The blue economy is gaining increasing global attention among nations, driven by the untapped potential for economic growth from resources beneath the water’s surface. The depletion of natural resources on land has pushed countries to seek alternatives, leading to the exploration and exploitation of blue economy resources in deep waters. Competition for these cross-border resources, such as hydrocarbons, fish, coal, sand, and mineral wealth, often results in intense disputes as countries vie for control over extraction.
The origin of natural resources and related conflicts dates back to the dawn of human civilization. In Africa, the primary source of conflict between nations is often natural resources, manifesting in three distinct ways:
Firstly, natural resources can be a direct or indirect source of conflict.
Secondly, these resources can either fuel or sustain conflicts.
Thirdly, natural resources can play a role in reducing or resolving conflicts.
For instance, in the maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia, the presence of blue economy resources in the Indian Ocean remains a significant source of tension, making these resources central to the maritime dispute. As such, natural resources are critical to the survival of states within the chaotic international system. The existence of blue economy resources in overlapping areas not only affects political and economic relations between states but also strains their interactions, leading to multifaceted conflicts. From this perspective, natural resources, particularly blue economy resources, must be given serious consideration when studying regional disputes between neighboring countries.
“Blue economy resources” represent a new wave of economic opportunities for nations, emphasizing the need for the sustainable exploitation of natural resources such as seas, rivers, oceans, and coastal areas to achieve economic growth. These natural water bodies contain vast deposits of oil, natural gas, fisheries, mineral wealth, and plant life, which countries seek to exploit and control for their own benefit. Blue economy resources include economic activities such as ecotourism, marine genetic resources, renewable energy, aquaculture, shipping clean-up, carbon sequestration, seafood, and industrial machinery operations, all of which serve as revenue sources for nations. Overall, states recognize the importance of these blue economy resources in creating new job opportunities and achieving economic prosperity by generating revenue and ensuring security. This explains why blue economy resources are a major global concern for countries due to their potential benefits. Therefore, it is essential to improve the current literature on blue economy resources, which highlights the critical role these resources play in the economic growth of nations and their citizens, and why they are key sources of dispute.
Globally, humans have relied on blue economy resources for centuries. Since the mid-20th century, people have exploited coastal ecosystems for resources, enabling coastal nations to expand their wealth through international trade, migration, and the extraction of blue economy resources. The increasing population growth, the depletion of land resources, and the rising demand for coastal resources have led to intense disputes. The global shift toward developing national blue economy strategies reflects the growing focus on coastal resources to address various economic shortcomings, as seen in New Zealand. Blue economy activities in New Zealand include fisheries, offshore oil and gas, marine mineral wealth, tourism, seabed mining, renewable energy, coastal transport, and aquaculture. This demonstrates that conflicts over coastal resources are inevitable, often involving competing values, resources, cultures, and governance. Hence, there is a need for policies and guidelines on how to use blue economy resources without triggering disputes due to conflicting objectives.
The Blue Economy Concept in the Context of Kenya and Somalia
The blue economy refers to all sustainable economic activities carried out in the Indian Ocean by Kenya and Somalia. Both countries aim to maintain the environmental sustainability of the Indian Ocean while promoting social inclusion, economic growth, and the preservation or enhancement of livelihoods. This involves tackling a variety of interconnected but distinct challenges related to the exploitation of blue economy resources. Kenya and Somalia seek to ensure growth among women and youth, leverage the latest innovations and scientific developments, and find the best ways to build wealth while safeguarding their territorial waters for future generations.
The blue economy holds significant and promising potential for the economic prospects of both Kenya and Somalia. Consequently, the two nations are working independently to achieve their national interests in the Indian Ocean. Kenya and Somalia recognize the importance of blue economy resources and have proposed ambitious national development plans to exploit these resources in the Indian Ocean, aiming for economic growth, poverty reduction, and diversification of their economies beyond traditional or rural-based livelihoods. This is crucial given the increasing challenges posed by environmental and climate changes faced by both countries, coupled with a lack of significant economic improvement and dwindling natural resources on land.
In the Indian Ocean, the extraction of blue resources forms the basis of social, economic, and political conflicts between Kenya and Somalia due to unclear or poorly defined maritime borders. Since 2014, Kenya and Somalia have been involved in a dispute over their maritime boundaries, which escalated when Kenya began hydrocarbon exploration in the contested waters. The situation was further complicated by the involvement of non-state actors with vested interests in exploiting these resources. In response, Somalia auctioned the blocks to multinational actors.
Kenya severed diplomatic ties with Somalia, closed the border, recalled its ambassador, and expelled the Somali envoy from Kenya, threatening to declare hostilities. The two countries referred the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to contain the escalating tension and resolve the dispute. However, Kenya later withdrew from the ICJ arbitration process. In 2022, the ICJ ruled on the matter, drawing a new maritime boundary for both nations. While Somalia welcomed the ruling, Kenya vowed not to adhere to it. These differing stances have increased resentment and strained relations between the neighboring countries. This article explores the centrality of blue economy resources in the maritime boundary dispute between Kenya and Somalia.
Despite its intensity, the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia revolves around the vast resources in the contested area. Both nations have shifted their focus to accelerate activities in the Indian Ocean, reflecting their national economic agendas.
The question remains: What blue economy resources are at the core of the maritime boundary conflicts between Kenya and Somalia?
Blue Economy Resources Driving the Maritime Boundary Dispute Between Kenya and Somalia
Blue economy resources are central to the maritime boundary dispute between Kenya and Somalia. As natural resources on land dwindle, both nations have turned to water bodies for alternative resources. The presence of valuable natural resources is the primary driver of border conflicts between countries. Kenya and Somalia have overlapping claims to a resource-rich marine area in the Indian Ocean, driven by their national interests in exploring and exploiting marine resources for economic growth. Both countries aim to integrate their social, economic, environmental, and security interests in the shared marine domains. Blue economy resources fueling the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia include organic resources such as aquaculture, mangroves, and coral reefs, as well as inorganic resources like natural gas, oil, salt, and other minerals. Additionally, the region is of great importance for global trade, maritime transport routes, and biotechnology.
First: Organic Blue Economy Resources
Marine Fisheries:
The maritime boundary between Kenya and Somalia is rich in marine fishery resources, a significant point of contention. These fisheries, including coastal and deep-sea resources, are vital to the small-scale, semi-industrial, and mechanical fishing industries in both countries. Coastal fishing in the disputed area primarily focuses on artisanal fishing, targeting both nearshore and deep-sea waters. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that coastal fishing in the area could provide up to 15% of the global fish catch by 2020. Oceanic fishing in the region, including tuna, sharks, and other large pelagic species, holds considerable economic value. These nutrient-rich fisheries supply essential micronutrients, support livelihoods, reduce food insecurity, alleviate poverty, and create job opportunities…
Mangrove Forests:
Mangrove forests cover the coastal region from Kiunga, on the border between Kenya and Somalia, to Vanga, on the border between Kenya and Tanzania. Many mangrove species in the Western Indian Ocean region are found within the disputed area. Mangroves offer numerous benefits, including protecting the coastline, depositing soil, providing nourishment and shelter for wildlife, and serving as nurseries for aquatic organisms. They are vital for coastal and nearshore fisheries, supporting a wide variety of abundant fish species. Additionally, mangroves contribute economically through tourism, timber, fishing, honey, and wax, offering diverse livelihood opportunities.
Coral Reefs:
The coral reefs along the coastlines of Kenya and Somalia are vast and diverse, consisting of many species of hard and soft corals. These productive ecosystems are crucial for both environmental and economic reasons, supporting coastal fisheries and providing essential habitats for fish. Coral reefs protect the coastline from tropical storms and large waves, reducing coastal erosion. They also support the coastal tourism industry by forming sandy beaches and sheltered harbors.
Second: Non-Living Blue Economy Resources
The non-living blue economy resources in the Indian Ocean are also contested. It is believed that there is a wealth of oil, gas, hydrocarbons, and marine minerals in the waters along the Kenya-Somalia border. Oil and gas are valuable resources, with seismic assessments indicating that the region may hold up to 100 billion barrels of fossil fuel reserves. These resources are critical for economic development, generating tax revenues that could transform the financial outlook of both countries. However, efforts to exploit these resources are hindered by the interests of global powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Norway, which seek to benefit from the resource-rich offshore blocks.
Third: Mining Operations
Marine mining operations in the disputed maritime area are another key driver of the border conflict. These operations include extracting sea salt, potassium, sand, gravel, and minerals from the seabed. Kenya’s thriving sea salt industry is of great economic importance and aims to achieve food security in Somalia. The sector employs solar salt evaporation, producing raw salt for domestic consumption and export. The maritime dispute has impacted salt production due to contested mining areas. Furthermore, marine minerals such as polymetallic sulfides, polymetallic nodules, and cobalt-rich crusts are of significant interest. These minerals are essential for the telecommunications industry and the sustainable energy sector, particularly photovoltaic cells.
Fourth: Blue Tourism
Blue tourism is another area of contention between Kenya and Somalia. According to the Global Strategic Studies Center, blue tourism, which includes coastal and marine adventures, generates approximately USD 14.7 billion annually, contributing 70% of economic inputs. The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2017) reported that blue tourism is the second-largest source of foreign currency in Kenya. This sector contributes around 10% of Kenya’s GDP. The Indian Ocean coastline is a major tourist destination due to its scenic beaches, diverse wildlife, friendly locals, and moderate climate. However, maritime boundary disputes and insecurity have hampered this industry, affecting the maintenance of coral reefs.
Fifth: Maritime Transport
Maritime transport is another source of conflict. The largest ports of both countries are located along the disputed area, ensuring access to trade routes and the uninterrupted flow of goods and services. The region is a major shipping route for large vessels carrying global trade, with 90% of traded goods passing through it. The disputed area includes some of the world’s key shipping lanes, serving about 30% of global maritime transport. The maritime boundary dispute disrupts shipping, leading to income loss due to supply chain interruptions.
Sixth: Marine Biotechnology
Marine biotechnology also faces challenges due to the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia. The disputed area holds significant potential for economic growth through the discovery and utilization of marine organisms, including chemical compounds, enzymes, and other materials used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and biomaterials. Marine biotechnology can enhance human health, food production, energy security, and environmental cleanup. Studies show that marine bacteria could be a valuable source of medicines, including antibiotics, which both nations seek to control in the disputed area.
The map above shows the disputed territorial waters between Kenya and Somalia, believed to contain many blue economy resources. The dispute centers on defining the maritime boundaries between the two countries, particularly in the “maritime triangle.” Beyond blue economy resources, the maritime boundary dispute between Kenya and Somalia is also rooted in the need to preserve territorial integrity.
Local Actors’ Interests in the Maritime Border Dispute Between Kenya and Somalia
The primary external actors exacerbating the maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia are the Somali elite, clans, federal members, and Somali diaspora. The Somali leadership has a deeply vested interest in the blue economy resources of the Indian Ocean. This was evident in 2020 when personal interests played a key role in the passage of the Somali Petroleum Law. The Somali political class is also keen on maintaining control over the fossil fuel sector, which is considered to be worth millions of dollars. Consequently, the political elite funded the 2021 Somali presidential elections, reinforcing their stake in the disputed area. The leadership drafted a hydrocarbon agreement, enabling the Somali government to allocate 90% of expected oil and gas revenues to Soma Oil and Gas, a company based in the United Kingdom.
Clan leadership in Somalia wields considerable influence over government institutions and the appointment of political elites. This power is particularly evident in the northern stable region of Somalia and the fragmented southern Somalia. Major clans like Darod, Dir, Hawiye, Isaaq, and Rahanweyn play significant roles in the maritime border dispute. Clan militias control many parts of the disputed area, illegally exploiting resources and aggravating tensions between Kenya and Somalia. For warlords, the dispute provides an opportunity to strengthen their forces and secure land, hindering exploration activities.
Meanwhile, the federal member states of Somalia are driven by a desire to control and negotiate the exploration of maritime resources within their territories. The pursuit of revenue is why Puntland, Somaliland, and Jubaland opposed the Somali Petroleum Law in 2020. Puntland granted exploration rights to ION Geophysical, while Somaliland licensed Genel Energy and RAK Gas. Additionally, Puntland’s Petroleum and Minerals Agency sought to explore resources in the maritime area, notifying Spectrum and China’s BGP, both licensed by Mogadishu. However, these seismic reviews were illegal and unauthorized. Despite its proximity to the disputed area, Jubaland has not claimed rights over the maritime boundary between Kenya and Somalia. Kenya remains concerned about Jubaland’s stance and its ability to engage with geopolitical actors on maritime issues, given its status as a buffer zone for the Al-Shabaab militant group. Moreover, disagreements over the Somali Petroleum Law have hindered exploration plans in Jubaland and the surrounding disputed maritime areas with Kenya.
Most Somali political leaders and citizens hold dual citizenship, residing and doing business in Kenya and other countries. Their conflicting loyalties, shaped by geopolitical allegiances, have significant implications for the maritime dispute. Their strategic position allows them to influence Somalia’s stance in the conflict, offering expertise and knowledge to support Somalia in its case before the International Court of Justice. Kenya hosts a significant Somali diaspora and refugees in Kakuma and Dadaab camps, bearing the responsibility of sheltering Somali migrants.
Geopolitical Actors’ Role in the Maritime Dispute Between Kenya and Somalia
The maritime dispute between Somalia and Kenya has drawn the attention of global powers. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Norway are particularly interested in exploiting the resource-rich offshore blocks. Although Norway and China were not colonial powers, they have been strategically involved in the new competition for blue economy resources in the contested area. For instance, between 2001 and 2008, commodity prices surged due to rapid industrial expansion in countries like China and Norway. Their efforts to access African raw materials triggered a rush for resources.
First: Norway and China
Geopolitical actors and multinational corporations have complicated the dispute. Both Kenya and Somalia have engaged external parties in potential hydrocarbon exploration. Companies like Norway’s Statoil, BP-Shell, Soma Oil and Gas, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), and the U.S. firm Spectrum Geo dominate hydrocarbon seismic surveys in the Indian Ocean. Given their interest in fossil fuel surveys, Norway, the UK, the U.S., China, France, Italy, and Qatar have taken different stances, escalating the dispute.
Their interest in blue economy resources has led to divided loyalties, with countries showing solidarity with either Kenya or Somalia. Unsurprisingly, elite interests play a key role in shaping the economic gains Kenya and Somalia hope to achieve from the resources in the contested area. These geopolitical actors discreetly influence the dispute through elite structures.
Moreover, Norway has approached the United Nations regarding Somalia’s maritime borders, seeking changes to advance its objectives in oil exploitation. It leveraged the influence of Hassan Ali, a Norwegian national and Somalia’s prime minister, to further its interests in the disputed area after Kenya excluded the Norwegian oil company Statoil from the contested region. Later, Norway became a key player at the Somali Oil and Gas Conference in London. Due to Somalia’s weakness, Norway can exploit oil from the Somali side rather than the Kenyan side, financing Somalia’s case at the International Court of Justice to circumvent Kenyan bureaucratic control over oil exploration.
Second: The United Kingdom
The UK has supported Somalia in the maritime dispute, maintaining a longstanding relationship that dates back to British colonial rule over Somali territories. The UK’s involvement is evident in its rush to conduct hydrocarbon surveys in Puntland. For example, BP and its subsidiary Shell held oil exploration concessions in Somalia from the 1980s until 1991, when the Somali civil war erupted following the ousting of President Siad Barre. The humanitarian and security aid provided by the UK since the outbreak of violence in Somalia is linked to advancing its interests, including those of prominent politicians and the business sector.
Additionally, UK-Kenyan bilateral relations have deteriorated in recent years. Under President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya has leaned towards the U.S. and China instead of Britain. Consequently, the UK has shifted its commercial interests to Somalia. In 2019, the UK funded the Somali Oil and Gas Conference in London.
Third: The United States
The U.S. stands alongside Kenya, its main ally in addressing key global challenges. This alliance deepened following the 1998 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital. U.S. and Kenyan administrations intensified their cooperation in counter-terrorism and regional security efforts. Both nations have campaigned against global terrorism, particularly in response to the rise of Islamic extremism in Mogadishu. Kenya provided logistical support to the U.S., including intelligence and bases in Mombasa and Manda Island for counter-terrorism operations. U.S. forces have expelled several warlords threatening stability in the region, and American support has facilitated negotiations with warlords for a more stable Somali state. If the disputed maritime zone is classified within Kenyan waters, U.S. oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil would benefit from hydrocarbon surveys. Kenya and the U.S. have also signed trade deals worth $100 million. Given that Kenya has contracted Total Oil to operate in the contested maritime space, there is a high likelihood that France, a close U.S. ally, would back Kenya in the dispute.
Fourth: Italy
Italy’s relationship with Somalia, particularly regarding the resources of the Indian Ocean, has been a cornerstone of their close ties. Rome is aware of the importance of hydrocarbons in the contested area for its development, which has driven its engagement in Somalia’s internal politics. Italy has long provided foreign aid and development assistance to Somalia, dating back to its occupation and administration of Italian Somaliland. Italian Somaliland was strategically located at the crossroads of international trade routes, and Italy continues to monitor Somalia’s resource-rich maritime space. It has fully supported Somalia’s efforts to exploit oil and gas in the disputed area. Italian multinational oil and gas company Eni has expressed interest in hydrocarbon surveys within Somali waters.
Fifth: Middle Eastern Countries (Qatar)
Middle Eastern interests in the Kenya-Somalia maritime dispute have also surfaced. In 2019, Qatar Petroleum signed an agreement with Kenya to exploit three offshore blocks in the Lamu Basin, outside the disputed area. This move prompted Qatar to back Kenya in the maritime dispute.
It is clear that these global powers’ interests influence their alliances, complicating the maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia. Norway, Italy, and the UK support Somalia, while the U.S., China, and France back Kenya. Their interests shape economic investments and hinder the exploration of blue economy resources. Although these global powers advocate for an amicable resolution to the dispute, their multinational corporations continue to sign exploration agreements in the disputed maritime boundaries, exacerbating tensions. The maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia is, in effect, in the hands of these global actors. The delay in resolving the conflict has commercial repercussions for both countries, as the absence of ongoing exploration projects linked to resource exploitation reduces potential income.
In conclusion, blue economy resources are at the heart of the maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia. These resources lie in overlapping areas and contested territorial boundaries, fueling the conflict. Blue economy resources include oil, gas, coral reefs, sand, fisheries, mangroves, international trade routes, tourism, biotechnology, and other mineral wealth. The disputing parties are keen to achieve national interests in the contested maritime area, economically profiting from the resources to increase revenue for their development agendas.
Both local and geopolitical actors interested in the maritime space between Kenya and Somalia have exacerbated the conflict. Local political figures, businesses, clan leaders, and Somalis abroad have advanced their personal agendas, prioritizing self-interest over national priorities in the disputed maritime area. The study demonstrates that national elites and multinational corporations are most invested in the resources of the contested maritime area. Britain, the U.S., Norway, Italy, and Qatar are among the global powers interested in exploiting hydrocarbons in the region. Often at the expense of local populations and development, the primary motive of these actors is to protect and develop their interests in the petroleum sector. This makes efforts to amicably resolve the maritime border dispute more difficult, as global powers align with either Somalia or Kenya.
References
[1] https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/96493/ssoar-pos-2024-8-ogembo_et_al-The_Centrality_of_Blue_Economy.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
[2] http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/165000/Ndolo_Kenya-somalia%20Maritime%20Dispute%20and%20the%20Economic%20Development%20in%20the%20Horn%20of%20Africa.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
[3] https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/norway-clarifies-role-in-kenya-somalia-maritime-duel-4649234
[4] https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-newsbrief/blue-economy-bites-back-role-blue-economy-kenya-somalia-maritime-dispute
[5] https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v6y2022i11p350-355.html
[6] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/14/somalia-kenya-maritime-dispute-explained
[7] https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/kenya-somali-maritime-dispute-threatens-lamus-blue-economy-prospects/
