ArticlePDF Available
Towards a sustainable and equitable blue
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
Fig. 1 | Economic development in the oceans.
The blue economy must feature environmental
sustainability and social equity as core tenets.
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 Commissions
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
governance of
the blue economy
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.
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.
Published: xx xx xxxx
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).
... However, despite enthusiastic adoption of the blue economy by various stakeholders and politicians in many countries, the concept, narratives, and vision remain ill-defined and contested (Silver et al. 2015;Eikeset et al. 2018;Voyer et al. 2018). In addition, while the notion of 'triple-benefit' goals of blue economy strategies is enticing, implementation of these blue growth initiatives has led to environmental and social injustices, tensions, and conflict amongst different actors and sectors (Fisher et al. 2018;Tafon 2019;Bennett et al. 2019;Österblom et al. 2020). This is not surprising since governance of these marine resources and spaces usually involves a constellation of actors and sectors with competing and conflicting interests, claims, values, and worldviews and unequal power relations amongst actors (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009;Voyer and van Leeuwen 2019;Bennett et al. 2019). ...
... In addition, while the notion of 'triple-benefit' goals of blue economy strategies is enticing, implementation of these blue growth initiatives has led to environmental and social injustices, tensions, and conflict amongst different actors and sectors (Fisher et al. 2018;Tafon 2019;Bennett et al. 2019;Österblom et al. 2020). This is not surprising since governance of these marine resources and spaces usually involves a constellation of actors and sectors with competing and conflicting interests, claims, values, and worldviews and unequal power relations amongst actors (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009;Voyer and van Leeuwen 2019;Bennett et al. 2019). Poor and marginalised communities are usually left out of the planning and decision-making process or when included have limited voice and no power to influence decisions (Bond 2019;Bennett et al., 2019). ...
... This is not surprising since governance of these marine resources and spaces usually involves a constellation of actors and sectors with competing and conflicting interests, claims, values, and worldviews and unequal power relations amongst actors (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009;Voyer and van Leeuwen 2019;Bennett et al. 2019). Poor and marginalised communities are usually left out of the planning and decision-making process or when included have limited voice and no power to influence decisions (Bond 2019;Bennett et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
South Africa has vigorously embraced the concept of the ‘blue economy’ and is aggressively pursuing a blue growth strategy to expand the ocean economy, create jobs, and alleviate poverty. However, many of these ‘blue initiatives’ are leading to conflicts amongst various stakeholders with different histories, relationships with resources and areas, worldviews, and values. Investment in the ocean economy is being prioritized by government and planning, environmental assessment, and decision-making processes are being fast-tracked. Consequently, historical inequities as well as environmental and social justice considerations are not being given due consideration. Communities are not being effectively consulted. This has resulted in tensions and conflicts amongst proponents of these projects and local communities living in areas affected by these initiatives. We examine the drivers of conflict and then explore the strategies that local communities and their social partners have employed in these case studies to challenge contentious developments, defend coastal and marine areas, and make their voices heard. The cases involve conflicts over air quality in an expanding marine industrial zone at Saldanha Bay, prospecting and mining applications in the vicinity of the Olifants Estuary in the Western Cape, and the expansion of the Richard’s Bay Port, mining activities, and conservation initiatives in KwaZulu-Natal. The barriers and potential opportunities to opening up deliberative spaces, shifting values and views, and co-producing knowledge, in contexts that are characterised by structural inequality, poverty, and power asymmetries, are discussed.
... Grupos têm identidades e vivem experiências que podem moldar suas preferências de variadas maneiras. Logo, a 24 propuseram medidas para uma economia azul mais equitativa e sustentável, com a criação de um órgão global de coordenação para a criação de regras internacionais; compromisso de políticas nacionais com a sustentabilidade; repartição de benefícios e redução de danos sociais; processos decisórios e governança inclusivos; e ciência oceânica interdisciplinar. Todas essas iniciativas são extremamente difíceis de serem adotadas e implementadas em escala planetária. ...
Full-text available
Embora avanços institucionais recentes tenham fortalecido a governança do oceano, ainda não se pode defender que ela esteja se tornando mais sustentável. Ao contrário, diversos relatórios da ONU e de comunidades científicas vêm alertando para as consequências do acúmulo de danos ao oceano. Este texto oferece duas pistas para reflexão: o interesse nacional dos Estados, na lógica da geopolítica, e o interesse de agentes do mercado e do Estado, na lógica da acumulação de riquezas. Combinadas, essas duas dimensões têm prevalecido sobre o interesse vital da humanidade. O agravamento das desigualdades, o aumento do abismo que divide uma pequena minoria cada vez mais rica e poderosa e uma vasta maioria em situação de pobreza e insegurança alimentar, é o grande retrocesso da atualidade. Dada a prevalência crescente de interesses econômicos e geopolíticos na dinâmica global, reverter esse quadro cada vez mais iníquo e injusto parece ser o desafio central que se apresenta também no que se refere à governança do oceano. *** Although recent institutional advances have strengthened ocean governance, it cannot yet be argued that it is becoming more sustainable. On the contrary, several reports from the UN and scientific communities have warned of the consequences of the accumulation of damage to the ocean. This text offers two clues for reflection: the national interest of States, in the logic of geopolitics, and the interest of market and State agents, in the logic of wealth accumulation. Combined, these two dimensions have prevailed over the vital interests of humanity. The worsening of inequalities, the widening of the abyss that divides a small minority that is increasingly rich and powerful and a vast majority in a situation of poverty and food insecurity, is today's great setback. Given the growing prevalence of economic and geopolitical interests in global dynamics, reversing this increasingly iniquitous and unjust situation seems to be the central challenge that also arises with regard to ocean governance. *** Aunque los recientes avances institucionales han fortalecido la gobernanza de los océanos, todavía no se puede argumentar que se está volviendo más sostenible. Por el contrario, varios informes de la ONU y de comunidades científicas han advertido sobre las consecuencias de la acumulación de daños en el océano. Este texto ofrece dos pistas para la reflexión: el interés nacional de los Estados, en la lógica de la geopolítica, y el interés de los agentes del mercado y del Estado, en la lógica de la acumulación de riqueza. Combinadas, estas dos dimensiones han prevalecido sobre los intereses vitales de la humanidad. El agravamiento de las desigualdades, la ampliación del abismo que divide a una pequeña minoría cada vez más rica y poderosa y a una gran mayoría en situación de pobreza e inseguridad alimentaria, es el gran revés de hoy. Dada la creciente prevalencia de intereses económicos y geopolíticos en la dinámica global, revertir esta situación cada vez más inicua e injusta parece ser el desafío central que también surge con respecto a la gobernanza de los océanos.
... Barqaror rivojlanish va farovonlik o'rtasidagi bog'liqlikni o'rganish uchun ikkita asosiy ma'lumot yig'ish maqsadga muvofiq bo'ladi. [1] Bu jarayon mamlakat hududlarini barqarorlikka erishish jarayonida qanchalik yaqin yoki uzoqda ekanligini o'lchaydi.Barqaror rivojlanish nuqtai nazaridan muvaffaqiyatga erishish odamlarga ham, jamiyatga ham foyda keltirishi mumkin. Biroq, barqarorlikka erishish uchun zarur bo'lgan harakatlar odamlarni xattiharakatlarini o'zgartirishga va ularning farovonligini oshirishga (hech bo'lmaganda qisqa muddatda) undashga qaratilgan ba'zi keskinliklarni yuzaga keltiradi. ...
Full-text available
Ayni damda aholi sonining keskin o'sib bormoqda. Yigirmanchi asrning o'rtalaridan boshlab dunyo aholining soni 3 baravarga ko'paydi
... Asaad, Lundquist, Erdmann, van Hooidonk, & Costello, 2018;Haward & Vince, 2008;Rilov et al., 2019) list five such strategies, these integrates, economic tactics, propaganda, treaties and alliances, and the coercive measures (Case: Asaad, Lundquist, and Erdmann v. Both Bennett et al. (2019) and Voyer et al. (2018) define "international interests" as the interests that all states share or the interests that all people share. This may integrate interests of only a few states or they may be more comprehensive. ...
Full-text available
p> We regret to inform you that the article is hereby retracted. After careful review and assessment, it has been determined that there are significant issues associated with the publication of this article. The decision to retract this article was not taken lightly and follows a thorough investigation by the editorial board of the journal “Sustainable Energy And Environment Review”. We understand the importance of maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of scholarly publications, and in light of the identified concerns, we believe retraction is the appropriate course of action. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that this retraction may cause to our readers.
... According to Bennett et al. (2019), blue education can have a significant influence on environmental sustainability as the economy develops. These environmental consequences could have social impacts, such as affecting people's health (environmental justice issues are likely to be borne by local populations and some vulnerable segments of society), livelihoods, or food security (due to impacts on productivity and abundance of resources), and ecosystem services that coastal populations and communities rely on for their well-being (Bennett et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
The blue economy is considered parallel to the traditional economy and acts as one of the major drivers of growth and development (in the form of blue growth). The world is blessed with a coastline of 1.16 million kilometers, and many are declared maritime nations due to their larger coastal areas. As a driver to boost economic growth, this sector has immense potential; thus, it fastens the blue economy, but outcomes of this sector purely hinge on the relevant human resource (human capital), which acts as a catalyst to the blue growth, hence, generating desired outcomes human capital requires blue education which contributes in the national growth of any economy; the crux of blue growth lies in the blue education. As a maritime nation, Pakistan needs to prioritize this sector by promoting blue education to bring economic prosperity.
... Collectively, it is necessary for mariculture to support global blue growth though integrated planning at the national and possibly global levels. This can be accomplished by considering socio-economic, eco-environmental, and technological aspects to reduce blind spots in industrial development (Winther et al. 2020;Naylor et al. 2021;) and to address or avoid possible social inequalities in a timely manner (Bennett et al. 2019;Amon et al. 2022;Claudet et al. 2022). ...
... Además, las actividades de los hidrocarburos también resultan de suma importancia. En el océano, estas actividades representaron el 32 % del total a nivel global en 2015 (Bennett et al., 2019), y se prevé que aumenten a 34 % en 2025 debido a que la mitad del crudo recuperable se localiza en alta mar y una cuarta parte de éste en aguas profundas (iea, 2012). Debido a las actividades antropogénicas extractivas, diferentes autores han argumentado que la presión sobre los recursos costeros, marinos y oceánicos aumentará significativamente, toda vez que: i) actualmente dos tercios de la población mundial habita en la franja costera (McMichael et al., 2020), ii) se tiene una cifra de malnutrición que llega a 800 millones de personas (Neven, 2014), y iii) se espera un crecimiento poblacional de 7 a 9.6 miles de millones de personas para 2050 (fao, 2020). ...
Full-text available
Resumen El concepto de "Economía Azul" surgió en Río+20 y rápidamente experimentó una división de enfoques: i) la eficiencia y el crecimiento económico y ii) la distribución equitativa de la riqueza y la conservación de los océanos. En la actualidad, ambos enfoques están considerados en los Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible (ods). Por ejemplo, el bienestar (ods 3) y el crecimiento económico (ods 8) por el lado de la eficiencia económica y, paralelamente, la conservación y preservación del medio ambiente y los océanos (ods 13 y 14). No obstante, la Economía Azul no ha logrado permear los planes, programas e instrumentos de planificación espacial de las costas, mares y océanos. El objetivo del presente capítulo es realizar una descripción de la evolución del concepto de la Economía Azul y los instrumentos de gestión espacial de los océanos en el contextos de los ods, tanto los ods centrados en metas antro-pocéntricas (por ejemplo, Hambre Cero (2), Buena Salud y Bienestar (3) y Traba-jo Decente y Crecimiento Económico (8)) como los centrados en la conservación del medio ambiente (por ejemplo, Acción Climática (13) y Vida Submarina (14)). Como resultado, se encontró que la tendencia en los planes y programas a nivel
The blue economy purportedly involves equitable and sustainable development across a range of ocean sectors spanning fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, shipping, seabed mining, oil and gas extraction, and renewable energy. Here, we argue that blue economy scholarship and policy gives insufficient attention to coastal regions – and the cities, towns, and villages within – that depend on these sectors. Rather than prioritising the profitability of corporations and expansion of industry, we advise actors to consider three transformative processes that are (re)shaping coastal regions. First, are techno-industrial processes for which we draw on the fourth industrial revolution literature, highlighting that coastal regions must adapt to rapidly changing technological innovations or risk facing decline. Second, are socio-cultural processes for which we draw on the left-behind places literature, which exemplifies spatial inequalities from declining and deindustrialised coastal regions. Third, are physical-environmental processes, highlighting geographically variable opportunities and challenges around natural resources, marine biodiversity, and climate change in coastal regions. We then promote place-based policymaking as a multi-level and participatory mode of managing these transformations. Finally, we present a blue economy research agenda to help navigate these transformative processes, and enable place-based solutions. The article intersects with broader literatures around ocean governance and sustainable transformations.
Full-text available
The twenty-first century is seeing multiple and accelerating anthropogenic threats to the Ocean which jeopardize the planetary system and human well-being. Given the urgency of this planetary emergency, ensuring Ocean sustainability and an equitable and just future for humanity and the planet requires unprecedented acceleration and innovation in the theory and practice of marine governance. This Perspective provides an overview of recent trends and emerging issues facing the Ocean. It outlines a number of Grand Challenges, or important areas to advance for scholars and practitioners of marine governance, namely the bridging of sectors and scales, connecting people and the seas, consideration of inclusivity, equity and justice, and innovating knowledge generation and the interface of science, society and policy. This will allow to address questions of how to achieve just, equitable and sustainable use of and interaction with the Ocean in the twenty-first century.
Full-text available
The vast developmental opportunities offered by the world's coasts and oceans have attracted the attention of governments, private enterprises, philanthropic organizations, and international conservation organizations. High-profile dialogue and policy decisions on the future of the ocean are informed largely by economic and ecological research. Key insights from the social sciences raise concerns for food and nutrition security, livelihoods and social justice, but these have yet to gain traction with investors and the policy discourse on transforming ocean governance. The largest group of ocean-users - women and men who service, fish and trade from small-scale fisheries (SSF) - argue that they have been marginalized from the dialogue between international environmental and economic actors that is determining strategies for the future of the ocean. Blue Economy or Blue Growth initiatives see the ocean as the new economic frontier and imply an alignment with social objectives and SSF concerns. Deeper analysis reveals fundamental differences in ideologies, priorities and approaches. We argue that SSF are being subtly and overtly squeezed for geographic, political and economic space by larger scale economic and environmental conservation interests, jeopardizing the substantial benefits SSF provide through the livelihoods of millions of women and men, for the food security of around four billion consumers globally, and in the developing world, as a key source of micro-nutrients and protein for over a billion low-income consumers. Here, we bring insights from social science and SSF to explore how ocean governance might better account for social dimensions of fisheries. © 2019 Cohen, Allison, Andrew, Cinner, Evans, Fabinyi, Garces, Hall, Hicks, Hughes, Jentoft, Mills, Masu, Mbaru and Ratner.
Full-text available
Concepts underpinning the planetary boundaries framework are being incorporated into multilateral discussions on sustainability, influencing international environmental policy development. Research underlying the boundaries has primarily focused on terrestrial systems, despite the fundamental role of marine biomes for Earth system function and societal wellbeing, seriously hindering the efficacy of the boundary approach. We explore boundaries from a marine perspective. For each boundary, we show how improved integration of marine systems influences our understanding of the risk of crossing these limits. Better integration of marine systems is essential if planetary boundaries are to inform Earth system governance.
Full-text available
Integrated management of multiple economic sectors is a central tenet of blue growth and socially optimal use of ocean-based natural resources, but the mechanisms of implementation remain poorly understood. In this review, we explore the challenges and opportunities of multi-sector management. We describe the roles of key existing sectors (fisheries, transportation, and offshore hydrocarbon) and emerging sectors (aquaculture, tourism, and seabed mining) and the likely synergistic and antagonistic inter-sector interactions. We then review methods to help characterize and quantify interactions and decision-support tools to help managers balance and optimize around interactions.
Full-text available
Seafood is the world's most internationally traded food commodity. Approximately three out of every seven people globally rely on seafood as a primary source of animal protein (1). Revelations about slavery and labor rights abuses in fisheries have sparked outrage and shifted the conversation (2, 3), placing social issues at the forefront of a sector that has spent decades working to improve environmental sustainability. In response, businesses are seeking to reduce unethical practices and reputational risks in their supply chains. Governments are formulating policy responses, and nonprofit and philanthropic organizations are deploying resources and expertise to address critical social issues. Yet the scientific community has not kept pace with concerns for social issues in the sector. As the United Nations Ocean Conference convenes in New York (5 to 9 June), we propose a framework for social responsibility and identify key steps the scientific community must take to inform policy and practice for this global challenge.
Full-text available
Increased interest in oceans is leading to new and renewed global governance efforts directed toward ocean issues in areas of food production, biodiversity conservation, industrialization, global environmental change, and pollution. Global oceans governance efforts face challenges and opportunities related to the nature of oceans and to actors involved in, the scale of, and knowledge informing their governance. We review these topics generally and in relation to nine new and emerging issues: small-scale fisheries (SSFs), aquaculture, biodiversity conservation on the high seas, large marine protected areas (LMPAs), tuna fisheries, deep-sea mining, ocean acidification (OA), blue carbon (BC), and plastics pollution. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources Volume 41 is October 17, 2016. Please see for revised estimates.
Full-text available
Human pressures on the ocean are thought to be increasing globally, yet we know little about their patterns of cumulative change, which pressures are most responsible for change, and which places are experiencing the greatest increases. Managers and policymakers require such information to make strategic decisions and monitor progress towards management objectives. Here we calculate and map recent change over 5 years in cumulative impacts to marine ecosystems globally from fishing, climate change, and ocean- and land-based stressors. Nearly 66% of the ocean and 77% of national jurisdictions show increased human impact, driven mostly by climate change pressures. Five percent of the ocean is heavily impacted with increasing pressures, requiring management attention. Ten percent has very low impact with decreasing pressures. Our results provide large-scale guidance about where to prioritize management efforts and affirm the importance of addressing climate change to maintain and improve the condition of marine ecosystems.
Full-text available
In this article, we track a relatively new term in global environmental governance: “blue economy.” Analyzing preparatory documentation and data collected at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (i.e., Rio + 20), we show how the term entered into use and how it was articulated within four competing discourses regarding human-ocean relations: (a) oceans as natural capital, (b) oceans as good business, (c) oceans as integral to Pacific Small Island Developing States, and (d) oceans as small-scale fisheries livelihoods. Blue economy was consistently invoked to connect oceans with Rio + 20’s “green economy” theme; however, different actors worked to further define the term in ways that prioritized particular oceans problems, solutions, and participants. It is not clear whether blue economy will eventually be understood singularly or as the domain of a particular actor or discourse. We explore possibilities as well as discuss discourse in global environmental governance as powerful and precarious.
Full-text available
The term “ocean grabbing” has been used to describe actions, policies or initiatives that deprive small-scale fishers of resources, dispossess vulnerable populations of coastal lands, and/or undermine historical access to areas of the sea. Rights and access to marine resources and spaces are frequently reallocated through government or private sector initiatives to achieve conservation, management or development objectives with a variety of outcomes for different sectors of society. This paper provides a definition and gives examples of reallocations of marine resources or spaces that might constitute “ocean grabbing”. It offers a tentative framework for evaluating whether marine conservation, management or development is ocean grabbing and proposes an agenda for future research. For a reallocation to be considered ocean grabbing, it must: (1) occur by means of inadequate governance, and (2) be implemented using actions that undermine human security and livelihoods, or (3) produce impacts that reduce social–ecological well-being. Future research on ocean grabbing will: document case studies, drivers and consequences; conduct spatial and historical analyses; and investigate solutions. The intent is to stimulate rigorous discussion and promote systematic inquiry into the phenomenon of ocean grabbing.
Given the growing and seemingly limitless capacity to industrialize the oceans, there is a need to reimagine how to effectively measure, monitor and sustainably manage this seventy-one per cent of the Earth's surface. Link:
The publication of reports on geo-political risks in the world sponsored by intelligence agencies, university institutes and think tanks are valuable instruments in societies that are being increasingly exposed to the effects of globalisation. Although all express mention of geo-political risks of a maritime nature is absent from these documents, it is an interesting exercise to determine: i) Which geo-political risks or threats have a maritime dimension or imply derivations whose occurrence may be linked to maritime space? ii) Which processes or tendencies in the use, occupation and governance of maritime space can fall into the category of geo-political risk? The basic aim is to address the forms that instability and geo-political risks take in the ocean world. If the risks stated in the chosen literature are examined from the maritime perspective, it is possible to perceive ‘secondary’ risks whose size and reach can become major contingencies for international stability. They therefore should not be ignored in the prognosis and evaluation of geo-political risks. In as much as societies' political organisation continues to rest on the nation-State, the dominance of the maritime component in the territorial basis is a permanent source of tensions and conflicts. In parallel with this, the displacement of economic expectations and the supply of traditional and new resources to the marine environment broadens the spectrum of risks and threats.