS, 2009, regulates the shipping of hazardous substances to control marine pollution. Coherence analysis also covers strategies and plans for the shipping sector. For example, NMCP is distributive in nature (extends goods and services to members of organizations as well as distributes the costs of the goods and services amongst the members of the organization). With respect to international obligations, the documents considered were UNCLOS-92 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution (MARPOL-73/78), which are signed and ratified by Pakistan. All these documents are categorized as directly related to the shipping industry.
A few other selected documents indirectly relate to the shipping industry. These policy/regulatory instruments neither were not solely dedicated to the shipping sector but had some mandatory requirements applicable to the shipping sector. These documents are crucial to the shipping industry, for example, NEP, 2005, NCCP, 2021, and NHWMP, 2022. These policies are constituent in nature. Besides these legal instruments, PMSA (1994), PEPA (1997), NEQS (2002), BEPA (2012), SEPA (2014), BHSR (2021), and SHSR (2021) were considered. Strategies and plans selected for this study in terms of indirect relation with the shipping sector are FICCP, 2013, and NSDS, 2017. With respect to international obligations, only one document, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was considered. The Basel Convention controls the international trade of hazardous waste and certain other wastes (BC 1992) and addresses shipping as one of the important modes of transportation. Pakistan has ratified MARPOL 73/78, STCW Convention, UNCLOS, and the Basel Convention for economic growth, better environmental protection, and higher living standards. These instruments were designed from time to time to address issues and improve the maritime economy.
3.1. Overall Coherence Index of NMP
Table 3 provides an index of overall coherence as well as a criteria-wise score of NMP across the sectoral governance framework for sustainability in Pakistan by covering all governance tiers and governing instruments vis-à-vis their nature (constituent, regulatory or distributive) and direct or indirect linkage with the shipping sector. Indicator-wise scores are available in Supplementary S3. Overall results depict an average index score of 2.1. The second criteria (C2-E2) that deal with ecosystem conservation showed the lowest score. Findings indicate that policies failed to adopt an ecosystem approach to manage marine biodiversity. In this context, spatial route planning for ships is an important emerging approach for the protection and restoration of critical habitats, including spawning ground, nursery areas, migration routes, as well as fishing size. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and area-based management are increasingly relied upon for designing maritime sector policies for the effective conservation of the marine ecosystem.
3.2. Principle-Wise Coherence Index
The following sections provide detailed findings for the three principles and criteria considered in each principle.
3.2.1. Principle (PC-1)
Principle one consists of two criteria: Maritime Pollution Control and Climate Response (C1-E1) and Ecosystem Conservation (C2-E2), and 11 indicators. The average index value for the (C1-E1) was better than the (C2-E2), though the overall findings showed a lack of coherence (Table 4). The overall coherence for principle one was valued at 1.73. Findings showed that for criterion one, the highest coherence value (3.19) is achieved for indicator C1-E1.9, which deals with the management of hazardous waste. Though international agreements MARPOL and Basel Convention comprehensively cover hazardous waste management, only partial coherence was reported for hazardous waste management in national and sub-national legal instruments. For criterion two, the lowest coherence value (1.57) was reported for indicator C1-E1.4, which deals with spatial route planning. Poor coherence can be attributed to the failure of most instruments to effectively integrate modern technology, such as spatial route planning to minimize the impact of shipping on marine biodiversity.
3.2.2. Principle (PC-2)
Principle two consists of two criteria: Social Well-being (C3-S2) and Sustained Economic Growth (C4-S2) and its seven indicators. The overall average coherence index for principle two was scored as (1.24). The average index score for C3-S1 (1.36) was slightly better than C4-S2 (Table 5). Findings showed that for criterion one, the highest coherence score (2.17) is achieved for indicator C4-S2.5, which deals with capacity building of workers. The scope of this indicator covers training, education, professional exposure, and capacity development. The lowest coherence score (1.00) was reported for indicator C4-S2.1, which deals with social justice and gender discrimination.
For the second criterion- sustained economic growth, findings depict the highest coherence score (1.26) to be for indicator C3-S1.2, which deals with developing the shipping industry in line with blue economy principles, while the lowest coherence score (0.94) was reported for C3-S1.1 which addresses economic diversification. This indicator covers fair trade, local entrepreneurship, and market expansion. The poor score indicates that most of the stakeholders, entrepreneurs, and investors need to be engaged in the shipping sector to ensure economic diversification through local entrepreneurship and fair trade (e.g., enabling an environment for private investments).
3.2.3. Principle (PC-3)
Principle three consists of three criteria: Basic Response Mechanism (C5-G1), Actor’s Capacity (C6-G2), and Performance System (C7-G3) and its ten indicators. The average index score for C7-G3 was better than the other two criteria though overall findings were recognized as ‘partially coherent’ in policy documents (Table 6). The overall coherence for principle three was scored as (2.80). Findings showed that for criterion one, the highest coherence score (2.78) is achieved for indicator C5-G1.4, which deals with coordination among institutions.
The lowest coherence score (2.71) was reported for indicator C5-G1.3, which covers institutional mechanisms and their implementation in the document. For criterion two, which is about the actor’s capacity, findings showed the highest coherence score (2.80) for indicator C6-G2.2, while the lowest coherence score (2.20) was reported for C6-G2.4. Criterion three addressed the performance of the governance framework. In this criterion, the highest coherence score (3.14) was achieved for C7-G3.2 and the lowest coherence score (3.1) for indicator C7-G3.1. A fair level of coherence can be attributed to efforts made by government officials and think tanks to review and update policies and laws on a regular basis. Figure 3 represents the principle-wise average index score in the form of a radar graph to show convergence and divergence points in the three studied principles. The overall result rendered an irregular shape pointing towards a non-uniform score for the three selected principles. Figure 3 clearly shows that PC-2 is closer to the center of the radar while PC-3 is towards the edge of the axis representing the comparative position to each other as well as the overall index score.
3.3. Criteria-Wise Coherence Index
Figure 4 shows radar distances against seven criteria for the overall coherence index of NMP, for which the overall score achieved was 2.1. Variation in the criteria-wise score is evident in Figure 4. The lowest score (0.71) demonstrates that the governance framework failed to address modern spatial mapping techniques for route planning of ships. Similarly, progress on gender equity, community engagement, and social infrastructure also remained unsatisfactory. The overall results depict that aspect of sustainability is not covered holistically, as it still lacks emphasis and direction in policy frameworks at a national level. NMP, 2002, vis-a-vis the shipping sector governance framework, needs to be revised, keeping in view international obligations.
3.4. NMP Coherence with Direct Governing Instruments for Shipping Sector
Figure 5 displays coherence among governing instruments that directly relate to the shipping sector. The highest non-coherence (difference = −0.95) was observed (Figure 5) in the case of C2-E2: Ecosystem Conservation, where except MARPOL, other governing instruments failed to address the conservation concerns. The highest coherence (Figure 6) was observed in the case of C7-G3: performance system with a difference score of −0.13. The least coherent instrument was MSO, 2001, with a score of 2.01. The highest coherence score (3.74) was observed in the MARPOL convention because it effectively covers dimensions of maritime pollution and response mechanism. The overall average score showed less coherence of selected instruments with NMP, 2002 (Figure 6).
3.5. NMP Coherence with Governing Instruments Indirectly Related to Shipping Sector
There are governing instruments that are not promulgated for the shipping sector, but provisions of these instruments influence different processes in the shipping sector. Thirteen such instruments were identified that encompass rules, acts, policies, and conventions. Figure 7 provides an index of overall NMP coherence with all cross-cutting instruments. The overall index obtained was 1.8, while the instrument depicts varied levels of coherence (Figure 7). Figure 8 represents a radar graph of criteria-wise scores, depicting the distortion in criteria-wise coherence of governing instruments.
4. Discussion
The maritime geography of Pakistan is strategically important as a trade gateway in Asia [21], and its huge potential for economic growth in Pakistan is expected to increase further after the development of the Gwadar port. Currently, sea transportation, also known as the shipping sector, accounts for 90% of Pakistan’s trade. Unfortunately, the maritime sector is the most neglected segment of the national economy in Pakistan, mainly due to inefficient governance that lacks vision, organization, and coherence [7,57]. The NMP, 2002, serves as the cornerstone for all maritime sector policies, laws, strategies, plans, and institutional structures, particularly those pertaining to the environment and sustainable development [16]. Findings indicate that NMP, 2002, (being implemented without revision) is unable to cover emerging challenges of the blue economy. At the same time, progress on the revised policy for the maritime industry and, specifically, the shipping sector is at a snail’s pace. The most crucial policy for the shipping sector, MMP (2001), was amended by the federal government in 2019 and will continue up to 2030. Contrarily, the MSO (2001) repealed the Merchant Shipping Act of 1923 [47] and was not updated in accordance with the revised MMP policy. Similarly, the Government of Pakistan has recently published NHWMP, 2022, but after devolution, provincial rules in Sindh and Balochistan should integrate provisions to control the shipping of hazardous waste. Another challenge ahead is the enforcement of international conventions and protocols. In this context, analyzing the coherence of NMP, 2002, across the shipping sector governance framework for sustainability in Pakistan is inevitable to identify gaps in addressing local and international cross-sectoral challenges.
The study is unique in the context of Pakistan as such studies have not been performed before at the national level. Few studies conducted in other countries, such as Estonia [58] and Lithuania [31], analyze maritime governance but not in terms of its coherence with other sectors [31]. Another study conducted in Pakistan analyzes coherence related to climate change and energy-sector-focused policy instruments only [13,59]. Contrarily, the scope of the study not only covered all three tiers of governance to address vertical coherence but also encompasses cross-sectoral governance by selecting all relevant governance instruments that are directly or indirectly related to the shipping sector (Table 2). For this purpose, three international conventions, fourteen national governance instruments, including policies, plans, and regulations, and four provincial instruments were selected after in-depth study and IHDs with experts. Among the selected documents, nine documents are directly related to the shipping sector, while the remaining cover different aspects that indirectly affect shipping activities. Selected governance instruments were further categorized as constituent, distributive, and regulatory by using Lowi’s Seminal Typology [60]. Categorizing the governing instruments helped to understand the linkages and overlap in the governance mechanisms.
In addition, the study designed a PCI framework comprising three principles, i.e., environmental protection (PC-1), socio-economic well-being (PC-2), vibrant sectoral governance (PC-3), seven criteria (C1–C7), and twenty-eight indicators. The methodology adopted thus, not only realizes the cross-sectoral linkages of the shipping sector and overlaps among governing instruments that necessitate both vertical and horizontal coherence but also emphasizes environmental sustainability.
The results of the study demonstrate significant gaps among policy and regulatory documents for the shipping sector and sustainability in Pakistan’s maritime sector, which is directly and indirectly linked to the shipping industry. The overall quantitative coherence index score (2.1) acquired also provides evidence for incoherent governance mechanisms in the shipping sector. International conventions to which Pakistan is a party, such as MARPOL and UNCLOS, provide effective measures for the environmental sustainability of the shipping sector but need to be integrated into the national and provincial governance framework. On the PCI framework, MARPOL secured 3.74, and UNCLOS secured 3.26, while the index score of the national and provincial governance framework ranged from 1.24–2.63, depicting poor vertical coherence. Findings indicate that maritime governance is distributed in a complex manner across four distinct governing instruments (legal, policy, strategies/plans, and international obligations). The international governance framework mandates that all countries develop, implement, and monitor regulations on all forms of beneficial and harmful practices and their input in place to govern a company’s shipping business operations and supply chain across nations. Contrarily, the MMP, 2019, and its amendment only discussed shipping management in Pakistan. The same is evident from the lowest score (2.08) shown in MSO, 2001. This regulation establishes the procedures and guidelines by which government agencies will handle shipping-related issues.
Principle-wise scoring helped to identify major gap areas in terms of three key sustainable development objectives: environment, social and economic. Principle one, through its two criteria and eleven indicators, comprehensively addressed the issues related to the maritime sector. An average index score (1.74) for this principle suggests developing extensive regional, international, and local strategies to address emerging challenges such as ecosystem conservation (index score 0.71), climate adaptation and resilience (index score = 1.57), and shifting to low-carbon fuels (index score = 1.92). Addressing these issues is inevitable to follow international obligations and sustain the shipping industry. For example, after enforcement of the Ballast Water Convention and subsequent compliance with D-2 standards, PNSC needs to install a ballast water management system on all vessels though Pakistan has not yet ratified this convention. Failing to do so can hamper the maritime trade of Pakistan. Similarly, the new IMO rules require individual vessels to report the annual efficiency ratio (AER) in terms of carbon intensity index as part of a mandatory annual submission for ships over 5000 DWT. The IMO also requires a 2% improvement in AER annually, resulting in the removal of vessels from services for non-compliance [61]. There are many tools available that can assist in making informed decisions and creating pollution prevention and control strategies for vibrant governance.
The lowest score (1.24) was observed for principle two, which deals with the socio-economic well-being of communities and workers. Though a poor index score (0.94–2.17) was observed for all seven indicators of PC-2, the lowest score was obtained for the indicator on economic diversification and local entrepreneurship. Keeping in view the magnitude and rate of growth in the shipping sector, entrepreneurship is important to develop a business with shared value [62]. In the shipping industry, entrepreneurial culture is important for conditioning sustainable development [63]. Researchers are of the view that investment needs to be readjusted to support diversification, such as complementing industrial chains and synchronizing with international markets [64]. In this context, maritime sector policies should address issues such as improved and protected living conditions of coastal communities; sustainable livelihood; education and awareness, and research and development for reducing disaster risks, alternative fuels, and livelihoods. In order to achieve this objective, socio-economic considerations must be incorporated into maritime sectoral governance policies in order to improve the management of marine resources and ensure their sustainability. Key areas identified to be integrated into maritime policies include human capital, innovation, accessibility, safety and environment, and security and stability [65]. STCW, 1978, prescribes minimum standards relating to training, certification, and watchkeeping for seafarers, which countries are obliged to meet or exceed. Compliance with the convention ensures the sustenance of the shipping industry.
Principle three encompasses all essential ingredients required to ensure coherent and vibrant governance employing three criteria, i.e., basic response mechanism, actor’s capacity and performance system, and ten indicators. Findings revealed an average index score of 2.8 with a variation range of 2.20–3.14. Though significant efforts have been made to regulate the maritime industry to create a complex balance between sectoral needs and long-term growth, areas such as stakeholder engagement in decision-making, capacity building of private sector and line government departments to meet all environmental and social requirements still need to be addressed in new and revised policies. Specific knowledge of users and stakeholders is also essential for the legitimacy of decisions [66]. NMP, 2002 [11] supports maritime governance agencies and emphasizes the need for collaboration among maritime ministries, departments, and organizations. The governance of the maritime sector requires a combination of national governance and international governance [66]. Contextually, international networks of non-governmental organizations such as IMO and national actors provide promising new approaches that can complement traditional forms of governance [66]. Besides this, the governance system has changed over time at the national level, particularly after the 18th Amendment. Thus, sectoral legislation and policies must consider environmental, social, and economic dynamics and require technical assistance in all maritime business sectors such as spatial planning for shipping routes to reduce vessel strikes with ocean animals. Another example is ratification and compliance with the Ballast Water Convention. Ballast water from ships is a potential source for introducing alien species that threaten native biodiversity [67]. This agreement ensures global implementation by 8 September 2024, and the key elements of the Ballast Water Convention is that ships must comply with the D-2 standard for ships constructed on and after 8 September 2017 and should be compliant with the first international oil pollution prevention certificate (IOPP). Contextually, national legislation needs revision to keep on par with global compliance requirements.
A comparison of direct and indirect governing instruments provided fruitful results. The indirect governing instruments are neither specifically related to the shipping industry nor are they exclusively focused on it. However, due to the document’s multifaceted structure, it includes several necessary requirements that apply to the shipping sector. The policy instrument shows the highest average index score (2.15) for NCCP, 2021, and the lowest score (1.78) for NHWMP, 2022. A plausible explanation lies in the fact that the effects of climate change are integrated into economically and socially susceptible sectors of Pakistan’s economy in order to direct the country’s economic development toward climate compatibility. In this context, NCCP in its Section 5.3, that deals with transport, discusses inland waterways as an area and identifies transport in general as a source of GHG emissions. Among strategies and plans, FICCP has the highest score (2.2), and the NSDS has the lowest score (1.8). The findings demonstrate a lack of coherence with NMP. NSDS target 14.1 aims to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution, by 2025. However, the role of the shipping sector in GHG emissions, climate adaptation, and mitigation strategies was completely ignored.
It is pertinent to mention here that the governance structure of the maritime sector was greatly impacted after the 18th Amendment in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan as maritime functions are devolved to provinces. There is confusion and contradiction in roles, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of different areas vis-à-vis management and operational aspects among governing agencies which need coordination between the federal and the provincial governments. The issue of pollution from ships (particularly due to the aspects of ballast water, air emissions beyond standard limits, and other solid and liquid pollutants) in and around ports and harbors comes under the jurisdiction of provincial EPAs, while the same issue comes under the jurisdiction of the federal EPA after twelve nautical miles, whereas these departments lack the capacity and vision to deal with the gravity of the problem due to poorly coordinated and incoherent governance mechanism in vogue.
The findings determine that the NMP is more coherent with indirectly linked governing instruments because it addresses many dimensions of sustainability but is less coherent with directly linked governing instruments. Ostensibly, the environmental and sustainable development governing instruments are cross-sectoral in nature and are better aligned with various sectors. However, sectoral policies need to properly integrate the governance framework into maritime policy in Pakistan vis-a-vis ensuring compliance with international obligations. In developing countries such as Pakistan, a common issue is delayed policy revisions as well as specific review dates, but most of the policies and laws have been revised and updated [13]. A similar situation will exist if new legislation is enacted, which may drastically alter existing laws, environmental standards, or guidelines. This would entail the creation of mechanisms to deal with such conflicting resolutions as well as determining and implementing the best combination of alternative approaches. This entails an ongoing process of information dissemination, consultation, and consensus building among all stakeholders in the coastal zone [68].
The findings stress revisiting policies that are still in draft form from decades to fill identified gaps. For this purpose, policy evaluation and adjustment are essential for effective policy coherence.
5. Conclusions
There is an increasing global focus on ensuring environmental, social, and economic safeguards for the growing trends of the maritime economy. This can be achieved through running business affairs in a more responsible way, implementing internationally adopted sustainability goals, and putting into practice a well-designed and coherent maritime governance structure. Governance of the shipping sector has a central position among all economic sectors in the maritime domain to cater to the growing needs of trade and the economy. In this context, this study very timely identifies the gaps and examines coherence across governance frameworks at all tiers, i.e., international, national, and sub-national. The selection of the PCI framework, along with a combination of qualitative and quantitative tools for methodological purposes, proved fruitful in assessing the coherence of various governing instruments against the objective of sustainability in the shipping sector. On the one hand, the presented framework covers the sustainability requirements. On the other hand, it portrays shipping sector requirements to align both for vibrant and coherent governance.
The study concludes that the existing governance framework is weak, outdated, and not aligned with international obligations. A thorough revision is required for NMP, 2002, as well as other direct and indirect governing instruments in a national and sub-national context. Sectoral governance for the shipping sector should address emerging environmental obligations, including the local and international developments that occurred from 2003 onward. Issues of climate change, shifting to low-carbon/low-sulfur fuels (preferably renewable), adoption of greener technologies, ballast water standards, ecosystem conservation, etc., are major governance gaps. Similarly, the governing instruments should address requirements for sustained growth in the shipping sector by focusing on shared business value, development of local entrepreneurship for the value chain, private sector engagement, mainstreaming local community stakeholders, economic diversification, coordination between line departments, and capacity building of all relevant actors. Although Pakistan has safe manning rules, there is less emphasis on social issues such as mainstreaming gender and social justice for vulnerable coastal communities. Decision-making and enforcement of governing instruments is another important matter to be considered. It is opined that the case of other sectors of Pakistan’s maritime economy would be similar to the findings of this study on the shipping sector. Hence, it is deciphered that NMP 2002 requires revision not only for the translation of emerging requirements of international obligations and the national and sub-national policies and legal instruments but also to meet the local challenges created by overlapping jurisdiction and incoherent mechanisms for all segments of the maritime economy.
In summary, the study contributes a new approach to analyzing the maritime governance framework with a focus on the sustainability of the shipping sector. The study demonstrated a way to use criteria and indicators to identify gaps. The framework developed in the study is flexible and extendable to other maritime sectors of the economy by choosing sector-specific indicators, whereas the three principles and respective criteria are equally applicable to other sectors of the blue economy. The PCI framework provides an evidence-based evaluation of the policies and guides the selection of suitable tradeoffs among the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of a sustainable blue economy. The findings also highlight the need for a systematic policy-making framework in the maritime sector with an emphasis on maritime specificities, sustainability aspects, and adopted international goals. A follow-up analysis for the next steps in the maritime policy-making process should be carried out with a focus on demands for the incorporation of sustainability aspects and future challenges in the maritime sector. The findings give a clear picture to the government and researchers and provide the latest state of knowledge on the subject to enable the decision-making process at the federal and provincial levels. However, the study was limited to the governance of operational aspects of only active sea-going vessels under the shipping sector, and it does not include the recycling industry for end-of-ships. The positive outcome of the study rationalizes the need to undertake more studies on remaining maritime sectors as well.
All authors contributed substantially to the manuscript. B.A. and K.M.J.I. have extracted and shaped the basic idea, methodology, result, discussion and conclusion of the research paper. N.A. and K.M.J.I. supervised the overall work and helped in drafting the introduction, discussion, and abstract parts. A.B.M. and T.T.F. complemented in formal analysis for discussion and logical conclusion, and review and editing. S.B. and M.I.K. assisted in reviewing, editing and proofreading of the manuscript, in addition to funding arrangement for APC coverage by S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The research topic does not involve any human or animal subject. This requirement is not applicable.
The research topic does not involve any human or animal subject. This requirement is not applicable.
The data that support the finding of this study are available from the first and corresponding authors on request.
This paper is extracted from MS Thesis of the first author for which we would like to acknowledge and appreciate the support extended by National Institute of Maritime Affairs, Bahria University in gathering necessary data and providing co-supervisor as well as office space during desk work at Islamabad. The authors also express their gratitude to the editorial board and reviewers who helped in improving the paper by sharing their meaningful comments and constructive suggestions anonymously.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Scoring/Rating scale for NMP Coherence—Shipping Sector.
| Level of |
Index Score |
%Age | Parameter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 5 | 100% | Environmental protection, socio-economic well-being, and governance sectoral policy instruments related selected indicators are highly satisfactory and fully integrated and well-aligned design and narration of the contents with clarity, emphasis, and direction on the subject of respective planned criteria. |
| Adequate | 4.0–4.99 | 80–99.99% | Satisfactory level of integrated design and well-aligned narration of the contents with clarity, emphasis and direction on the subject i.e., principle, criterion, and indicators. |
| Fair | 3.0–3.99 | 60–79.99% | Integrated design and aligned narration of the contents, but direction on selected principle, criterion, and indicators are not clear. |
| Partial | 2.0–2.99 | 40–59.99% | Although the aspect of sustainability is covered clearly to some extent, it still lacks emphasis and direction on the subject. |
| Limited or poor | 1.0–1.99 | 20–39.99% | General policy measures without clarity, emphasis, and direction on the subject of selected principle, criteria, and indicators |
| Not attended | 0.1–0.99 | 1–19.99% | No evidence found about integrated approach of planned principle, criteria, and indicators integration in the selected policy document |
Categorization of policy, legal and regulatory instruments for shipping sector.
| S. No. | Name of Policy Instrument/Document | Linkage with Shipping (Direct/Indirect) | Nature of Policy Instrument | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constituent | Regulatory | Distributive | |||
| International Agreements | |||||
| 1. | United Nation Convention of Law of Sea |
Direct 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2. | MARPOL 73/78 [ |
Direct | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 3. | Basel Convention, 1992 [ |
Indirect 2 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Federal Level | |||||
| Policy | |||||
| 4. | National Maritime Policy (NMP), 2002 [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 5. | Merchant Marine Policy (MMP), 2019 [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 6. | National Environment Policy (NEP), 2005 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 7. | National Climate Change Policy (NCCP), 2021 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 8. | Framework Implementation of Climate Change Policy (FICCP), 2014 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 9. | National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS), 2017 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 10. | National Marine Disaster Contingency Plan (NMDCP) [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 11. | National Hazardous Waste Management Policy (NHWMP), 2022 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| Acts/Ordinance | |||||
| 12 | Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO), 2001 [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 13 | Pakistan Maritime Security Agency Act (MSA), 1994 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 14 | Pakistan Environmental Protection Act |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| Rules/Regulations | |||||
| 15 | Merchant Ship Manning Rules (MSMR), 2021 [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 16 | Pakistan Merchant Shipping Carriage of Hazardous and Dangerous Substances by Ship Rules (PMS CHDSS), 2009 [ |
Direct | ✓ | ||
| 17 | National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) Regulation, 2000 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| Provincial Level | |||||
| 18 | Balochistan Environmental Protection Act (BEPA), 2012 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 19 | Sindh Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), 2014 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 20 | Balochistan Hazardous Substance Rules (BHS), 2020 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
| 21 | Sindh Hazardous Substance Rules (SHS), 2014 [ |
Indirect | ✓ | ||
1 Direct linkage means: Policy instrument/regulatory document are directly linked with Shipping Sector. 2 Indirect linkage: Policy/regulatory instrument is neither directly linked nor solely dedicated to Shipping sector. However, it has some mandatory requirement applicable to Shipping due to cross-cutting nature of document.
Overall NMP coherence index across sectoral governance framework for sustainability in Pakistan’s shipping sector.
| S. No. | Governing Instruments | NMP 2002 | MSO 2001 | MMP 2019 | PMSA Act 1994 | MSMR 2021 | PMS CHDSS Rules 2009 | PEPA 1997 | NEP 2005 | FICCP 2013 | NCCP 2021 | NSDS 2017 | NMCP | NHWMP 2022 | NEQS 2000 | BEPA 2012 | SEPA 2014 | BHSR 2020 | SHSR 2014 | UNCLOS 1982 | MARPOL 73/78 | BC 1992 | Overall Coherence Index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. | Maritime Pollution Control and Climate Response (C1-E1) | 2.50 | 2.80 | 1.70 | 2.90 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 2.40 | 2.50 | 2.56 | 2.70 | 1.40 | 4.20 | 2.50 | 1.75 | 2.20 | 1.70 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 4.20 | 5.00 | 2.76 | |
| 2. | Ecosystem Conservation (C2-E2) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | N/A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.00 | 0.00 | N/A | N/A | 4.00 | 3.00 | N/A | 0.71 | |
| 3. | Social Well-being (C3-S1) | 0.60 | 2.00 | 3.20 | 0.00 | 2.40 | N/A | N/A | 2.20 | 1.40 | 1.60 | 1.40 | 0.80 | 0.40 | N/A | 0.20 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 2.40 | 3.33 | 1.00 | 1.36 | |
| 4. | Sustained Economic Growth (C4-S2) | 1.50 | 1.50 | 3.50 | 2.00 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00 | 2.50 | 1.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | N/A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 1.13 | |
| 5. | Basic Response Mechanism (C5-G1) | 3.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 3.25 | 3.75 | 2.00 | 1.67 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 3.50 | 2.75 | 1.67 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 4.67 | 4.67 | 4.67 | 2.79 | |
| 6. | Actor’s Capacity (C6-G2) | 3.50 | 1.75 | 2.25 | 2.50 | 2.25 | 1.25 | 3.50 | 2.25 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 3.25 | 2.00 | N/A | 2.75 | 2.00 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 3.75 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 2.50 | |
| 7. | Performance System (C7-G3) | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 3.12 | |
| Average Index Score | 2.16 | 2.08 | 2.31 | 1.81 | 2.13 | 2.56 | 1.76 | 2.14 | 1.92 | 2.15 | 1.79 | 2.63 | 1.78 | 2.47 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.50 | 1.43 | 3.26 | 3.74 | 3.11 | 2.1 | ||
Scoring Scale: 0 = Not Attended, 1.00 to 1.99 = Limited or Poor, 2.00 to 2.99 = Partial, 3.00 to 3.99 = Fair, 4.00 to 4.99 = Adequate, 5.00 to 5.99 = Excellent. Note: Index Score 2.1 = Although the aspect of sustainability is covered clearly to some extent, it still lacks emphasis and direction on the subject.
Criteria-wise average score for PC-1.
| Criteria Code | Criteria | Coherence Index | Level of Coherence |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1-E1 | Maritime Pollution Control and Climate Response | 2.76 | Partial |
| C2-E2 | Ecosystem Conservation | 0.71 | Not attended |
| Total Average | 1.73 | Limited or poor | |
Criteria-wise average score for PC-2.
| Criteria Code | Criteria | Coherence Index | Level of Coherence |
|---|---|---|---|
| C3-S1 | Social Well-being | 1.36 | Limited or poor |
| C4-S2 | Sustained Economic Growth | 1.13 | Limited or poor |
| Total Average | 1.24 | Limited or poor | |
Criteria-wise average score for PC-3.
| Criteria Code | Criteria | Coherence Index | Level of Coherence |
|---|---|---|---|
| C5-G1 | Basic Response Mechanism | 2.79 | Partial |
| C6-G2 | Actor’s Capacity | 2.50 | Partial |
| C7-G3 | Performance System | 3.12 | Fair |
| Total Average | 2.80 | Partial | |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Al-Enazi, A.; Okonkwo, E.C.; Bicer, Y.; Al-Ansari, T. A Review of Cleaner Alternative Fuels for Maritime Transportation. Energy Rep.; 2021; 7, pp. 1962-1985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.036]
2. Chu-Van, T.; Ristovski, Z.; Pourkhesalian, A.M.; Rainey, T.; Garaniya, V.; Abbassi, R.; Kimball, R.; Luong Cong, N.; Jahangiri, S.; Brown, R.J. A Comparison of Particulate Matter and Gaseous Emission Factors from Two Large Cargo Vessels during Manoeuvring Conditions. Energy Rep.; 2019; 5, pp. 1390-1398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.10.001]
3. Mersin, K.; Bayirhan, I.; Gazioglu, C. Review of CO2 Emission and Reducing Methods. Therm. Sci.; 2019; 23, pp. 2073-2079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/TSCI190722372M]
4. Zhou, X.; Cheng, L.; Li, M. Assessing and Mapping Maritime Transportation Risk Based on Spatial Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Case Study in the South China Sea. Ocean Eng.; 2020; 208, 107403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107403]
5. Yang, H.; Ma, X. Uncovering CO2 Emissions Patterns from China-Oriented International Maritime Transport: Decomposition and Decoupling Analysis. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 2826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11102826]
6. Iqbal, K.M.J.; Haider, B.B. Shipping Sector of Pakistan: An Appraisal; 2021st ed. Shipping Sector of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2021.
7. Nawaz, R.R. Maritime Strategy in Pakistan; Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, CA, USA, 2004; 121.
8. Shahzad Mehmood, J.S. Umbreen Development of Shipping Sector in Pakistan: Options and Proposed Strategy. J. Polit. Stud.; 2016; 23, 559.
9. Iftikhar, M. Maritime Security Governance: Pakistan Perspective. Gov. Manag. Rev.; 2016; 1, pp. 42-72.
10. World Bank. Pakistan Blue Carbon Rapid Assessment; World Bank: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2021.
11. GoP. National Maritime Policy of Pakistan 2002; Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2002.
12. Schaefer, N.; Barale, V. Maritime Spatial Planning: Opportunities & Challenges in the Framework of the EU Integrated Maritime Policy. J. Coast. Conserv.; 2011; 15, pp. 237-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0154-3]
13. Waheed, A.; Fischer, T.B.; Khan, M.I. Climate Change Policy Coherence across Policies, Plans, and Strategies in Pakistan-Implications for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Plan. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 67, pp. 793-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01449-y]
14. Yawe, B.L. Policy Coherence for Development. Educational Technology Use and Design for Improved Learning Opportunities; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2014; pp. 213-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6102-8.ch012]
15. Voyer, M.; Farmery, A.K.; Kajlich, L.; Vachette, A.; Quirk, G. Assessing Policy Coherence and Coordination in the Sustainable Development of a Blue Economy. A Case Study from Timor Leste. Ocean Coast. Manag.; 2020; 192, 105187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105187]
16. Alam, M.A. Economic Analysis of Pakistan’s Shipping Policy. Marit. Policy Rev.; 2020; 1, pp. 89-110.
17. Alam, M.A. Prospect of Maritime Economy for Pakistan; Maritime Study Forum: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2019; 56.
18. Qaimkhani, A.M. The Marine Litter Action Plan—Status Report (PAKISTAN); Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2018; 36.
19. Saeed, N.; Cullinane, K.; Sødal, S. Exploring the Relationships between Maritime Connectivity, International Trade and Domestic Production. Marit. Policy Manag.; 2021; 48, pp. 497-511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1802783]
20. Fratila, A.; Gavril, I.A.; Nita, S.C.; Hrebenciuc, A. The Importance of Maritime Transport for Economic Growth in the European Union: A Panel Data Analysis. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13147961]
21. Ali, A. An Analysis of National Maritime Policy 2002; Maritime Study Forum: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2022.
22. Arooj, A. Shipping in Pakistan—A Review of Policies, Organizations and Management; Maritime Study Forum of Pakistan. 2020; Available online: https://www.maritimestudyforum.org/shipping-in-pakistan-a-review-of-policies-organizations-and-management (accessed on 8 March 2023).
23. Stavroulakis, P.J.; Papadimitriou, S.; Tsioumas, V.; Koliousis, I.G.; Riza, E.; Kontolatou, E.O. Strategic Competitiveness in Maritime Clusters. Case Stud. Transp. Policy; 2020; 8, pp. 341-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.10.008]
24. Endresen, O.; Eide, M.; Dalsoren, S.; Isaksen, I.S.; Sorgard, E. The Environmental Impacts of Increased International Maritime Shipping. Proceedings of the Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalising World; Guadalajara, Mexico, 10–12 November 2008; pp. 1-43.
25. Hasanspahic, N.; Vujicic, S.; Campara, L.; Piekarska, K. Sustainability and Environmental Challenges of Modern Shipping Industry. J. Appl. Eng. Sci.; 2021; 19, pp. 369-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-28681]
26. IMO. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL); International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 1973.
27. Jackson, L. Maritime Activities 25. Regional State of the Coast Report: Western Indian Ocean; United Nations Environment Programme: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 327-342.
28. Smith, G. Defining the Blue Economy. Marit. Aff.; 2016; 12, pp. 58-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2016.1175131]
29. Iqbal, K.M.J.; Khan, M.I. Mix-Method Analysis for Assessing the Adequacy pf the State of Governance for Climate Compatible Development in Agriculture Sector. Int. J. Mod. Agric.; 2021; 10, pp. 4220-4241.
30. Iqbal, J.; Iqbal, J.; Akhtar, N.; Amir, S.; Naseer, H.M.; Khan, M.I. Capacity Assessment of Community Based Organizations for Climate Smart Agriculture Extension to Promote Climate Compatible Development: A Governance Index Approach. Int. J. Mod. Agric.; 2021; 10, pp. 4258-4271.
31. Karnauskaite, D.; Schernewski, G.; Støttrup, J.G.; Kataržyte, M. Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool to Support Coastal and Marine Management. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11113175]
32. Sajid, H. Role of Maritime Sector in Pakistan ’s Economic and Security Development. Pak. Annu. Res. J.; 2014; 50, pp. 71-80.
33. Taylor, M. Sectoral Governance and State Capacity. The Chinese State, Oil and Energy Security; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 31-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137350558_2]
34. Patil, P.G.; Virdin, J.; Diez, S.M.; Roberts, J.; Singh, A. Toward a Blue Economy: A Promise for Sustainable Growth in the Caribbean. An overview; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; 92.
35. IMO. Status of Conventions; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2022.
36. GoP. National Environmental Policy 2005; Government of Pakistan; Ministry of Environment: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2005.
37. GoP. National Climate Change Policy 2012; Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2012.
38. GoP. Pakistan Climate Change Act; The Gazette of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2017.
39. GoP. Pakistan National Sustainable Development Strategy; Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2017; 60.
40. UN. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; UN: New York, NY, USA, 1982.
41. BC. On the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal Basel Convention Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Basel Convention: Geneve, Switzerland, 1992.
42. MoMA. Pakistan Merchant Marine Policy; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2019; Volume 2001, pp. 1-10.
43. GoP. National Climate Change Policy 2021; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Climate Change: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2021.
44. GoP. Framework for Implementation of Climate Chance Policy (2014–2030); Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2014.
45. MoMA. National Marine Contingency Plan; Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2019.
46. GoP. National Hazardous Waste Management Policy; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Climate Change: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2022.
47. MoMA. Merchant Shipping Ordinance; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2001; Volume 2.
48. MoMA. Maritime Security Agency Act; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 1994; pp. 1-11.
49. GoP. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act; Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 1997.
50. MoMA. Merchant Shipping Manning Rues; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2021; 1633.
51. MoMA. Carriage of Hazardous and Dangerous Substances by Ships Rules; Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Maritime Affairs: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2009.
52. GoP. National Environmental Quality Standards; Government of Pakistan: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2009.
53. GoB. Balochistan Environmental Protection Act 2012; Government of Balochistan: Quetta, Pakistan, 2012; pp. 1-28.
54. GoS. Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014; Judges’ Library, High Court of Sindh: Karachi, Pakistan, 2014; 29.
55. Rules, G. Balochistan Hazardous Substances Rules 2020; Government of Balochistan: Quetta, Pakistan, 2020.
56. Government of Sindh. Sindh Hazardous Substances Rules 2014; Government of Sindh, Sindh Environmental Protection Agency: Karachi, Pakistan, 2014.
57. Iqbal, K.M.J.; Akhtar, N.; Khan, M.O.; Khan, M.I. Mix-Method Modelling of Actors’ Capacity for Environmental Sustainability and Climate Compatible Development in Energy Sector. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 50632-50646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19399-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35235119]
58. Nõmmela, K.; Kaare, K.K. Maritime Policy Design Framework with ESG Performance Approach: Case of Estonia. Economies; 2022; 10, 88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/economies10040088]
59. Ullah, K.; Ali, H. Measuring Coherence Between Electricity and Environmental Policies of Pakistan. Pak. J. Soc. Issues; 2021; XII, pp. 32-50.
60. Kuhlmann, J.; Blum, S. Narrative Plots for Regulatory, Distributive, and Redistributive Policies. Eur. Policy Anal.; 2021; 7, pp. 276-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1127]
61. Shih, W.C. Climate Regulations Are about to Disrupt Global Shipping. Available online: https://hbr.org/2022/10/climate-regulations-are-about-to-disrupt-global-shipping (accessed on 25 January 2023).
62. Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Li, K.X. How Can the Maritime Industry Meet Sustainable Development Goals? An Analysis of Sustainability Reports from the Social Entrepreneurship Perspective. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2020; 78, 102173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.002]
63. Evangelista, P.; Morvillo, A. The Role of Training in Developing Entrepreneurship: The Case of Shipping in Italy. Marit. Policy Manag.; 1998; 25, pp. 81-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839800000046]
64. Huang, P.; Yao, C. Diversification Business Performance Evaluation of Shipping Industry in China. J. Coast. Res.; 2018; 83, pp. 802-806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI83-131.1]
65. Venesia, S. The Socioeconomic Impacts of Shipping in The Netherlands. Available online: https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/the-socioeconomic-impacts-of-shipping-in-the-netherlands (accessed on 25 January 2023).
66. Kern, K. Governance for Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region. J. Balt. Stud.; 2011; 42, pp. 21-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2011.538517]
67. Saebi, M.; Xu, J.; Curasi, S.R.; Grey, E.K.; Chawla, N.V.; Lodge, D.M. Network Analysis of Ballast-Mediated Species Transfer Reveals Important Introduction and Dispersal Patterns in the Arctic. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 19558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76602-4]
68. OECD. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 9789264272576
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Kanwar Muhammad Javed Iqbal 2
; Akhtar, Nadia 1
; Mottaeva, Angela Bahauovna 3 ; Turutina, Tatyana Fedorovna 4 ; Barykin, Sergey 5
; Khan, Muhammad Irfan 1
1 Department of Environmental Science, International Islamic University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2 National Institute of Maritime Affairs, Bahria University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
3 Department of Management and Innovations, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 125167 Moscow, Russia
4 Department of Engineering Graphics and Computer Modeling, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, 129337 Moscow, Russia
5 Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia