Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy

Abstract

The global rush to develop the ‘blue economy’ risks harming both the marine environment and human wellbeing. Bold policies and actions are urgently needed. We identify five priorities to chart a course towards an environmentally sustainable and socially equitable blue economy.

Full text

comment
Towards a sustainable and equitable blue
economy
The global rush to develop the ‘blue economy’ risks harming both the marine environment and human
wellbeing. Bold policies and actions are urgently needed. We identify five priorities to chart a course towards an
environmentally sustainable and socially equitable blue economy.
Nathan J. Bennett, Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Jessica Blythe, Jennifer J. Silver, Gerald Singh,
Nathan Andrews, Antonio Calò, Patrick Christie, Antonio Di Franco, Elena M. Finkbeiner, Stefan Gelcich,
Paolo Guidetti, Sarah Harper, Ngaio Hotte, John N. Kittinger, Philippe Le Billon, Jane Lister,
Rocío López dela Lama, Emma McKinley, Joeri Scholtens, Ann-Magnhild Solås, Merle Sowman,
Nicolás Talloni-Álvarez, Lydia C. L. Teh, Michelle Voyer and U. Rashid Sumaila
Concerns about the state of the world’s
oceans are widespread1,2. At the
same time, interest in the economic
potential of the oceans is escalating, with
their contribution to the global economy
projected to double from US$1.5 trillion in
2010 to US$3 trillion by 20303. Numerous
governments and corporations herald ocean
sectors as lucrative frontiers for investment,
including fisheries, aquaculture, tourism,
bio-prospecting, seabed mining, oil and
gas, renewable energy, and shipping. The
blue economy — a term that originally
implied socially equitable and sustainable
development but has come to encapsulate
international interest in the growth of
ocean-based economic development — has
been a central theme of recent global ocean
policy conferences4,5.
Many coastal countries and small-island
developing states (SIDS) also see promise in
ocean-based growth6,7. Indeed, SIDS were
among the first to advocate for attention to
the blue economy, which, in their vision,
features social equity and environmental
sustainability as core tenets7,8 (Fig. 1). We
are concerned that the push for economic
growth through ocean development
is sidelining these tenets in policy and
practice. Unbridled ocean development risks
producing substantial harms for both the
marine environment and human wellbeing.
Sustainability and equity
Healthy oceans are linked to prosperity
and human wellbeing. Attention to ocean
sustainability has grown steadily since the
Earth Summit in 1992 and accelerated
with the 2015 adoption of Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 14: Life Below
Water. However, ocean-based industries
and human activities are having significant
negative impacts on marine systems1,2,9.
Further exploitation and new industries
will place additional burdens on already
stressed marine environments. New forms
of development, such as seabed mining,
come with less-known risks. Furthermore,
the cumulative impacts of existing and new
uses of the oceans, coupled with pressures
associated with climate change, remain
poorly understood10. Policy frameworks
and environmental assessment processes
to adequately understand and manage
the environmental risks of maritime
development are nascent or often do not
yet exist.
Our ability to understand and address
the distribution of social and economic
benefits and harms of the ocean economy
is equally inadequate. Potential benefits
include revitalization of coastal economies,
provision of alternative livelihoods and
improved food security and wellbeing3,6,7.
New economic opportunities may also
enable SIDS and coastal states to re-assert
sovereign control and regain access to
marine resources. However, assumptions
of a ‘trickle-down’ blue economy are
problematic. Unregulated economic growth
can produce economic inequality, generate
limited local benefits due to elite capture,
create damaging social and cultural impacts,
expose marginalized groups to pollution
and displace local populations. Mounting
evidence from the global fishing industry
demonstrates how unchecked development
can lead to human-rights abuses, including
enslavement and erosion of local access to
fisheries and food security11. International
social movements claim that ‘ocean
grabbing’ is occurring as ocean spaces and
resources are enclosed and privatized for
growth12. Similar issues are reported in other
maritime sectors (for example, aquaculture
and oil), with discussions of the need for
social equity and ‘blue justice’ emerging at
global meetings. At the 2018 Sustainable
Blue Economy Conference in Kenya, for
example, specific concerns relating to small-
scale fisheries (SSFs), Indigenous peoples,
women and youth featured prominently.
However, the rhetoric of equity, inclusion
and benefit sharing appears to be outpacing
policy-making and the implementation of
best practices.
Ocean governance
Addressing sustainability and equity
demands attention to governance. However,
ocean governance is subject to a high degree
of complexity and often lacks coherence and
coordination4. International, regional and
national governance frameworks establish
jurisdiction and authority over marine
resources. The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the
fundamental international legal and
governance framework, allocating sovereign
Social equity
Environmental sustainability
Low High
Low High
The blue
economy
Fig. 1 | Economic development in the oceans.
The blue economy must feature environmental
sustainability and social equity as core tenets.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain

comment
exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and
identifying what remains as common global
property (that is, ‘the high seas’). Under
UNCLOS, global institutions — including
the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea, the International Seabed Authority
and the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf — were established to
deliberate on ocean issues. Within EEZs,
states have jurisdiction and hold authority
for fisheries management, biodiversity
conservation and the allocation of rights for
military, shipping or development purposes.
Regional governance mechanisms — such as
regional fisheries management organizations
and Regional Seas programmes — enable
states to collaborate on multilateral
sustainability challenges. However,
significant regulatory and institutional gaps
exist across sectors and spatial scales.
Furthermore, ocean spaces and resources
are often shared and accessed by numerous
users — including coastal communities, SSFs
and Indigenous peoples — who should have
a right to participate in decisions regarding
allocation of property rights, resources and
benefits from, and management of, the
blue economy13. Local citizens and civil-
society organizations frequently oppose
new developments when marginalized
from decision-making or concerned about
potential environmental damages or social
harms. Indigenous peoples, SSFs or other
resource users will test state laws and
legitimacy by asserting their territorial rights
to coastal and ocean spaces or demanding
free, prior and informed consent for new
and expanded developments14. Geopolitical
tensions may increase as neighbouring
states lay conflicting claims over valuable
ocean spaces and resources, countries
more stridently police and enforce their
EEZs, or developing coastal states and
SIDS demand their fair share of benefits
from migratory fish stocks, seabed minerals
and marine bio-resources15.
Charting a course
Proactive, systematic and bold policies and
actions are needed as ocean development
proliferates within EEZs and in areas beyond
national jurisdiction. Here, we identify
five priorities to ‘chart a course’ for an
environmentally sustainable and socially
equitable blue economy.
First, sustainability and equity must be
prioritized in international negotiations
and instruments relating to the oceans
and ocean development. Numerous
global agreements — including the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the
United Nations (UN) SDGs, the UN
Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples — contain commitments relating
to sustainability and equity. Other ocean
guidelines and conventions touch on these
issues and, notably, UNCLOS was integral
in establishing the international legal
principle known as ‘the common heritage
of humankind’. Yet, neither an obvious
coordinating body nor a comprehensive set
of blue-economy guidelines currently exist.
Thus, we recommend that the UN establish
or designate a commission or agency within
the Economic and Social Council system to
be responsible for developing best practices
and establishing international guidelines
for the implementation, monitoring and
management of blue economy activities.
Guidelines would provide a foundation for
international deliberations and multilateral
discussions, as well as guidance for national
policies and corporate activities. Achieving
this will require resources, time and broad
support. Several existing initiatives show
momentum and provide building blocks
including the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization’s Voluntary Guidelines
for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries, The Commonwealth Blue
Charter and The European Commission’s
Blue Growth Strategy.
Second, comprehensive legislation and
effective regulatory agencies are necessary
pre-conditions for sustainable blue economy
development within national jurisdictions.
National governments must strategize and
focus their efforts on: addressing regulatory
and institutional gaps that exist within
current legal and governance frameworks;
ensuring coherent policy coverage across
different agencies and sectors; enabling
integrated, inter-sectoral and science-based
planning and management; harmonizing
across jurisdictions and with international
institutions; and providing financing to
support management capacity and to ensure
accountability. While many countries (for
example, Seychelles, South Africa, Grenada
and Norway) are convening diverse groups
of experts and stakeholders to tackle
challenges associated with the emerging blue
economy, other national governments must
act quickly.
Third, national governments ought to
develop guidelines that require equitable
treatment of local populations and
sharing of any wealth generated through
blue growth. Insights may be gleaned
from international agreements, existing
corporate codes of conduct and principles
of social responsibility11. Key considerations
include: recognizing and protecting the
tenure and access rights of coastal and
Indigenous populations to fisheries and
areas of the ocean; ensuring that labour and
human rights are respected; establishing
mechanisms to improve social and
economic benefits (for example, impact–
benefit agreements, hiring and procurement
procedures, and capacity building) for
local communities; and creating pathways
to increase local ownership (for example,
technology transfer, credit schemes and
connections to markets). These actions may
also help the private sector to create and
maintain social license to operate in coastal
and ocean spaces.
Fourth, inclusive governance of the blue
economy at all scales (Fig. 2) is required
to realize social equity and sustainability.
Contemporary environmental governance
consists of decision-making structures
and processes that catalyse participation
among governments, the private sector
and civil society16. Civil society (including
scientists, media, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and marginalized
groups) must be represented in decision-
making processes focused on how the
ocean will be developed and by whom, how
and to whom benefits will be distributed,
how harms will be minimized, and who
will bear responsibility for environmental
and social outcomes. At the international
scale, SIDS and coastal developing nations,
Indigenous groups and SSF organizations,
and NGOs are actively advocating for their
preferred visions for the blue economy, yet
often remain marginalized and sidelined in
global oceans governance5,13. One strategy
that smaller delegations of nations and
civil-society organizations have used to
Inclusive
governance of
the blue economy
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
–
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
–
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
Private
sector
Government
Civil
society
Fig. 2 | Inclusive governance of the blue economy.
Blue-economy governance focuses on how the
ocean will be developed and by whom, how and
to whom benefits will be distributed, how harms
will be minimized, and who will bear responsibility
for environmental and social outcomes. Inclusive
governance requires that decision-making
structures and processes are representative of
diverse actors from civil society, the private sector
and governments.
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain

comment
overcome this is to work in blocs to assert
shared objectives in international and
multilateral processes. At the national scale,
inclusive governance of the blue economy
may require legal obligations that necessitate
participation, adequate funding mechanisms
for meaningful engagement, government
mandates guaranteeing information
transparency and well-designed decision-
making processes ensuring all voices are
heard and incorporated into decisions. For
example, marine spatial planning (MSP)
plays a critical role in helping to overcome
the sector-by-sector approach found in
ocean governance. Yet, to be effective
and equitable, MSP must be attentive to
representation, power dynamics and how
new boundaries, rights and activities can
impact the tenure, rights, livelihoods and
food security of local communities.
Finally, at all scales, insights from
and investments in interdisciplinary
ocean science will be needed to inform
international negotiations, design ocean
policy, shape blue-economy initiatives
and monitor social and environmental
impacts and outcomes. The upcoming
UN Decade of Ocean Science for
Sustainable Development (2021–2030)
offers an important opportunity to identify
how natural and social science can be
employed and mobilized to enable the
realization of a sustainable and equitable
blue economy.
An opportunity to transform
Producing a sustainable and equitable blue
economy rests on the proactive and rapid
design and implementation of systematic
policies and bold actions, based on
interdisciplinary ocean science and made
through inclusive governance processes.
There are several upcoming policy windows
to chart the course of the blue economy. The
Norwegian Prime Minister has convened
a High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean
Economy, made up of 14 sitting heads of
state and governments to create a roadmap
for sustainable ocean development. Global
policy-makers will assemble at the sixth
annual Our Ocean Conference hosted by
Norway in October 2019 and the second UN
Ocean Conference in Portugal in June 2020.
These international policy initiatives could
yield a ‘business-as-usual’ ocean economy —
by which we mean unsustainable practices
and elite capture of economic benefits — or
they could help transform how we govern
the oceans and support the development
of a truly sustainable and equitable blue
economy. Getting it wrong will have dire
consequences for the ocean and the people
who depend on it. ❐
Nathan J. Bennett 1,2*,
Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor 1,3,
Jessica Blythe 4, Jennifer J. Silver 5,
Gerald Singh 6, Nathan Andrews7,
Antonio Calò2,8, Patrick Christie9,10,
Antonio Di Franco 2,11, Elena M. Finkbeiner12,
Stefan Gelcich 13,14,15, Paolo Guidetti2,16,
Sarah Harper1, Ngaio Hotte 17,
John N. Kittinger 12,18, Philippe Le Billon19,20,
Jane Lister 21, Rocío López dela Lama 22,
Emma McKinley 23, Joeri Scholtens 24,
Ann-Magnhild Solås 25, Merle Sowman26,
Nicolás Talloni-Álvarez1, Lydia C. L. Teh 1,3,
Michelle Voyer 27 and U. Rashid Sumaila1
1Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada. 2ECOSEAS, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS
(UMR7035), Nice, France. 3Nippon Foundation
Nereus Program, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada. 4Environmental Sustainability Research
Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario,
Canada. 5Geography, Environment and Geomatics,
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
6Department of Geography, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Canada. 7Department of Global &
International Studies, University of Northern British
Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.
8Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e del Mare,
Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 9School of
Marine and Environmental Aairs, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 10Jackson School
of International Studies, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA, USA. 11Stazione Zoologica “Anton
Dohrn”, Dipartimento Ecologia Marina Integrata,
Sede Interdipartimentale della Sicilia, Palermo, Italy.
12Center for Oceans, Conservation International,
Honolulu, HI, USA. 13Center of Applied Ecology
and Sustainability, Ponticia Universidad Catolica
de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 14Center for the Study
of Multiple-Drivers on Marine Socio-Ecological
Systems, Ponticia Universidad Catolica de Chile,
Santiago, Chile. 15Center for the Socioeconomic
Impact of Environmental Policies, Ponticia
Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
16CoNISMa, Rome, Italy. 17Faculty of Forestry,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. 18Julie Ann Wrigley Global
Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA. 19Department of Geography,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. 20School of Public Policy and
Global Aairs, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 21Sauder
School of Business, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 22Institute
for Resources, Environment and Sustainability,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada. 23School of Earth and
Ocean Sciences, Cardi University, Cardi, UK.
24Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research,
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, e
Netherlands. 25Noma – e Norwegian Institute
of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research,
Tromsø, Norway. 26Department of Environmental
and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa. 27Australian
National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security,
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South
Wales, Australia.
*e-mail: nathan.bennett@ubc.ca
Published: xx xx xxxx
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1
References
1. Nash, K. L. etal. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1625–1634 (2017).
2. Halpern, B. S. etal. Nat. Commun. 6, 7615 (2015).
3. e Ocean Economy in 2030 (OECD, 2016).
4. Campbell, L. M. etal. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41,
517–543 (2016).
5. Silver, J. J., Gray, N. J., Campbell, L. M., Fairbanks, L. W. & Gruby,
R. L. J. Environ. Dev. 24, 135–160 (2015).
6. World Bank and United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Aairs e Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-
Term Benets of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small
Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries
(World Bank, 2017).
7. Michel, J. A. Rethinking the Oceans: Towards the Blue Economy
(Paragon House, 2017).
8. Blue Economy Concept Paper: Rio+20 United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development (UN, 2012).
9. Golden, J. S. etal. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0017 (2017).
10. Klinger, D. H., Maria Eikeset, A., Davíðsdóttir, B., Winter, A.-M.
& Watson, J. R. M ar. Po lic y 87, 356–362 (2018).
11. Kittinger, J. N. etal. Science 356, 912–913 (2017).
12. Bennett, N. J., Govan, H. & Sattereld, T. M ar. Po lic y 57,
61–68 (2015).
13. Cohen, P. J. etal. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 171 (2019).
14. Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K. & Wright, G. Mar. Po lic y 52,
108–115 (2015).
15. Suárez-de Vivero, J. L. & Rodríguez Mateos, J. C. Mar. P olic y 75,
19–28 (2017).
16. Lemos, M. C. & Agrawal, A. Annu. Rev. Env iron. Resour. 31,
297–325 (2006).
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY | www.nature.com/natsustain