The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy 3031162765, 9783031162763

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
About the Editors
1: The Future of Food from the Sea
1 Sustainably Increasing Food from the Sea
2 Estimated Sustainable Supply Curves
3 Estimates of Future Food from the Sea
4 Conclusions
5 Methods
5.1 Sustainable Supply Curves
5.2 Supply Meets Demand
5.3 Reporting Summary
5.4 Data Availability
5.5 Code Availability
Additional Information
References
2: The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 The Ocean Economy: Essentials
1.2.1 The Market-Based Ocean Economy
1.2.2 The Nonmarket Ocean Economy
2 How Rising Greenhouse Gasses Alter the Ocean
2.1 Altered Ocean Temperatures and Disturbances
2.2 Sea Level Rise and an Altered Distribution of Ice
2.3 Altered Ocean Chemistry
2.4 Altered Circulation Patterns
3 Connecting the Links Between Climate Change and the Ocean Economy
3.1 Capture Fisheries
3.1.1 Importance of Capture Fisheries to the Ocean Economy
3.1.2 Impacts of Climate Change on Capture Fisheries
3.1.3 Ability for management to mitigate the impacts of climate change
3.1.4 Opportunities for action and key conclusions
3.2 Marine Aquaculture
3.2.1 Importance of Mariculture to the Ocean Economy
3.2.2 Impacts of climate change on mariculture
3.2.3 Potential for mariculture production to grow under climate change
3.2.4 Barriers and Trade-Offs in the Expansion of Mariculture
3.2.5 Adapting marine aquaculture to climate change
Selective Breeding for Fast Growth
Selective Breeding for Temperature Tolerance
Risk-Based Planning and Environmental Monitoring Systems
Access to Affordable Credit And Insurance
Reducing Feed Limitations for Fed Mariculture
3.2.6 Opportunities for action and key conclusions
3.3 Marine and Coastal Tourism
3.3.1 Importance of marine tourism to the ocean economy
3.3.2 Impacts of climate change on marine tourism
3.3.3 Economic Impacts
Economic Impacts on Coral Reef Tourism
Economic Impacts in Other Systems
Ocean Tourism and Equity
3.3.4 Opportunities for action and key conclusions
3.4 Improving the Energy Efficiency of the Ocean Economy
4 Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation in the Sea
4.1 Conserving and Expanding Blue Carbon
4.2 Expanding Ocean Renewables
4.3 Expanding Deep-Sea Mining to Meet Demand for Rare Earth Elements
4.4 Geoengineering Solutions
5 Conclusions and Opportunities for Action
5.1 Capture Fisheries
5.2 Aquaculture
5.3 Ocean Tourism
About the Authors
Co-authors
Contributing Authors
References
3: What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?
1 Introduction
1.1 What is Ocean-Based Renewable Energy?
1.2 Renewable Energy and the Demand for Metals
1.3 Minerals on the Deep Seafloor
2 Transition to a Sustainable Global Energy System—1.5 °C Scenarios
2.1 Characteristics of 1.5 °C Scenarios
2.2 Negative Emissions and Carbon Capture and Storage
3 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
3.1 Offshore Wind
3.1.1 Technical Potential
3.1.2 Status of Technology and Costs
3.1.3 Future Development Scenarios
3.2 Other Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
3.2.1 Technical Potential
3.2.2 Status of Technology and Costs
3.2.3 Future Development Scenarios
4 Motivations for Deep-Seabed Mining
4.1 Will Deep-Seabed Mining Help Address Climate Change?
4.2 Can Metal Demand Be Reduced to Avoid Deep-Seabed Mining?
5 Sustainability Challenges and Enabling Conditions
5.1 Environment, Vulnerabilities and Costs
5.1.1 Environmental effects of ocean-based renewable energy deployment
5.1.2 Environmental Effects of Deep-Seabed Mining
5.1.3 The impacts of deep-seabed mining remain unknown
5.1.4 Deep-Seabed Mining Could Result in Loss of Species and Functions Before They Are Understood
5.1.5 The Challenges of Mitigation and Restoration of Ecosystems
5.2 Economic, Societal and Cultural Costs and Benefits
5.2.1 Benefits of Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
5.2.2 Benefits of Deep-Seabed Mining
5.2.3 Costs
5.2.4 Environmental Costs, Ecosystem Services Valuation, Tradeoffs and Intergenerational Equity
5.2.5 Decisions to mine
6 Governance and Regulatory Framework for Deep-Seabed Mining
6.1 State Level
6.2 International Level
6.3 Mining in the Context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals
7 Opportunities for Action
7.1 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and the Global Energy System
7.2 Deep-Seabed Mining
Appendix: Detailed Opportunities for Action
Detailed Opportunities for Action for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
Detailed Opportunity for Action 1
Detailed Opportunity for Action 2
Detailed Opportunities for Action Specifically for Deep- Seabed Mining
Detailed Opportunity for Action 3A and 3B
Detailed Opportunities for Action 4A and 4B
Detailed Opportunity for Action 5
Detailed Opportunity for Action 6
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
4: The Ocean Genome: Conservation and the Fair, Equitable and Sustainable Use of Marine Genetic Resources
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 Scope and Ambition
1.3 What Is the Ocean Genome and Why Is It Uniquely Important?
1.4 How Do We Benefit from the Ocean Genome?
1.5 How Is the Ocean Genome at Risk?
1.6 How Is the Ocean Genome Governed and Regulated?
2 Existing and Potential Benefits
2.1 Ecological Benefits Associated with Marine Genetic Diversity
2.2 Commercial Benefits of Marine Genetic Resources
2.2.1 Marine Drug Discovery
2.2.2 Nutraceuticals
2.2.3 Cosmetics
2.2.4 Aquaculture and New Food Products
2.2.5 Bulk Chemicals
2.2.6 Other Applications
3 Challenges
3.1 Threats to Conserving the Ocean Genome
3.1.1 Species Extinctions
3.1.2 Loss of Populations
3.1.3 Invasive Species
3.1.4 Cumulative Effects
3.2 Impediments to the Equitable Use of the Ocean Genome
3.2.1 Impediments to Innovation, Equity and Benefit Sharing
3.2.2 Regulating Fair and Equitable Access and Benefit Sharing
4 Pursuing Solutions
4.1 Conservation
4.1.1 Managing Competing Interests in the Ocean to Conserve Biodiversity
4.1.2 Protecting Storehouses of Genetic Diversity
4.1.3 Leveraging Biotechnology for Conservation and Biodiversity Management
4.2 Toward Responsible and Inclusive Research and Innovation
4.3 Equitable Governance and Benefit Sharing
5 Conclusion and Opportunities for Action
5.1 Opportunities for Action
5.1.1 Protect Marine Genetic Diversity as Part of Conservation Measures and Monitor Outcomes
5.1.2 Support Greater Equity in Genomics Research and Commercialisation
5.1.3 Promote Inclusive and Responsible Research and Innovation in Marine Genomics Research
5.1.4 Embed Conservation of the Ocean Genome Within Research and Commercialisation, Including Benefit-Sharing Approaches and Agreements
5.1.5 Disclose the Biological and Geographical Origins of Genetic Material as a Norm Across All Associated Commercial and Noncommercial Activities
5.1.6 Increase Financial and Political Support to Improve Knowledge of the Ocean Genome
5.1.7 Comprehensively Assess the Risks and Benefits of Transgenic Marine Organisms as well as the Use of New Molecular Engineering Technologies: Such as CRISPR-Cas (Gene Editing) and Gene Drives—In the Marine Environment
5.1.8 Strengthen the Role of Philanthropy in Providing Infrastructure and Funding for Marine Science
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
Appendix
References
5: Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 Context
2 Sources of Ocean Pollution
2.1 Plastic Pollution
2.1.1 Municipal Plastic Pollution
2.1.2 Agricultural Plastic Pollution
2.1.3 Industrial Plastic Pollution
2.1.4 Maritime Plastic Pollution
2.2 Other Pollutants Compounding Ocean Stress
2.2.1 Other Municipal Solid Waste Pollution
2.2.2 Pesticide Pollution
2.2.3 Nutrient Pollution
2.2.4 Antibiotics and Other Pharmaceuticals
2.2.5 Heavy Metals, Persistent Organic Pollutants and Oil and Gas
2.2.6 Maritime Pollution
2.3 Compounding Effects of Multiple Pollutants
3 Impacts of Ocean Pollution on Ecosystems, Marine Life, Human Health and Economies
3.1 Impacts of Plastic
3.1.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
Microplastics
Macroplastics
Entanglement in Plastic Debris
Ingestion of Plastic Debris
Chemical Contamination from Plastic Debris
3.1.2 Human Health Impacts
Potential Pathways of Harm
Ingestion
Inhalation
Littering and Human Health
3.1.3 Economic Impacts
3.2 Impacts of Other Solid Waste
3.2.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.2.2 Human Health Impacts
3.2.3 Economic Impacts
3.3 Impacts of Pesticides
3.3.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.3.2 Human Health Impacts
3.3.3 Economic Impacts
3.4 Impacts of Nutrient Pollution
3.4.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.4.2 Human Health Impacts
3.4.3 Economic Impacts
3.5 Impacts of Antibiotics, Parasiticides and Other Pharmaceuticals
3.5.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.5.2 Human Health Impacts
3.6 Impacts of Industrial Chemicals Including Persistent Organic Pollutants
3.6.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.6.2 Human Health Impacts
3.6.3 Economic Impacts
3.7 Impacts of Heavy Metals
3.7.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.7.2 Human Health Impacts
3.7.3 Economic Impacts
3.8 Impacts of Oil and Gas
3.8.1 Impacts on Ecosystems and Marine Life
3.8.2 Human Health Impacts
3.8.3 Economic Impacts
3.9 Impacts Summary
3.9.1 Inputs Lead to Impacts
4 Human Dimensions
5 Opportunities for Action
About the Authors
Co-authors
Contributing Authors
References
6: Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources
1 Introduction
2 The Data Explosion
2.1 Fostering New Scientific Understanding of the Ocean
2.2 Monitoring Human Activity
2.3 A Vision of an “IoT” for the Ocean
3 Tapping into the Explosion in Data Sources
3.1 Making Data Available
3.1.1 Tagging Standards
3.1.2 Federated Data Networks
3.1.3 Data Lakes
3.2 Extraction of Information and Translation
4 Harnessing the Technology Revolution to Transform Ocean Management
4.1 Public Management
4.1.1 Innovations in Management
4.1.2 Making Management Robust and Nimble
4.1.3 Automating Management Through Smart Contracts
4.2 Harnessing the Market
4.3 Ensuring That Technology Promotes Sustainability
5 Fostering Technological Innovations for the Ocean
5.1 Creating Market Incentives for Innovation and Diffusion
5.1.1 Governments
5.1.2 Private Sector
5.1.3 International Standards
5.2 Mobilising Investment
5.3 Creating New Business Models
5.3.1 Segmentation
5.3.2 Data Services
5.3.3 Innovations in Payment
6 Opportunities for Action
Appendix 1: Case Studies of Technology Deployment by JAMSTEC
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
7: Coastal Development: Resilience, Restoration and Infrastructure Requirements
1 Introduction
2 Coastal Changes and Challenges
2.1 Climate Changes and Coasts
2.2 Changes to Coastal Environments and Ecosystems
2.2.1 Coastal Landforms
2.2.2 Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems
2.2.3 Coral and Shellfish Reefs
2.3 Coastal Development Changes
2.3.1 Population Growth and Urbanisation
2.3.2 Infrastructure Development
2.3.3 Competition for Coastal Space
2.3.4 Resource Extraction
2.4 Summary
3 Risks to Coastal Resilience
3.1 Threats to Coastal Ecosystems
3.1.1 Habitat Clearing and Fragmentation
3.1.2 Pollution
3.1.3 Bio-invasions and Disease in Coastal Ecosystems
3.2 Risks to Coastal Ecosystem Services
3.2.1 Coastal Protection
3.2.2 Carbon Sequestration
3.2.3 Fisheries Productivity
3.3 Risks to Coastal Populations, Infrastructure and Economies
3.3.1 Populations
3.3.2 Infrastructure
3.4 Summary
4 Building Coastal Resilience
4.1 Protecting Coastal Ecosystems
4.2 Mitigating Catchment Impacts Through Terrestrial Reform
4.3 Adapting Coastal Infrastructure
4.4 Repairing Coastal Ecosystems
4.5 Coastal Co-benefits and Trade-Offs
4.5.1 Co-benefits
4.5.2 Trade-Offs
4.6 Enabling Conditions
5 Conclusions and Opportunities for Action
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Opportunities for Action
5.2.1 Building Coastal Resilience
5.2.2 Creating Coastal Community Resilience, Equity and Access
5.2.3 Mitigation of Terrestrial and Extractive Activities on Coastal Ecosystems
5.2.4 Sustainable, Future-Ready Blue Infrastructure
5.3 Enabling Conditions to Support Coastal Resilience
Glossary
About the Authors
Co-authors
Contributing Authors
References
8: National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy
1 Introduction
2 Questions, Concepts and Standards for Ocean Accounting
2.1 Production as Means
2.2 Income as Ends
2.3 Sustainable Development and the Balance Sheet
2.4 Analysing Policy and Marine Planning
2.5 Satellite Accounts
2.6 Related Issues
2.6.1 Conceptual and Spatial Boundaries
2.6.2 Data and the Digital Revolution
2.6.3 Equity and National Accounts
2.7 Aspirations for the System of Ocean Accounts
3 Current State of Accounts for the Ocean
3.1 Internationally Agreed Frameworks
3.2 Implementation of Ocean Accounting
3.2.1 Product and Income Accounts
3.2.2 Balance Sheets, Natural Capital and Supply-and-Use Tables
3.2.3 Satellite Accounts
3.3 Country Implementation Globally
3.4 Supporting Programs and Other Actors
3.4.1 Motivating Reports
3.4.2 Illustrative Reports
3.4.3 Policy Reports
4 Guidance for a Path Forward
4.1 Four Principles of Accounting for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
4.2 Crosscutting Opportunities for Action for Developing Credible Ocean Accounting
4.2.1 Know the Condition of the Ocean
4.2.2 Use Valuation to Understand Economic Interconnections and Trade-Offs
5 Conclusion
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
9: Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy
1 Introduction
2 Research Methodology
3 Current Barriers and Challenges to a SOE
3.1 Inadequate Frameworks and Taxonomies
3.1.1 The Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles
3.1.2 The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative
3.1.3 The European Union Taxonomy
3.2 Gaps and Mismatches in Information, Awareness, Capacity and Scale
3.2.1 Inadequate Information and Awareness
3.2.2 Mismatched Capacity and Scale
3.3 The Market Dynamics Are Distorted
3.3.1 Fiscal Policies Undermine a SOE
Beneficiaries Do not Adequately Pay for Access or Management of Ocean Resources
3.3.2 An Unequal Distribution of Costs and Benefits
3.4 The Investment Pipeline Is Weak
3.4.1 Limited Availability of High-Quality, Investible Projects
3.5 High Risks Without an Enabling Regulatory Environment
3.5.1 Environmental Complexities, Untested Interventions, and Patchy Regulatory and Governance Frameworks
4 Opportunities for Action
4.1 Set Up and Implement New (Shared) Rules, Guardrails and Guidelines
4.2 Strengthen Knowledge, Data and Capacity in Ocean Health and Finance
4.3 Strengthen the Enabling Environment, Increase Inclusivity and Correct Market Distortions
4.3.1 Strengthen the Enabling Environment
4.3.2 Increase Inclusivity
4.3.3 Correct Market Distortions
4.4 Stimulate the Pipeline of Investible Sustainable Projects
4.5 Explore New Financing Mechanisms and Tools
4.6 Stop Insuring Non-compliance and Develop Best Practices to Incentivise Sustainable Behaviour
4.7 Boost New Approaches to Insurance
5 Conclusions
About the Authors
Appendix A: Definitions of Sustainable Ocean Economy and Blue Economy
Appendix B: The MPA Financing Gap
Appendix C: The Types and Sources of Capital for Financing a SOE
Appendix D: Threats to the Ocean Economy
Environmental Impacts
Fishing and Capture of Marine Life
Marine Pollution
Climate Change
Marine Mining, Offshore Oil and Gas
Fish Farming
Coastal and Marine Tourism
Coastal Development
Ports and Shipping
Social Impacts
Ocean Grabbing/Blue-Washing
Perverse Economic Incentives
Global Markets
References
10: Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance
1 Overview
2 An Inventory of Marine Habitats and Biodiversity
2.1 Species
2.2 Habitats
3 Biodiversity Loss
3.1 Evaluating the Loss of Species
3.2 Invertebrates
3.3 Vertebrates
3.4 Drivers of Species Decline
3.5 Habitat Degradation and Its Drivers
3.6 Reducing the Provisioning of Ecosystem Services
4 Thresholds and Tipping Points
4.1 Changes in Marine Ecosystems
4.2 Quantifying Tipping Points
4.3 Fisheries Management Perspective
5 Monitoring
5.1 How Can We Effectively Monitor and Manage Biodiversity and Enjoy the Benefits of a Sustainable Blue Economy in a Changing World?
5.2 What Are the Technological Tools for Biodiversity Monitoring?
5.3 Overseeing the Monitoring of Biodiversity
6 Gaps and Challenges in Habitat Protection
6.1 How Much of Key Marine Habitats Are Protected?
6.2 Protection Gaps in EEZs
7 International Conventions and Agreements
7.1 Fisheries Governance, Sustainability and Impacts on Biodiversity
8 Opportunities for Action
8.1 Technology for Mapping
8.2 Addressing the Biodiversity Data Gap
8.3 Citizen Science and Education Programmes
8.4 Well-Enforced, Green-Listed, Fully Protected Marine Reserves
8.5 Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
9 Limitations of the Paper and Conclusions
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributors
References
11: The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet
1 Highlights
2 Introduction
2.1 Conceptual Development
2.2 Methodology
3 Human Relationships with the Ocean and Their Contributions to Well-being
3.1 The Ocean Economy and Its Acceleration
3.2 Social Well-being and How the Ocean Contributes to It
3.3 Addressing Social Difference Within Maritime Societies: Towards a Diverse and Inclusive Future Ocean Economy
3.4 The Emergent Impact of COVID-19 on Human-Ocean Relationships
3.5 Avoiding ‘Taboo Trade-Offs’ and the Need for Inclusive Ocean Policymaking to Improve Human Well-being
4 Governing Humanity’s Relationships with the Ocean: Some National and Regional Perspectives
4.1 An Indigenous Perspective: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Peoples’ Connection to ‘Saltwater Country’
4.2 A ‘Big State’ Perspective: China’s ‘Ocean Dream’
4.3 Japan’s Satoumi System: A Socially Negotiated Institution for Sub-national Governance
4.4 Indonesia: Diverse Marine Ecosystems Support Diverse Maritime Cultures and Societies
4.5 South India: Sea Courts and Legal Pluralism
4.5.1 Kadakkodi: The Court of the Sea
4.5.2 Uur Panchayats and Legal Pluralism
4.6 African Maritime Economies: Historical Foundations and Contemporary Visions
4.6.1 West Africa and the Atlantic: The Yoruba Littoral
4.7 Island Communities’ Leadership in Governing the Ocean Locally and Globally
4.8 Maritime Examples of UNESCO’s ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ Designations
5 Opportunities for Action to Support Pluralistic and Inclusive Ocean Values
5.1 Synthesis and Conclusions
5.2 Opportunities for Action
5.2.1 Humanise the Ocean Narrative
Shifting Language and Frames of Reference
Broadening the Knowledge Base: Informing Blue Futures
5.2.2 Engage Key Constituencies in the Development of Future Ocean Visions and Planning Processes at National and International Levels
5.2.3 Create Policies and Mobilise Finance for Actions in Support of an Inclusive Ocean-Society Relationship
6 Conclusion
Annex 1. Social Well-being and Values of Sama-Bajau
Annex 2. The Arts and the Ocean
Annex 3. Sharks as Symbolic Animals
Annex 4. Flying Fish as Symbol of Barbadian Identity
Annex 5. The Use of UNESCO World Heritage Instruments to Support the Conservation of Plurality of Values Humans Derive from Interactions with the Ocean
Annex 6. Economic Activities of the Yoruba Coast
Commercial Activities in Coastal Yorubaland
Fishing and Other Economic Activities in Littoral Yorubaland: Focus on the Ilaje
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
12: The Ocean Transition: What to Learn from System Transitions
1 Introduction
2 Current Governance Baseline
2.1 Ocean Governance
2.2 Coastal Governance
2.3 Shared Resource Governance
3 Sectoral Regime Dynamics and Stakeholders
3.1 Inter-regime Dynamics
4 Drivers of Change
4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2 Overfishing
4.3 Seabed and Land Use
4.4 Fragmented Governance
5 Niche Innovations
6 Transition Dynamics: Theories of Change
6.1 Knowledge for Transitions
6.2 Capacity and Incentives for Transitions
7 Framing Transitions: Regulatory Lessons
7.1 Reconfiguring Governance and Authority
7.1.1 Governance as Voluntary and Adaptive Learning
7.1.2 Interacting, Multiple Centres of Governance at Different Scales
7.1.3 Meta-governance
7.2 Empowering the Commons
7.2.1 Rights to the Commons
7.2.2 Knowledge Commons
7.3 Making Ownership Generative (Integrating Property Rights with Stewardship Commitment)
8 The Ocean in a Transformed World: Towards a Governance Framework
9 Conclusion and Opportunities for Action
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
Appendix A. Governance
UNCLOS Implementation Agreement: Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction—Challenges and Opportunities
Case Study of Coastal Governance: Kosi Bay, South Africa
Governance Examples
Appendix B. Regimes
Appendix C. Case Studies of Niche Innovations
Integrated Ocean Management for Development Planning, Fisheries Management and Disaster Risk Management in Belize
Rights-Based Fisheries Management
Monitoring Innovations for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fisheries
Justice in Marine Sustainability
Appendix D. Potential Governance Functions of a Supranational Ocean Agency
References
13: Towards Ocean Equity
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 Context
1.3 Why Is Equity Important?
1.4 Equity in an Ocean Context
2 Key Findings
2.1 How Are Ocean Benefits and Harms Distributed?
2.2 Why Is Social Equity Important in a Sustainable Ocean Economy?
2.3 What Rules and Principles Exist to Support Equity?
2.3.1 Intergenerational Equity: Protection of the Marine Environment
2.3.2 Intragenerational Equity: Promoting Economic Equity
2.3.3 Human Rights
2.4 Case Studies of Hope and False Hope
2.4.1 Equity and Sustainable (Small-Scale) Fisheries
2.4.2 Gender-Transformative Approaches
2.4.3 Ocean-Based Infrastructure and Coastal Community Equality
2.4.4 Equity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
2.4.5 Can corporate Actors Promote Equity?
2.5 Equity and Climate Change
2.6 Summary of Findings
3 Opportunities for Action
3.1 Safeguards: No Regrets
3.1.1 Consider the Social Context and Engage Diverse Actors in Decision-Making
3.1.2 Recognise the Rights and Needs of Women, Individuals with Disabilities, Small-Scale Fishers, Indigenous and Other Minority Groups
3.1.3 Protect Human Rights and the Rights of Indigenous Groups
3.1.4 Address Corruption and Tax Evasion
3.2 Mainstreaming Equity: Doing What’s Right
3.2.1 Recognise, Protect and Operationalise Equity and Access Rights
3.2.2 Build Local Capacity to Establish Equality of Opportunity
3.2.3 Understand Social-Ecological Causality, Assign Responsibility and Secure Equitable Distribution of Benefits
3.2.4 Demand, Require and Stimulate Responsible Business Practices
3.3 Transformative Approaches: The Bold Policies
3.3.1 Create a Shared Ocean Economy that Facilitates Redistribution of Wealth and Benefits
3.3.2 Democratise Ocean Knowledge
3.3.3 Create Inclusive Governance Processes at All Scales
3.3.4 Place Limits on Growth and Consider Degrowth Within the Capacity of the Biosphere
4 Conclusions
Appendix 1: Inequities Associated with Small-Scale Fisheries
Inequity of Benefits
Invisible Gendered Inequities
Inequity of Access
Decision-Making and Governance
Appendix 2: Voluntary Environmental Programs
About the Authors
Co-authors
Contributing Authors
References
14: Integrated Ocean Management
1 Introduction
2 The Concept of Integrated Ocean Management
2.1 The Global Ocean Governance Framework
3 The Implementation of Integrated Ocean Management
3.1 Components of Successful IOM
3.1.1 Institutional structures
3.1.2 Ocean and Coastal Data and Use Of Science
3.1.3 Engagement of Relevant User Groups
3.2 The Case of the ‘Collective Arrangement’: Toward IOM in Area-Based Management in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
3.3 A Healthy, Productive and Resilient Ocean for Long-Term Economic Growth
4 Integrated Ocean Management in Practice
4.1 The Coral Triangle and the Seychelles
4.1.1 Conservation and the Case of Fisheries Management in the Coral Triangle
4.1.2 Climate Change Adaptation in the Seychelles
4.1.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned
4.2 The Norwegian Ocean Management Plans
4.2.1 Economic activity and ocean governance
4.2.2 Comprehensive management plans
4.2.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned
4.3 Approaches to Integrated Ocean Management in the United States
4.3.1 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Plans
4.3.2 Balancing Ecosystems and Economy with the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan
4.3.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned
4.4 Integrated Coastal Management in Xiamen, China
4.4.1 Early Stages of ICM in Xiamen
4.4.2 Ecosystem Rehabilitation
4.4.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned
4.5 What Does Experience Teach Us about IOM Implementation?
5 Conclusions and Opportunities for Action
5.1 Opportunity for Action 1: Harness Science and Knowledge
5.2 Opportunity for Action 2: Establish Partnerships Between Public and Private Sectors
5.3 Opportunity for Action 3: Strengthen Stakeholder Engagement
5.4 Opportunity for Action 4: Improve Capacity Building
5.5 Opportunity for Action 5: Implement Regulatory Frameworks
5.6 Opportunity for Action 6: Develop Adaptive Solutions
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
15: Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.2 Context
1.3 Economic Losses to States and Communities
1.4 Social and Environmental Costs
1.5 Crime and Human Rights Abuses
1.6 Possibility of Military Conflicts
1.7 Worsening the Effects of Climate Change
1.8 The International Situation
1.9 Significant Reports on IUU Fishing
1.10 Need for National Good Governance
1.11 Three Drivers of IUU Fishing
2 The Need to Combat IUU Fishing
2.1 Trends in the Global Fish Catch and Its Importance to Global Food Security
2.1.1 Estimated Global Fish Catch
2.1.2 Aquaculture Depends on Capture Fisheries
2.1.3 Fish Consumption Expands Beyond Population Growth
2.1.4 The Importance of Seafood for Nutrition and Food Security
2.2 The Scale of IUU Fishing
2.3 The Modus Operandi of IUU Fishing
2.3.1 Transshipment: Moving the Catch from Vessel to Vessel
2.3.2 Using Flags of Convenience and Flags of Non-compliance
2.3.3 Using Ports of Convenience
2.3.4 Deactivating Vessel Identification and Monitoring Systems
2.3.5 Ships Operated and Financed by a Complex Network of Ownership
2.3.6 Use of Fraudulent Documents and Vessel Identification
2.3.7 Poor Working Conditions and Safety Standards
2.4 IUU Fishing Invades Small-Scale and Artisanal Fisheries
3 The Impacts of IUU Fishing
3.1 Impacts on Biodiversity
3.2 Social and Economic Impacts
3.3 Climate Change and Fisheries Management
4 Reframing the Economic Incentives for IUU fishing
4.1 Understanding Economic Incentives for IUU Fishing
4.1.1 Too Much Fishing Capacity
4.2 Changing Economic Incentives
4.2.1 Transparent Supply Chains
4.2.2 Smart New Tracking Technologies
4.2.3 Consequences for Bad Behaviour
4.2.4 Corruption Can Undermine the Process
5 Overcoming Weak Governance
5.1 Governance Gaps
5.1.1 Governance Problems Persist
5.1.2 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and High-Seas Governance
5.1.3 Lack of Universal Mechanism to Assess State Compliance
5.1.4 Gap Between Fisheries Management and Preventing Human Rights Abuses
5.2 Solutions to Weak Governance
5.2.1 Adopt the Port State Measures Agreement
5.2.2 Close the FOC Registry to Fishing Vessels
5.2.3 Create Strong Deterrents
5.2.4 Improve Transboundary Case Handling
5.2.5 Enhance Transparency in Fisheries
6 Ensuring Effective Enforcement
6.1 Barriers to Enforcement
6.2 Improving Enforcement
6.2.1 Build Capacity and Support
6.2.2 Establish Regional Information Sharing and Cooperation Mechanisms
6.2.3 Monitor Transshipments
6.2.4 Improve Monitoring of the Fishing Fleet
7 Three High-Level Decisive Opportunities for Action
7.1 Adopt Global Transparency in Fisheries
7.2 Ratify and Implement the FAO’s Port State Measures Agreement
7.3 Enhance Regional Cooperation
About the Authors
Co-authors
Contributing Authors
Appendix A: Instruments and Tools to Combat IUU Fishing
Binding International Instruments on IUU Fishing
Non-binding International Instruments on IUU Fishing
Data Sharing and Data Enabled Technology to Detect and Combat IUU Fishing
Date-Sharing Organisations
Data-Enabled Technology and Tools
Institutions, Organisations and Tribunals Governing the World’s Fisheries
Appendix B: Voluntary Actions for Ocean Fishery Stakeholders Under SDG 14.4
Strengthen Existing Ocean Governance Mechanisms
Flag State Actions and Responsibilities
Coastal State Actions and Responsibilities
Port State Actions and Responsibilities
Market State Actions and Opportunities
Legal Frameworks for Actions
Adopt Global Transparency Rules and Technology
Enhance International Cooperation
Domestic Fisheries Actions by Coastal States
Digital Documentation for All States
Actions for Business, Industry, Financial Institutions, Scientists and Civil Society
Civil Society Can Bring Communities Together for Collective Action
References
16: Organised Crime in the Fisheries Sector
1 Introduction
2 State of Knowledge
2.1 What Is Organised Crime?
2.1.1 Case Study 1: The Viking Case
2.1.2 Case Study 2: The Rock Lobster Case
2.2 Manifestations of Organised Crime in Fisheries
2.2.1 Fraud
2.2.2 Corruption
2.2.3 Tax Crime
2.2.4 Money Laundering
2.2.5 Crime in the Labour Market
2.2.6 Security Offences at Sea
2.2.7 Drug Trafficking
2.2.8 Smuggling, in Particular of Fuel
2.2.9 Migrant Smuggling
2.2.10 Fisheries Offences
2.3 The Impact of Organised Crime in Fisheries on the Sustainable Ocean Economy
2.3.1 Social Impacts
Peace and Security
Food Security
Criminality In Fishing Communities
2.3.2 Economic Impacts
Costs to Coastal States
Costs to the Legitimate Industry
2.3.3 Environmental Impacts
Impact on Fish Stocks
2.4 Addressing Organised Crime in Fisheries
2.4.1 Challenges
Impact on the Marine Environment
2.4.2 Promising Practices
National-Level Inter-Agency Cooperation
Regional and Global Cross-Border Cooperation
Law Reform
Capacity-Building and Skills Training in Criminal Justice Systems
Awareness-Raising
3 Concluding Thoughts
4 Opportunities for Action
4.1 Stage One: Develop a Common Understanding of Transnational Organised Crime in Fisheries
4.2 Stage Two: Develop Practical Tools to Strengthen Law Enforcement Capacity to Address Organised Crime in the Fisheries Sector
Appendix A
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
References
Court Case
Conventions
17: The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Climate Change Threatens the Ocean
1.2 The Ocean is a Major Part of the Climate Solution
1.3 Ocean-Based Mitigation Options
1.4 Wider Impacts of Ocean-based Climate Action
1.5 Delivering the Mitigation Potential of the Ocean
2 Introduction
2.1 Climate Change Is a Key Threat to Ocean Systems
2.2 The Ocean Is Part of the Solution to Climate Change
2.3 Methodology
2.3.1 Underlying Assumptions and Approach
2.3.2 Determining the Contribution of Ocean-Based Climate Action to Closing the Emissions Mitigation Gap
3 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
3.1 Mitigation Potential
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Policy Interventions Needed to Realise Mitigation Potential
3.4 Technology Needs
3.5 Priority Areas for Further Research
4 Ocean-Based Transport
4.1 Mitigation Potential
4.2 Methodology
4.3 Policy Interventions Required to Realise Mitigation Potential
4.4 International Maritime Organization Strategy for GHG Reduction
4.4.1 National Government Actions
4.4.2 Private Sector Actions
4.5 Technology Needs
4.6 Priority Areas for Further Research
5 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems
5.1 Mitigation Potential
5.2 Methodology
5.3 Policy Interventions Needed to Achieve Mitigation Potential
5.4 Technology Needs
5.5 Priority Areas for Further Research
6 Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Shifting Diets
6.1 Mitigation Potential
6.1.1 Reducing Emissions from Wild Capture Fisheries
6.1.2 Reducing Emissions from Aquaculture
6.1.3 Reducing Emissions by Shifting Diets
6.2 Methodology
6.2.1 Wild Capture Fisheries
Reducing Emissions by Improving Fish Catch Efficiency
Reducing Emissions by Increasing Fishery Yields
6.2.2 Aquaculture
6.2.3 Dietary Shifts to Ocean Proteins
6.3 Policy Interventions Required to Achieve Mitigation Potential
6.4 Technology Needs
6.5 Priority Areas for Further Research
7 Carbon Storage in the Seabed
7.1 Mitigation Potential
7.2 Methodology
7.3 Policy Interventions Needed to Achieve Mitigation Potential
7.4 Technology Needs
7.5 Priority Areas for Further Research
8 Wider Impacts of Ocean-based Actions
8.1 Methodology
8.2 General Findings of the Wider-Impacts Analysis
8.3 Detailed Findings of the Wider-Impact Analysis
8.3.1 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
Effective Marine Spatial Planning, in Combination with Emerging Ocean Energy Technologies, will Be Effective in Mitigating Biodiversity Loss from Ocean Energy Technologies and Reinforcing Biodiversity Cobenefits (High Confidence)
Ocean-Based Renewables will have a Positive Impact on Reducing Water Use Compared to Fossil Fuel–Based Technologies (Medium Confidence)
Replacing Fossil Fuels with Ocean-Based Renewable Energy Contributes to Positive Health Outcomes (Medium Confidence)
Expansion of Ocean-Based Renewable Energy has the Potential to Promote Gender Equity (Low Confidence)
Expansion of Ocean-Based Renewable Energy Leads to Job Creation and Economic Growth (High Confidence)
Opportunities for Innovation Are Expected to Emerge with Expansion of Clean Ocean Energy, Promoting Scientific Research and Resulting in Upgraded Technological Capabilities (High Confidence)
8.3.2 Ocean-Based Transport
Reducing Emissions from Shipping Vessels will Help Mitigate Ocean Acidification (Medium Confidence)
Cleaner Marine Shipping Fuels will Reinforce Positive Human Health Outcomes (High Confidence)
Mitigation Options to Reduce Emissions from Shipping Can Encourage Innovation and Upgrade the Technological Capabilities of the Sector (High Confidence)
Reducing Emissions from Shipping Could Potentially Have a Marginal Impact on the Price of Internationally Traded Commodities (Medium Confidence)
8.3.3 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems
Vegetated Coastal and Habitats (Blue Carbon Ecosystems) Contribute to Climate Change Adaptation by Increasing Coastal Resilience and Reducing the Impact of Sea Level Rise (Very High Confidence)
Vegetated Coastal Habitats Offer High Biodiversity Benefits to Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems, Including Fisheries (Very High Confidence)
Integration of Social and Gender Considerations into Restoration Policy for Vegetated Coastal Habitats Can Promote Gender Equity and Educational Opportunities (Medium Confidence)
Restoring and Protecting Vegetated Coastal Habitats has the Potential to Create Jobs, Promote Economic Growth, and Enhance Research: Involvement of Small-Scale Fishers and Local Stakeholders Throughout the Decision-Making Process Is Crucial to Ensure D
Seaweed Farming has Low Levels of Environmental Risks Identified for Small-Scale Cultivation Projects (High Confidence)
Seaweed Production Can Lead to Job Creation, Economic Growth, and Enhanced Research (Medium Confidence): It Has a Potential Role in Providing Affordable Energy (Low Confidence)
Seaweed Farming and Restoring Wetlands Strengthen Capacity to Meet Food Security Targets (Medium Confidence): Healthy Mangroves Positively Impact Health Outcomes for Coastal Communities Through Provision of Food and Medicine to Local Residents (Medium
Mitigation Options to Rebuild Ocean Biomass Can Contribute to Poverty Reduction (Low Confidence)
Mitigation Options to Rebuild Ocean Biomass Can Also Negatively Impact Poverty Reduction and Employment Targets, and Can Limit Progress on Food Security Targets (Low Confidence)
8.3.4 Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Dietary Shifts
Aquaculture Can Present Numerous Societal and Environmental Challenges: Unplanned Aquaculture Expansion in Some Regions Has Negatively Impacted Other Coastal and Terrestrial Ecosystems (High Confidence)
Improvement in Feed Conversion Ratio and Use of Plant-Based Ingredients in Aquaculture Feed Rather Than Animal By-Products to Meet The Demand of the Rapidly Growing Marine Aquaculture Sector Can Potentially Reduce Water Use (Medium Confidence)
Reducing High Levels of Meat Consumption Among Some Populations and Substituting by Balanced Ocean-Based Protein Has Positive Human Health Benefits: The Overall Impact Depends on Whether Ocean-Based Protein Is Sourced from Sustainable Production Source
Mitigation Options Related to Increasing Ocean-Based Protein in Diets and Reducing Emissions in Fisheries and Aquaculture Would Result in Job Creation and Savings for Households, and Encourage Technological Innovation (High Confidence)
8.3.5 Storing Carbon in the Seabed
There Are Large Uncertainties Regarding the Environmental Implications of Carbon Storage Options in the Ocean (High Confidence)
Offshore Investments in Seabed Storage Can Lead to Job Creation, Economic Growth, and Innovation (Low Confidence)
9 Conclusion
About the Authors
Convening Lead Author
Expert Authors
References
18: A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs
1 Executive Summary
2 Key Findings
3 Introduction
3.1 Scope of the Analysis
4 Methodology
4.1 BAU and Sustainable Transformation Pathway Scenarios for 2050
4.2 Framework for Assessing Benefits
4.2.1 Health Benefits
4.2.2 Environmental and Ecological Benefits
4.2.3 Economic and Social Benefits
4.3 Framework for Assessing Costs
5 Assessing the Return on Investment for Four Sustainable Ocean Transformations: Scenarios, Assumptions, Methodology, Results
5.1 Conserve and Restore Mangroves
5.1.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios
5.1.2 The BAU Scenario
5.1.3 The Sustainable Transformation Pathway Scenario
5.1.4 Assessment of Costs
Conservation Costs
Restoration Costs
Assessment of Benefits
5.2 Health Benefits
5.3 Environmental Benefits
5.3.1 Protection from Storm Surges
5.3.2 Mitigation of Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration Benefits
5.3.3 Other Ecosystem Services
5.4 Economic and Social Benefits
5.4.1 Commercial Fisheries
5.4.2 Tourism
5.4.3 Estimated Benefits and Costs
B-C Ratio Using Present Value Approach
B-C Ratio for a Hectare of Mangrove Restored/Conserved
5.4.4 Data Limitations and Caveats
5.5 Scale Up Offshore Wind Energy Production
5.5.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios
5.5.2 Assessment of Costs
Offshore Wind Energy Generation Costs
5.5.3 Offshore Wind System Integration Costs
5.5.4 Baseline Energy Generation Costs
6 Additional Costs of Energy Generation from Offshore Wind
6.1 Assessment of Benefits
6.1.1 Health Benefits
6.1.2 Environmental and Ecological Benefits
Water Consumption Impacts
Climate Impacts
Impacts on Biodiversity
6.1.3 Economic and Social Benefits
6.2 Estimated Benefits and Costs
6.2.1 B-C Ratio Using Present Value Approach
6.2.2 B-C Ratio for a Unit of Energy Generation and Transmission
Data Limitations and Caveats
6.3 Decarbonise the International Shipping Sector
6.3.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios
6.3.2 Assessment of Costs
6.3.3 Assessment of Benefits
Health Benefits
Environmental and Ecological Benefits
Economic and Social Benefits
Estimated Benefits and Costs
6.3.4 Data Limitations and Caveats
6.4 Increase the Production of Sustainably Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins
6.4.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios
6.4.2 Assessment of Costs
Capture Fisheries Reform
Nonfed and Fed Mariculture Production
6.4.3 Assessment of Benefits
Health Benefits
Environmental and Ecological Benefits
6.4.4 Economic and Social Benefits
Estimated Benefits and Costs
Data Limitations and Caveats
7 Conclusion
Appendix 1. Conservation and Restoration of Mangrove Habitats
Increasing Ecosystem Services from Mangrove Conservation and Restoration
Data Limitations and Caveats
8 Appendix 2. Scaling Up Offshore Wind Energy Production
Data Limitations and Caveats
Appendix 3. Decarbonising International Shipping
Estimating the Avoided Costs of Childhood Asthma
Data Limitations and Caveats
Appendix 4. Increasing the Production of Sustainably Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins
Data Limitations and Caveats
About the Authors
About WRI
Our Challenge
Our Vision
Our Approach
Count It
Change It
Scale It
References
19: A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
1.2 About This Report
1.2.1 Scope
1.2.2 Approach
2 Emerging Impacts and Early Responses
2.1 Emerging Impacts on the Ocean Economy
2.1.1 Economic Impact
2.1.2 Social Impact
2.1.3 Environmental Impact
2.2 Emerging Responses
2.2.1 National Governments
Rapid Emergency Response
Long-Term Recovery Response Measures
Development Banks and Bilateral Development Aid
International Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations
Private Investment
2.3 Gap Between Impacts and Response
3 Roadmap for a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery
3.1 Proposed Principles for a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery
3.2 Five Priority Opportunities for a Blue Stimulus
3.2.1 One: Invest in Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Restoration and Protection
Why Investment Makes Sense
How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures
3.2.2 Two: Invest in Sewerage and Wastewater Infrastructure for Coastal Communities
Why Investment Makes Sense
How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures
3.2.3 Three: Invest in Sustainable Community-Led Non-Fed Mariculture
Why Investment Makes Sense
How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures
3.2.4 Four: Incentivise Zero-Emission Marine Transport
Why Investment Makes Sense
How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short- Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures
3.2.5 Five: Incentivise Sustainable Ocean-Based Renewable Energy
What Investment Will Achieve
Why Investment Makes Sense
How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures
3.3 Additional Opportunities for a Blue Transformation
3.4 Opportunities for Blue Conditionality to Avoid Roll-Backs in Progress
3.4.1 Sustainable Fisheries Management Through Digitisation
3.4.2 Improved Transparency and Decision-Making Through Ocean Data
4 Conclusion
Annex 1
Annex 2
About the Authors
References
20: Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy
1 How to Use This Report
2 Executive Summary: The New Ocean Narrative
2.1 The Health, Wealth and Well-Being of the World and Its People Depend on the Ocean
2.2 Its Potential Is Enormous, But the Ocean Is in Trouble
2.3 A New Relationship with the Ocean Is Needed: One That Creates a Healthy Ocean and a Sustainable Ocean Economy
2.3.1 Protect Effectively
A Sustainable Ocean Economy Would Help Protect the Ocean by Reducing the Carbon Dioxide Emissions That Are Threatening It
Protecting Coastal Habitats and the Ocean’s Biodiversity Would Help the Ocean Continue to Provide the Ecosystem Services Humanity Depends on
Protecting the Ocean from Pollution Could Catalyse Deeper Reform of Contaminating, Wasteful Material Management Practices on Land
2.3.2 Produce Sustainably
The Volume of Food Production from the Ocean Could Soar, Helping Increase Food Security for Almost Ten Billion People in 2050
The Ocean Can Provide a Virtually Limitless Supply of Clean, Renewable Energy
Investments in the Ocean Are Highly Cost-Effective
2.3.3 Prosper Equitably
A Sustainable Ocean Economy Would Create New and Better Jobs
The New Agenda Would Empower Local Fishers
International Collaboration and Transparent Supply Chains Could Significantly Reduce Maritime Crime
Acting Sustainably Would Help Preserve the Cultural Importance of the Ocean
2.3.4 The Ocean Should Be a Key Part of the Massive Global Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Contraction
2.4 The Challenges Are Great, But a Pragmatic Action Agenda Offers Solutions to Meet Them
2.4.1 Maintaining a Healthy Ocean Will Require Action on Many Fronts and Across Multiple Sectors
Using Data to Drive Decision-Making
Engaging in Goal-Oriented Ocean Planning
De-risking Finance and Using Innovation to Mobilise Investment
Stopping Land-Based Pollution
Changing Ocean Accounting So That It Reflects the True Value of the Ocean
2.4.2 This New Way of Thinking About and Managing the Ocean Is Gaining Traction
2.4.3 Targeted Actions Can Help Accelerate Progress
Sustainable Ocean Economic Zones Can Illustrate the Benefits of a Sustainable Ocean Economy at a Small Scale
National Ocean Task Forces Can Accelerate the Shift Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy
2.5 The Ocean Is Not Too Big to Fail, and It Is Not Too Big to Fix, But It Is Too Big and Too Central to the Planet’s Future to Ignore
3 Prologue: Five Sustainable Ocean Economy Stories
3.1 Stop 1: Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya
3.2 Stop 2: Community-Based Managed Access Network in the Philippines
3.3 Stop 3: Medes Islands Marine Reserve, Spain
3.4 Stop 4: GreenWave, United States
3.5 Stop 5: ZEEDS Project, North Sea
4 The Urgency of Today
4.1 Introduction
4.2 A Blue Awakening: Recognising That the Ocean Is Vital to Humankind and the Global Economy
4.2.1 The Ocean’s Contributions to Humanity Exceed the Realm of Its Industrial Production
4.2.2 The Ocean Has a Central Role to Play in Global Food Security, But the Way the Ocean Is Currently Used Is Not on Track to Deliver It
4.2.3 Ocean-Based Solutions Are Underappreciated and Essential to Fight Climate Change
4.2.4 The Ocean Can Catalyse a Global Transition Towards More Circular and Regenerative Practices in Land-Based Economies
4.3 Failing the Environment and the People: The Need for Urgent Action
4.3.1 Indirect Effects Can Already Be Observed
4.3.2 The Decline of Ocean Health Is Threatening Most Ocean Sectors
4.3.3 The Risk to Coastal Communities Is Increasing
4.3.4 Ocean Activities Are Currently Not Delivering on the Social Sustainable Development Goals
4.4 Embracing Hope: The Building Momentum for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
4.4.1 Hopeful and Promising Sectorial Trends and Innovations
4.4.2 Structural Changes Across Ocean Economy Sectors
5 The Possibility of Tomorrow
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Defining a Compass Direction: Principles for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
5.3 A New Picture Is Emerging: The 2050 Sustainable Ocean Economy
5.3.1 Sustainable Ocean Food Production
5.3.2 Clean Ocean Energy
5.3.3 Low-Carbon Transportation and Ports
5.3.4 Ocean Restoration and Protection
5.3.5 Tourism
5.3.6 Other Sectors
5.4 The Big Reconciliation: Protect Effectively, Produce Sustainably and Prosper Equitably
5.4.1 Protect Effectively
5.4.2 Produce Sustainably
5.4.3 Prosper Equitably
6 A Roadmap to a Sustainable Ocean Economy
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Harnessing Complex Adaptive Systems: Lessons for the Sea
6.2.1 Major Barriers to a Sustainable Ocean Economy
6.2.2 To Move the System, It Is Important to Learn from Other System Transitions
6.3 Charting a Direction: The Ocean Action Agenda
6.3.1 Five Cross-Cutting Enablers for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
Data Reform: How Could the Data Revolution—Enabled by New Technologies—Change the Way Informed Decisions in the Ocean Realm Are Made?
Why Is It Important?
What Is Preventing (Faster) Change?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Overcome These Barriers?
Goal-Oriented Ocean Planning: Why Does Ocean Planning Matter So Much, Why Is It Not Mainstreamed Yet and How Can It Be Generalised?
Why Is It Important?
What Is Preventing (Faster) Change?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Overcome These Barriers?
Innovative Finance and De-risking: Why Is Finance Pivotal, and How Can More Money Be Mobilised Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy?
Why Is It Important?
What Is Preventing (Faster) Change?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Overcome These Barriers?
Stopping Land-Based Pollution: How Does the Current Political and Economic Constellation Make It Nearly Impossible to Stop Ocean Pollution? How Could This Be Changed, and Where Do We Start?
Why Is It Important?
What Is Preventing (Faster) Change?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Overcome These Barriers?
Upgrading Ocean Accounting: How Do Current Metrics and Public Accounting Conventions (Gross Value Added, Gross Domestic Product) Drive the Wrong Priorities, What Can Be Changed, and How Can We Start the Change Today?
Why Is It Important?
What Is Preventing (Faster) Change?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Overcome These Barriers?
6.3.2 Five Key Sectors to Be Transformed Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy
Sustainable Food from the Ocean: How Can Sustainable Ocean Fishing and Farming Feed a Planet with Ten Billion People?
Why Is It Important?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Accelerate Change?
Clean Ocean Energy: How Can the Ocean Deliver Much More Zero-Carbon Energy in a Sustainable Way?
Why Is It Important?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Accelerate Change?
Low-Carbon Transportation and Ports: How Can a Traditional Industry Embrace Sustainability?
Why Is It Important?
What Are the Opportunities for Action to Accelerate Change?
Ocean Restoration and Protection: How Can Protected Areas Be Mainstreamed and Enforced?
Why Is It Important?
What Are the Opportunities to Accelerate Change?
Tourism: How Can Tourism Be Turned into a Zero- or Positive-Impact Industry?
Why Is It Important?
What Are the Opportunities to Accelerate Change?
6.4 Launching the Voyage: Three Levels for Possible Immediate Action
6.4.1 Local Intervention: Catalysing Change Through Sustainable Ocean Economic Zones
6.4.2 National Intervention: Getting Things Done with National Ocean Task Forces
6.4.3 International Intervention: Raising the Bar
7 Conclusion
About the Authors
Lead Authors
Contributing Authors
Appendix: The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy’s Products Used in Each Respective Report Section
21: Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy: A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity
1 Our Call to Action
2 A 100% Approach
2.1 Getting to 100%
3 Ocean Wealth
3.1 Sustainable Ocean Food
3.2 Sustainable Ocean Energy
3.3 Sustainable Ocean-Based Tourism
3.4 Sustainable Ocean Transport
4 Sustainable New Ocean Industries
4.1 A Precautionary Approach to Seabed Mining
5 Ocean Health
5.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.2 Protect and Restore Marine and Coastal Ecosystems
5.3 Reduce Ocean Pollution
6 Ocean Equity
6.1 Promote Equal Opportunity for People to Benefit from the Ocean
7 Ocean Knowledge
7.1 Build Ocean Literacy and Skills
7.2 Account for the Value of the Ocean
7.3 Harness Ocean Science, Technology and Data
8 Ocean Finance

Citation preview

Jane Lubchenco Peter M. Haugan Editors

The Blue Compendium From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

The Blue Compendium

Jane Lubchenco  •  Peter M. Haugan Editors

The Blue Compendium From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Editors Jane Lubchenco Department of Integrative Biology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR, USA

Peter M. Haugan Institute of Marine Research Bergen, Norway

ISBN 978-3-031-16276-3    ISBN 978-3-031-16277-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0 World Resources Institute © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023. This book is an open access publication. Open Access  This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Home to over 80% of all life on Earth, the ocean is the world’s largest carbon sink and a key source of food and economic security for billions of people. The relevance of the ocean for humanity’s future is undisputed—though not usually fully appreciated. The ocean has much greater potential to drive economic growth and equitable job creation, sustain healthy ecosystems, and mitigate climate change than is realised today. Lack of awareness of the potential as well as management and governance challenges pose impediments. Until these impediments are removed, ocean ecosystems will continue to be degraded and opportunities for people lost. A transition and a clear path to a thriving and vibrant relationship between humans and the ocean are urgently needed. This collection identifies a path that is inspired by science, energised by engaged people, and emboldened by visionary leaders. The papers and reports in this compendium are assessments of knowledge commissioned by a unique collaboration among global leaders who asked the question, ‘How might we use the ocean wisely without using it up?’ These leaders established the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) in September 2018 as a unique initiative led by heads of state and government from around the world who are committed to building a sustainable ocean economy in which effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity go hand in hand. Collectively, these 17 nations represent nearly 46% of the world’s coastlines and at least 44% of the world’s exclusive economic zones. The Ocean Panel’s shared vision is to sustainably manage 100% of ocean areas under their national jurisdiction, guided by Sustainable Ocean Plans. In the Transformations1 document, which was developed in a process informed by the knowledge in this collection, the Ocean Panel also set out a new ocean action agenda for the decade. This far-reaching political document is the result of broad and diverse engagement, collaboration and consultation, and an unprecedented scientific knowledge base coming together to result in actions that move ‘from the purpose to the impact’. It identifies 15 outcomes and 74 bold yet pragmatic actions to be taken across five critical areas—ocean health, ocean wealth, ocean equity, ocean knowledge and ocean finance—to transform humanity’s relationship with and impacts upon the ocean, and to ensure that the myriad benefits and opportunities that the ocean provides can be sustainably enjoyed by all. Early on in their deliberations, and before considering action, the Ocean Panel intentionally set out to ‘Start with science, with knowledge’. They identified a series of topics for which they would commission syntheses of knowledge that would inform their policy and action agenda. To ensure the high quality and intellectual integrity of the Ocean Panel’s commissioned research, they established an Expert Group consisting of a global group of over 70 experts renowned for their exemplary contributions to the full range of ocean-related disciplines considered in the Ocean Panel’s work. Together, more than 250 experts and authors, with 44% being women, representing 48 countries have contributed to Ocean Panel-commissioned research to date. The Secretariat of the Ocean Panel provided additional substantial contribuOcean Panel (High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy). 2020. Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy: A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity. High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. https://www.oceanpanel.org/ocean-action/files/transformationssustainable-ocean-economy-eng.pdf. 1 

v

vi

tions and coordination. The resulting series of 16 Blue Papers and 4 Special Reports responded to the request from the Ocean Panel and provided timely analyses of pressing challenges at the nexus of the ocean and the economy. The Blue Papers and Special Reports, included in this Blue Compendium, showcase the latest leading-edge science, knowledge and state-of-the-art thinking. They offer innovative ocean solutions in technology, policy, governance and finance realms that could help accelerate a transition to a more sustainable and prosperous relationship with the ocean. The comprehensive assessments have already informed policy making at the highest levels of government and motivated an impressive array of responsive and ambitious action across a growing network of leaders in business, finance and civil society. The 16 Blue Papers ranged from food, energy and mineral production, genetic resources and conservation, to climate change, plastic pollution, technology, equity, illegal fishing, organised crime in fisheries and ocean accounting. ‘The Future of Food from the Sea’ considers the status and future trends of food production through fisheries and aquaculture at regional and global scales, identifies opportunities of ocean-based food in achieving SDG 2: Zero Hunger, and provides recommendations for how current barriers might be overcome to transition to more sustainable and abundant food production from the ocean. ‘The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy’ addresses how the compounding hazards of climate change will impact the ocean economy, specifically marine fisheries, aquaculture and tourism; highlights opportunities for effective institutions and markets to reduce these impacts; and provides recommendations for how countries can achieve blue economic growth by implementing policies and infrastructure that reduce risks and build resilience to climate change. ‘What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?’ examines how and to what degree energy from the ocean, current developments in green technology and the potential for deep-seabed minerals can help meet rising technological demand and contribute to the climate agenda and achievement of SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy. It identifies solutions and future policy options and their potential impact, as well as addressing related safety and environmental concerns. ‘The Ocean Genome: Conservation and the Fair, Equitable and Sustainable Use of Marine Genetic Resources’ considers the existing and potential benefits associated with the ocean genome and the threats it is facing, and explores how efforts to promote inclusive innovation and governance can contribute to more equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of marine genetic resources. ‘Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean’ examines the leakage of plastics and other pollutants into the ocean and the resulting impacts on marine ecosystems, human health and the economy. The paper explores the kind of regenerative global industry that needs to be built, as well as integrated solutions to reduce all pollutants of the ocean, and highlights the role of science-­ based targets in measuring progress on ocean pollution. ‘Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources’ explores existing and breakthrough technologies, such as drones, artificial intelligence and blockchains, and the associated challenges and possibilities they pose for ocean management and improving understanding of ecosystems and human interactions with the ocean. ‘Coastal Development: Resilience, Restoration and Infrastructure Requirements’ examines trends in coastal behaviour, explores trade-offs between restoration and infrastructure development and makes an economic and security case for resilient coastlines providing much-needed recommendations for new models for shipping and tourism. ‘National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy’ highlights the critical role of national accounting as a tool in achieving a sustainable ocean economy, identifies major gaps in how the ocean, ocean services and ocean assets are currently treated in national accounts, and offers the methods and a roadmap for measuring and valuing ocean assets. ‘Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy’ explores the next generation of financing mechanisms and the role insurance can play in supporting the ocean transition in an inclusive manner and recommends approaches to be phased out, as well as new solutions that incentivise sustainable management. ‘Critical Habitats and Biodiversity:

Preface

Preface

vii

Inventory, Thresholds and Governance’ provides an inventory of the distribution of species and critical marine habitats exploring trends in drivers, pressures, impacts and responses; establishes thresholds for protecting biodiversity hotspots, as well as indicators to monitor change; and assesses the current legal framework, the gaps in ocean governance and management and the implications for achieving a sustainable ocean economy. ‘The Human Relationship with our Ocean Planet’ illustrates the differing economic, legal, institutional, social and cultural relationships that people of varying cultures have with the ocean, through a historical lens, and charts a path towards inclusive ocean governance. ‘The Ocean Transition: What to Learn from System Transitions’ examines past successes and failures and current dynamics of transitions, and explores alternative future transition pathways and policy responses that can drive to a more sustainable ocean. ‘Towards Ocean Equity’ explores the distribution of the goods and services provided by the ocean; existing inequities and the resulting impacts spanning environmental, social and economic dimensions; and provides recommendations for addressing some of the underlying and systemic features of ocean inequities, as well as opportunities for policy to support a sustainable and just ocean economy. ‘Integrated Ocean Management’ makes the case for integrated ecosystem-based management, one that combines value creation and the safeguarding of ecosystem health, identifying existing impediments in policy and practice and outlining steps and principles towards a successful integrated ocean management. ‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers’ explores the drivers and consequences of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and provides a range of solutions to prevent and combat IUU fishing, from implementing international agreements to promoting new technologies and strengthening regional and international partnerships. ‘Organised Crime in the Fisheries Sector’ presents the current state of knowledge on organised crime in fisheries and provides recommendations and best practices that promote an intelligence-led, skills-based cooperative law enforcement at a global level, facilitated by enabling legislative frameworks and increased transparency. The four Special Reports illustrate how a sustainable ocean economy can create a healthy ocean, and vice versa, that provides solutions to global challenges. Collectively, they set out a new evidence-based narrative, in which the ocean is critical to achieving global targets to limit climate change and its detrimental effects to everyone’s present and future, offers solutions for a sustainable and equitable recovery to current and future crises, and provides unparalleled opportunities to build a fair and just sustainable ocean economy. ‘The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action’ evaluates the mitigation potential of a suite of ocean-based actions—renewable energy, transport, food production, ecosystems and carbon storage in the seabed—in 2030 and 2050 relative to a 1.5 °C and 2 °C pathway, explores their wider benefits to societies and economies, and highlights the enabling policy measures and research required for success. Building on this Special Report, ‘A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs’ examines the global net benefit and the benefit-cost ratio of implementing those sustainable ocean-based interventions, including conserving and restoring mangrove habitats, scaling up offshore wind production, decarbonising the international shipping sector and increasing the production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins, over a 30-year time horizon up to 2050. ‘A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis’ examines the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ocean economy and the role of ocean-based solutions in supporting sustainable and equitable recovery and enhancing resilience to future crises. Drawing on the latest scientific research and insights from the Blue Papers and the other Special Reports, ‘Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy’ details a framework and a feasible action plan and practical solutions that when implemented could help achieve a sustainable ocean economy where people have more opportunities and better health, nature thrives and resources are distributed more equitably. The impact of this collection of assessments of knowledge can be clearly seen in the Transformations announced by the Ocean Panel in December 2020. Many political leaders give lip service to grounding policy and action in science, evidence and knowledge. In this

viii

Preface

case, the connections are clear. Moreover, the benefit of basing commitments on expert knowledge continues in the Ocean Panel, as additional special reports are developed to inform subsequent action. No transformative change could be possibly realised by just one actor, entity or sector. The governments of the Ocean Panel are leading by example on this transformative agenda, but are also working collaboratively with the public, private, financial, research and civil society sectors, to raise the profile of the ocean in international arenas, to develop a sustainable ocean economy and to successfully implement sustainable and equitable ocean management. The work of the Ocean Panel has triggered the formation of several coalitions and partnerships intended to promote and facilitate the Ocean Panel’s ocean action agenda. Currently, there are ten multi-stakeholder initiatives, also called ‘Action Groups’, that collaborate to implement one or more of the priority actions in the Transformations, and whose strategies to tackle ocean issues have been informed by many of the Blue Papers and Special Reports. Together, the 17 countries of the Ocean Panel recognise and promote the ocean as a smart investment with tremendous social, economic and environmental benefits. The ocean provides many of the urgent solutions humanity and the planet need, and it thus must be considered as our critical ally for global economic growth, climate resilience, social equity and future security and prosperity. This Blue Compendium—representing one of the most comprehensive assessments in the ocean realm and already influencing policy and action—is the product of devoted efforts by numerous people. We are deeply grateful to the over 250 authors and reviewers who led, contributed to, and improved these knowledge assets. We also offer deep gratitude to the Secretariat of the Ocean Panel and colleagues at the World Resources Institute for their skilled guidance, editorial support, graphics, messaging and outreach. And we thank the active engagement of and trust placed in us by the Ocean Panel Leaders, their Sherpas, and teams. The partnerships, respect and new awareness that have emerged from the development of the Blue Compendium and Ocean Panel work are valued and they set an example for how governmental leaders and knowledge experts can engage productively to the benefit of society. We close with the belief that the ocean is central to our collective future, that knowledge should inform action, and that partnerships will enable us to chart a course to use the ocean wisely without using it up. Corvallis, OR, USA Bergen, Norway 

Jane Lubchenco Peter M. Haugan

Contents

1 The Future of Food from the Sea�������������������������������������������������������������������������������   1 2 The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy�����������������������  15 3 What  Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future? ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  51 4 The  Ocean Genome: Conservation and the Fair, Equitable and Sustainable Use of Marine Genetic Resources�������������������������������������������������  91 5 Leveraging  Multi-target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean���������������������������������������������������������  141 6 Technology,  Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185 7 Coastal  Development: Resilience, Restoration and Infrastructure Requirements�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  213 8 National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy�������������������������������������  279 9 Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy�����  309 10 Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance �����  333 11 The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet�������������������������������������������������  393 12 The Ocean Transition: What to Learn from System Transitions�������������������������  445 13 Towards Ocean Equity���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  485 14 Integrated Ocean Management�������������������������������������������������������������������������������  523 15 Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers ���������������  553 16 Organised Crime in the Fisheries Sector ���������������������������������������������������������������  593 17 The  Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  619 18 A  Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  681 19 A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis�����������������  715 20 Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy�������������������������  783 21 Transformations  for a Sustainable Ocean Economy: A Vision for Protection, Production and Prosperity���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  907

ix

About the Editors

Jane Lubchenco  University Distinguished Professor at Oregon State University, is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change and interactions between the environment and human well-being, received a B.A. in biology from Colorado College, a M.S. in zoology from the University of Washington and a Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard University. Her academic career as a professor began at Harvard University (1975–1977) and continued at Oregon State University (1977–2009) until her appointment as NOAA Administrator (2009–2013). Thereafter, she was the 2013 Haas Distinguished Visitor in Public Service at Stanford University, then Oregon State University’s University Distinguished Professor. ​In recognition of her scientific contributions, Jane Lubchenco is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and many other distinguished academies. She has received numerous awards including 24 honorary doctorates, most recently from the University of Oxford. She co-founded three organisations that train scientists to be better communicators and engage more effectively with the public, policy makers, media and industry. She also cofounded PISCO (an integrated research/monitoring/outreach programme), the National Ocean Protection Coalition and the MPA Project that seeks to advance smart use of effective Marine Protected Areas. She has also served in multiple governmental capacities. She was the U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and an inaugural member of President Barack Obama’s Science Team from 2009 to 2013. From 2014 to 2016, she was the first U.S. State Department Science Envoy for the Ocean, serving as a science diplomat to China, Indonesia, South Africa, Mauritius and the Seychelles. And beginning in 2021, she leads the Climate and Environment team at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Lubchenco’s contribution to this work was completed solely in her capacity as a Professor at Oregon State University. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Government. She has served as the President of numerous professional scientific societies including the Ecological Society of America, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). She has served on multiple national commissions including the Pew Oceans Commission, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative and the Aspen Institute Arctic Commission. She has led or contributed to multiple regional, national and international scientific assessments on climate change, biodiversity, Marine Protected Areas, the ocean, and the intersection of science and society. Most recently, she co-­ chaired the Expert Group for the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, a pioneering partnership across over a dozen serving heads of state or government to harness science and action to protect the ocean effectively, produce from it sustainably, and prosper equitably. Peter M. Haugan  is Policy Director at Institute of Marine Research, Norway, and professor of oceanography at the Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen. He started his career as a Research Engineer in the oil and gas industry in 1982 doing reservoir model development with a degree in applied mathematics. He turned to oceanography and climate research in 1987 xi

xii

j­oining the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center where he became its Deputy Director in 1994. He joined the Geophysical Institute in 1996 but also spent 2 years at the University Centre in Svalbard and was Deputy Director of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research from its establishment in 2000. From 2003 to 2011 he was Director of the Geophysical Institute widening its scope to lead university-wide efforts in renewable energy, notably offshore wind. From 2019, he has led international work on global development at the Institute of Marine Research (IMR). During 2021-2022 he was part time on loan from IMR to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs before taking up his present position at IMR.

About the Editors

1

The Future of Food from the Sea

Global food demand is rising, and serious questions remain about whether supply can increase sustainably (FAO 2018). Land-based expansion is possible but may exacerbate climate change and biodiversity loss, and compromise the delivery of other ecosystem services (Olsen 2011; Foley et al. 2005, 2011; Mbow et al. 2019; Amundson et al. 2015). As food from the sea represents only 17% of the current production of edible meat, we ask how much food we can expect the ocean to sustainably produce by 2050. Here we examine the main food-producing sectors in the ocean—wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture—to estimate ‘sustainable supply curves’ that account for ecological, economic, regulatory and technological constraints. We overlay these supply curves with demand scenarios to estimate future seafood production. We find that under our estimated demand shifts and supply scenarios (which account for policy reform and technology improvements), edible food from the sea could increase by 21–44 million tonnes by 2050, a 36–74% increase compared to current yields. This represents 12–25% of the estimated increase in all meat needed to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. Increases in all three sectors are likely, but are most pronounced for mariculture. Whether these production potentials are realized sustainably will depend on factors such as policy reforms, technological innovation and the extent of future shifts in demand. Human population growth, rising incomes and preference shifts will considerably increase global demand for nutritious food in the coming decades. Malnutrition and hunger still plague many countries (FAO 2018; UNDP 2020), and projections of population and income by 2050 suggest a future need for more than 500 megatonnes (Mt) of meat per year for human consumption (Supplementary Information section 1.1.6). Scaling up the production of land-derived Originally published in: Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588, 95–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­020-­2616-­y Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission The license number is 5200691161865, in case this needs to appear.

food crops is challenging, because of declining yield rates and competition for scarce land and water resources (Olsen 2011). Land-derived seafood (freshwater aquaculture and inland capture fisheries; we use seafood to denote any aquatic food resource, and food from the sea for marine resources specifically) has an important role in food security and global supply, but its expansion is also constrained. Similar to other land-based production, the expansion of land-based aquaculture has resulted in substantial environmental externalities that affect water, soil, biodiversity and climate, and which compromise the ability of the environment to produce food (Foley et al. 2005, 2011; Mbow et al. 2019; Amundson et al. 2015). Despite the importance of terrestrial aquaculture in seafood production (Supplementary Fig.  3), many countries—notably China, the largest inland-aquaculture producer—have restricted the use of land and public waters for this purpose, which constrains expansion (De Silva and Davy 2010). Although inland capture fisheries are important for food security, their contribution to total global seafood production is limited (Supplementary Table 1) and expansion is hampered by ecosystem constraints. Thus, to meet future needs (and recognizing that land-based sources of fish and other foods are also part of the solution), we ask whether the sustainable production of food from the sea has an important role in future supply. Food from the sea is produced from wild fisheries and species farmed in the ocean (mariculture), and currently accounts for 17% of the global production of edible meat (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2019; Edwards et al. 2019; FAO 2020; Nijdam et al. 2012) (Supplementary Information section 1.1, Supplementary Tables 1–3). In addition to protein, food from the sea contains bioavailable micronutrients and essential fatty acids that are not easily found in land-based foods, and is thus uniquely poised to contribute to global food and nutrition security (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010; Allison 2011; Golden et  al. 2016; Hicks et al. 2019). Widely publicized reports about climate change, overfishing, pollution and unsustainable mariculture give the impres-

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_1

1

2

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

sion that sustainably increasing the supply of food from the sea is impossible. On the other hand, unsustainable practices, regulatory barriers, perverse incentives and other constraints may be limiting seafood production, and shifts in policies and practices could support both food provisioning and conservation goals (Costello et al. 2016; Ye and Gutierrez 2017). In this study, we investigate the potential of expanding the economically and environmentally sustainable production of food from the sea for meeting global food demand in 2050. We do so by estimating the extent to which food from the sea could plausibly increase under a range of scenarios, including demand scenarios under which land-based fish act as market substitutes. The future contribution of food from the sea to global food supply will depend on a range of ecological, economic, policy and technological factors. Estimates based solely on ecological capacity are useful, but do not capture the responses of producers to incentives and do not account for changes in demand, input costs or technology (Gentry et al. 2017; Troell et al. 2017). To account for these realities, we construct global supply curves of food from the sea that explicitly account for economic feasibility and feed constraints. We first derive the conceptual pathways through which food could be increased in wild fisheries and in mariculture sectors. We then empirically derive the magnitudes of these pathways to estimate the sustainable supply of food from each seafood sector at any given price (Costello et al. 2019). Finally, we match these supply curves with future demand scenarios to estimate the likely future production of sustainable seafood at the global level.

1 Sustainably Increasing Food from the Sea We describe four main pathways by which food supply from the ocean could increase: (1) improving the management of wild fisheries; (2) implementing policy reforms of mariculFig. 1.1  Marine harvest and food from the sea over time (excluding aquatic plants). Data are from FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2019). (a, b) Harvests (live-weight production) (a) are converted to food equivalents (edible production) (Edwards et al. 2019) (b). In (b), there is also an assumption that 18% of the annual landings of marine wild fisheries are directed towards non-food purposes (Cashion et al. 2017)

a

ture; (3) advancing feed technologies for fed mariculture; and (4) shifting demand, which affects the quantity supplied from all three production sectors. Although mariculture production has grown steadily over the past 60 years (Fig. 1.1) and provides an important contribution to food security (Belton et al. 2018), the vast majority (over 80%) of edible meat from the sea comes from wild fisheries (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2019) (Fig.  1.1b). Over the past 30 years, supply from this wild food source has stabilized globally despite growing demand worldwide, which has raised concerns about our ability to sustainably increase production. Of nearly 400 fish stocks around the world that have been monitored since the 1970s by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately one third are currently not fished within sustainable limits (FAO 2018). Indeed, overfishing occurs often in poorly managed (‘open access’) fisheries. This is disproportionately true in regions with food and nutrition security concerns (FAO 2018). In open-access fisheries, fishing pressure increases as the price rises: this can result in a ‘backward-­ bending’ supply curve (Copes 1970; Nielsen 2006) (the OA curve in Fig. 1.2a), in which higher prices result in the depletion of fish stocks and reduced productivity—and thus reduced equilibrium food provision. Fishery management allows overexploited stocks to rebuild, which can increase long-term food production from wild fisheries (Hilborn and Costello 2018; Hilborn et  al. 2020). We present two hypothetical pathways by which wild fisheries could adopt improved management (Fig. 1.2a). First, independent of economic conditions, governments can impose reforms in fishery management. The resulting production in 2050 from this pathway—assuming that fisheries are managed for maximum sustainable yield (MSY)—is represented by the MSY curve in Fig. 1.2a, and is independent of price. The second pathway explicitly recognizes that wild fisheries are expensive to monitor (for example, via stock assessments) and manage (for example, via quotas)—management reforms are adopted only by fisheries for which b

1  The Future of Food from the Sea

a

3

b

Fig. 1.2  Hypothetical supply curves for wild fisheries and mariculture, showing the influence of price on production quantity. (a) Wild fisheries. Curves represent poorly managed (open access) fisheries (OA); management reform for all fisheries (MSY); and economically rational management reform (R). (b) Mariculture. Curves represent weak regu-

lations that allow for ecologically unsustainable production (M1); overly restrictive policies (M2); policies that allow for sustainable expansion (M3); and a reduced dependence on limited feed ingredients for fed-mariculture production (M4)

future profits outweigh the associated costs of improved management. When management entities respond to economic incentives, the number of fisheries for which the benefits of improved management outweigh the costs increases as demand (and thus price) increases. This economically rational management endogenously determines which fisheries are well-managed, and thus how much food production they deliver, resulting in supply curve designated R in Fig. 1.2a. Although the production of wild fisheries is approaching its ecological limits, current mariculture production is far below its ecological limits and could be increased through policy reforms, technological advancements and increased demand (Gentry et al. 2017; Joffre et al. 2017). We present explanations for why food production from mariculture is currently limited, and describe how the relaxation of these constraints gives rise to distinct pathways for expansion (Fig. 1.2b). The first pathway recognizes that ineffective policies have limited the supply (Abate et al. 2016; Gentry et al. 2019). Lax regulations in some regions have resulted in poor environmental stewardship, disease and even collapse, which have compromised the viability of food production in the long run (curve M1 in Fig. 1.2b). In other regions, regulations are overly restrictive, convoluted and poorly defined (The Sea Grant Law Center 2019; Davies et al. 2019), and thus limit production (curve M2 in Fig. 1.2b). In both cases, improved policies and implementation can increase food production by preventing and ending environmentally damaging mariculture practices (the shift from M1 to M3  in Fig.  1.2b) and allowing for environmentally sustainable expansion (the shift from M2 to M3 in Fig. 1.2b).

The second pathway to sustainably increase mariculture production is through further technological advances in finfish feeds. Currently, most mariculture production (75%) requires some feed input (such as fishmeal and fish oil) that is largely derived from wild forage fisheries (FAO 2018). If fed mariculture continues using fishmeal and fish oil at the current rate, its growth will be constrained by the ecological limits of these wild fisheries (Froehlich et al. 2018a). Alternative feed ingredients—including terrestrial plant- or animal-based proteins, seafood processing waste, microbial ingredients, insects, algae and genetically modified plants— are rapidly being developed and are increasingly used in mariculture feeds (Klinger and Naylor 2012; Cao et  al. 2015; Little et al. 2016; Shah et al. 2018). These innovations could decouple fed mariculture from wild fisheries (but may refocus pressure on terrestrial ecosystems) and could catalyse considerable expansion in some regions (Troell et al. 2014; Froehlich et al. 2018b). This has already begun for many fed species, such as Atlantic salmon—for which fish-based ingredient use has been reduced from 90% in the 1990s to just 25% at present (Aas et al. 2019). A reduced reliance on fishmeal and fish oil is expected to shift the supply curve of fed mariculture to the right (curve M4  in Fig.  1.2b). The final pathway is a shift in demand (aggregated across all global fish consumers), which affects all three production sectors. When the sustainable supply curve is upward-sloping, an increase in demand (rightward shift; for example, from rising population, income or preferences) increases food production.

4

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

2 Estimated Sustainable Supply Curves We estimate supply curves of food from the sea in 2050 for the three largest food sectors in the ocean: wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture. We construct global supply curves for marine wild fisheries using projected future production for 4702 fisheries under alternative management scenarios (Fig. 1.3a). We model future production with a bioeconomic model based on Costello et al. (2016), which tracks annual biomass, harvest and profit, and accounts for costs associated with extraction and management (see Methods and Supplementary Information for details). Managing all fisheries to maximize food production (MSY) would result in 57.4 Mt of food in 2050 (derived from 89.3 Mt of total harvest, hereafter noted as live-weight equivalent), representing a 16% increase compared to the current food production (Fig.  1.3a). Under a scenario of economically rational reform (in which the management approach

a

b

Fig. 1.3  Estimated sustainable supply curves for wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture. (a–c) Points represent current production and average price in each sector: marine wild fisheries (a), finfish mariculture (b) and bivalve mariculture (c). In (a), supply curves for annual steady-state edible production from wild fisheries are shown under three different management scenarios: production in 2050 under current fishing effort assuming that fishing only occurs in fisheries that are profitable (F current); the economically rational supply curve aimed at maximizing profitability (rational reform); and a reform policy aimed

and exploitation rate of fisheries depend on profitability), the price influences production (Fig.  1.3a). At current mean global prices, this scenario would result in 51.3 Mt of food (77.4 Mt live-weight equivalent)—a 4% increase compared to current food production. These management-induced shifts in supply are ultimately limited by the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. If current fishing pressure is maintained for each fish stock when profitable (F current, referring to the current fishing mortality rate), food production from wild fisheries is lower for most prices than under the two reform scenarios (owing to fishing too intensively on some stocks, and too conservatively on others) (Hilborn and Costello 2018): this supply curve is not backward-bending, as it reflects constant fishing pressures. We estimate the production potential of mariculture at a resolution of 0.217° around the world for finfish and bivalves. Ecological conditions—sea surface temperature, dissolved oxygen and primary productivity—determine the suitability

c

at maximizing food production, regardless of the economic considerations (MSY). In (b), supply curves for finfish (fed) mariculture show: future steady-state production under current feed assumptions and policy reform (policy reform); sustainable production assuming policy reform and a 50% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements (technological innovation); and sustainable production assuming policy reform and a 95% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements (technological innovation (ambitious)). In all cases, feed ingredients are from the economically rational reform of wild fisheries

1  The Future of Food from the Sea

of each pixel for mariculture production. We build on previous models (Gentry et al. 2017) by including economic considerations (including the capital costs of vessels and equipment, and the operating costs of wages, fuel, feed, insurance and maintenance; Supplementary Tables 5–7) to determine whether farming an ecologically suitable area is economically profitable at any given price. Summing economically viable production for each sector at the global level for different prices produces two mariculture supply curves. This approach assumes that the most profitable sites will be developed first, but does not explicitly include challenges such as the cost of public regulation and the delineation of property rights. Farm design is based on best practice for sustainable production, and we therefore interpret the results as an environmentally sustainable supply. We examine a range of assumptions regarding production costs, and explore different technological assumptions with respect to the species type farmed for finfish mariculture (Methods, Supplementary Information section 1.3, Supplementary Table 9). The supply curve for finfish mariculture differs substantially among future feed-technology scenarios, although all of these scenarios foretell a substantial increase in annual food supply in the future compared to the current production of the sector (6.8 Mt of food) (Fig. 1.3b). However, the policy reform scenario—which assumes mariculture policies are neither too restrictive nor lax (curve M3 in Fig. 1.2b), but that fishmeal and fish oil requirements match present-day conditions—produces a modest additional 1.4 Mt of food at current prices. In this scenario, marine-based feed inputs limit mariculture expansion even as the price increases considerably. Two feed-innovation scenarios—representing policy reform plus a 50% or 95% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil requirements, which we refer to as ‘technological innovation’ and ‘technological innovation (ambitious)’, respectively—can substantially shift the supply curve. At current prices, future supply under these scenarios is predicted to increase substantially to 17.2 Mt and 174.5 Mt of food for technological innovation and technological innovation (ambitious) scenarios, respectively (Fig.  1.3b). Bivalve mariculture is constrained by current policy but not by feed limitations, and is poised to expand substantially under policy reform scenarios. At current prices, economically rational production could lead to an increase from 2.9 Mt to 80.5 Mt of food (Fig. 1.3c). Even if our model underestimates costs by 50%, policy reforms would increase the production potential of both fed and unfed mariculture at current prices. For fed mariculture, this remains true even when evaluating mariculture species with different feed demands (Atlantic salmon, milkfish and barramundi).

5

3 Estimates of Future Food from the Sea Our supply curves suggest that all three sectors of ocean food production are capable of sustainably producing much more food than they do at present. The quantity of seafood demanded will also respond to price. We present three demand-curve estimates, shown in Fig.  1.4 (Methods, Supplementary Information). The intersections of future demand and sustainable supply curves provide an estimate of future food production from the sea. Because it is a substantial contributor to fish supply and—in some instances—acts as a market substitute for seafood, we also account for land-­ based aquatic food production (from freshwater aquaculture and inland capture fisheries; Supplementary Information section 1.4, Supplementary Tables 10–12). Estimates of future production from this fourth sector (‘inland fisheries’) are shown side-by-side in Supplementary Fig.  3 and Supplementary Tables 13, 14 (for quantities of food) and in Supplementary Tables 15, 16 (for live-weight equivalents), and are discussed with the results on food from the sea. Even under current demand curves (green curves in Fig.  1.4), the economically rational reform of marine wild fisheries and sustainable mariculture policies (stocking densities consistent with European organic standards (European Union 2008)) under the technological innovation (ambitious) scenario could result in a combined total of 62 Mt of food from the sea per year, 5% more than the current levels (59 Mt). But we know that demand will increase as incomes rise and populations expand. Under the ‘future demand’ scenario (purple curves in Fig.  1.4), total food from the sea is projected to increase to 80 Mt. If demand shifts even more (as represented by our ‘extreme demand’ scenario; red curves in Fig. 1.4), the intersection of supply and demand is expected to increase to 103 Mt of food. Using the approach used by the FAO to estimate future needs, the world will require an additional 177 Mt of meat by 2050 (Supplementary Information section 1.1.6)—our results suggest that additional food from the sea alone could plausibly contribute 12–25% of this need. Another possibility we consider is that future consumers will not distinguish between fish-­producing sectors, such that all sources of fish (including land-based) would be substitutes for each other. Adopting that assumption alters the supply-and-demand equilibrium, and implies that the increase among all sources of fish (sea and land) relative to the present could be between 90–212 Mt of food; under this scenario, expansion of aquatic foods alone could possibly exceed the 177-Mt benchmark. Our results also suggest that the future composition of food from the sea will differ substantially from the present (Fig.  1.5). Although wild fisheries dominate edible marine

6

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

b

a

c

Fig. 1.4  Supply and demand curves of food from the sea for the three sectors. (a–c) Supply and demand curves for marine wild fisheries (a), finfish mariculture (b) and bivalve mariculture (c). In each panel, the solid black line is the supply curve from Fig. 1.3: for wild fisheries, the rational reform scenario is shown, and for finfish mariculture the technological innovation (ambitious) scenario is shown. Future demand

refers to estimated demand in 2050; extreme demand represents a doubling of the estimated demand in 2050. The intersections of demand and sustainable supply curve (indicated with crosses) provide an estimate of the future food from the sea. Points represent current production and average price in each sector

a

b

c

d

substantial increases are technically possible (for example, fed mariculture alone is capable of generating at least the benchmark 177 Mt of additional meat), actually realizing these gains would require enormous shifts in demand. Our models rely on a number of assumptions and parameters that are uncertain, and which may interact in nonlinear ways. To test the robustness of our main conclusions, we examine a range of scenarios and run an extensive sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Information). Across a wide range of cost, technology and demand scenarios, we find that sustainably harvested food from the sea: (1) has the potential to increase considerably in the coming decades; (2) will change in composition, with a greater future share coming from mariculture; and (3), in aggregate, could have an outsized role in meeting future meat demands around the world (Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Supplementary Tables 13–17).

Fig. 1.5  Composition of current and future food from the sea under three alternative demand scenarios. (a) Composition of current (initial production) food from the sea. (b–d), Composition of future (2050) food from the sea under scenarios of current (b), future (c) and extreme (d) demand. The sustainable supply curves assumed for these predictions are: rational reform for wild fisheries; technological innovation (ambitious) for finfish mariculture; and policy reform for bivalve mariculture, as shown in Fig. 1.3. The total production of food from the sea per year is shown in the centre in each panel

production at present, we project that by 2050 up to 44% of edible marine production could come from mariculture ­(rising to 76% when all fish are substitutes and land-based fish are included under extreme demand scenarios (Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 14)), although all sectors could increase production. Although even more

4 Conclusions Global food demand is rising, and expanding land-based production is fraught with environmental and health concerns. Because seafood is nutritionally diverse and avoids or lessens many of the environmental burdens of terrestrial food production, it is uniquely positioned to contribute to both food provision and future global food and nutrition security. Our estimated sustainable supply curves of food from the sea suggest substantial possibilities for future expansion in both wild fisheries and mariculture. The potential for increased global production from wild fisheries hinges on maintaining fish populations near their most-productive levels. For unde-

1  The Future of Food from the Sea

rutilized stocks, this will require expanding existing markets. For overfished stocks, this will require adopting or i­ mproving management practices that prevent overfishing and allow depleted stocks to rebuild. Effective management practices commonly involve setting and enforcing science-based limits on catch or fishing effort, but appropriate interventions will depend on the biological, socioeconomic, cultural and governance contexts of individual fisheries. Effective management will be further challenged by climate change, species composition changes in marine ecosystems and illegal fishing. Directing resources away from subsidies that enhance fishing capacity towards building institutional and technical capacity for fisheries research, management and enforcement will help to meet these challenges. Increased mariculture production will require management practices and policies that allow for environmentally sustainable expansion, while balancing the associated trade-offs to the greatest extent possible; this principle underpins the entire analysis. We find that substantial expansion is realistic, given the costs of production and the likely future increase in demand. We have identified a variety of ways that sustainable supply curves can shift outward. These shifts interact with future demand to determine the plausible future equilibrium quantity of food produced from the sea. We find that although supply could increase to more than six times the current level (primarily via expanded mariculture), the demand shift required to engage this level of supply is unlikely. Under more realistic demand scenarios and appropriate reforms of the supply, we find that food from the sea could increase in all three sectors (wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture) to a total of 80–103 Mt of food in 2050 versus 59 Mt at present (in live-weight equivalents, 159–227 Mt compared to 102 Mt at present). When combined with projected inland production, this represents an 18–44% per decade increase in live-weight production, which is somewhat higher than the 14% increase that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the FAO project for total fish production during the next decade (OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2019). Under some scenarios, future production could represent a disproportionate fraction of the estimated total increase in global food production that will be required to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. Substantial growth in mariculture will rely partly on public perceptions. Although there is some evidence of a negative public perception of aquaculture, it is highly variable by region and by context (Froehlich et al. 2017; Bacher 2015), and certifications and the provision of other information can help to alleviate concerns and expand demand (Bronnmann and Asche 2017). These global projections will not have uniform implications around the world. For example, improved policies that shift the supply curve outward will decrease prices, but

7

income-induced demand shifts will increase prices. Both effects increase production, but have vastly different consequences for low-income consumers. Bivalves may contribute substantially to food security by providing relatively low-­cost and thus accessible food, because they have a high production potential at low costs compared to finfish production (Fig.  1.3). If all seafood is perfectly substitutable, bivalves could contribute 43% and 34% of future aquatic food under future and extreme demand scenarios, respectively (Supplementary Fig.  3)—which suggests potential large increases in production, provided demand is high enough. Trade also has an important role in distributing seafood from high-production to low-production regions, and in overcoming regional mismatches in price. The rate of international trade of seafood products has increased over past decades, and 27% of seafood products were traded in 2016 (FAO 2018), although major economic disruptions—such as the COVID-19 pandemic—can jointly reduce both supply and demand of traded seafood. On the other hand, trade may become increasingly relied upon as climate change alters regional productivity. Substantially expanding the production of food from the sea will bring co-benefits and trade-offs, and will require national and inter-regional governance, as well as local capacity to ensure equity and sustainability. The improved management of wild fisheries can not only increase fish biomass, but also brings the co-benefit of improved livelihoods of fishers. However, there will be some short-term costs as overfished stocks rebuild to levels that support greater food provision. As mariculture expands, interactions with wild fisheries and other ecosystem services (via spatial overlaps, pollution and so on) must be constantly addressed. Ambitious technical innovation (that is, the substitution of marine ingredients with terrestrial-sourced proteins) can help to decouple fed mariculture from wild fisheries, but will probably refocus some pressure on terrestrial ecosystems. Climate change will further challenge food security. Estimates suggest that active adaptation to climate-induced changes will be crucial in both wild fisheries (Gaines et  al. 2018) and mariculture (Froehlich et  al. 2018c). Climate-adaptive management of wild fisheries and decisions regarding mariculture production (for example, the type of feed used, species produced and farm siting) could improve food provision from the sea under conditions of climate change. We have shown that the sea can be a much larger contributor to sustainable food production than is currently the case, and that this comes about by implementing a range of plausible and actionable mechanisms. The price mechanism—when it motivates improved fishery management and the sustainable expansion of mariculture into new areas— arises from change in demand, and acts on its own without any explicit intervention. The feed technology mechanism is driven by incentives to innovate, and thus acquire intellectual

8

property rights to new technologies. When intellectual property is not ensured, or to achieve other social goals, there may be a role for public subsidies or other investments in these technologies. The policy mechanism pervades all three production sectors, and could make—or break—the ability of food from the sea to sustainably, equitably and efficiently expand in the future.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

alternative cost assumptions yield results similar to those presented in Fig. 1.3 (Supplementary Fig. 1). To construct supply curves for finfish and bivalve mariculture (which account for 83% of current production of edible animal products from mariculture (FAO 2020)), we use a previously published (Gentry et al. 2017) global suitability dataset at a resolution of 0.217°. Ecological conditions (that is, surface temperature, dissolved oxygen and primary productivity (bivalves only)) determine the suitabil5 Methods ity of different areas for production. We build on Gentry et  al. (2017) by including economic considerations (for Sample size was a census of all available fisheries data. No example, the capital costs of vessels and equipment and experiments were conducted. operating costs of wages, fuel, feed, insurance and mainteHere we describe our methods in brief: detailed methods, nance; see Supplementary Information section 1.3, sensitivity analyses and robustness checks are provided in Supplementary Tables 5–7 for more details) to determine the Supplementary Information. whether an ecologically suitable area is also economically profitable to farm at a given price. For any given price, we estimate the potential production and profitability of each 5.1 Sustainable Supply Curves pixel, and determine the global set of economically viable pixels for mariculture production of finfish and bivalves; we The supply of food from marine wild fisheries is jointly allow for production of both kinds of mariculture in the same determined by ecosystem constraints, fishery policy and pre- pixel, provided the pixel is economically suitable for both. vailing economic conditions. Estimated supply curves show Summing production in this manner at the global level prothe projected 2050 production quantity at a given price, vides a point on the supply curve, at which farm design incorporating harvesting costs, management costs and (Supplementary Table 4) is based on best practices for susfishery-­specific engagement decisions for individual fisher- tainable production (that is, stocking densities consistent ies. Current management of the 4702 marine fisheries with European organic standards (European Union 2008)). included in our study range from open access to strong We then derive supply curves under different assumptions target-­based management (Costello et al. 2016). Using data regarding mariculture policy and technological innovation, from the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database (Ricard which affect the parameters of the supply model. et  al. 2012), the FAO (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture We estimate supply curves for finfish mariculture under Department 2019; Costello et  al. 2016; Melnychuk et  al. three scenarios, all of which assume that wild fisheries are 2017; Mangin et al. 2018), we calculate three supply curves rationally managed; this pins down the potential supply of that represent summed global production from established wild fish that can be used as feed in mariculture wild fisheries for a range of prices (Fig. 1.3). The first (F cur- (Supplementary Table  8). We display three supply curves rent) assumes that all fisheries in the world maintain their for fed mariculture (Fig. 1.3). The policy reforms scenario current fishing mortality rate if profitable (that is, fisheries represents a future in which regulatory barriers are removed, for which current fishing pressure would result in steady-­ unsustainable production is prevented and mariculture constate profit < 0 are not fished). The second (rational reform) tinues to use feed ingredients from wild fisheries at the curassumes that fisheries are reformed to maximize long-term rent rate (that is, feed conversion ratios remain static, food production (that is, adopt FMSY, the fishing mortality fishmeal and fish oil inclusion rates in feed remain the same, rate that results in maximum sustain- able yield (MSY)), but and feed availability depends on production from wild fishonly at prices for which reform results in greater future profit eries). This scenario represents the economically rational than that of current management. Importantly, adopting sustainable production given the current feed context. Two reform is associated with greater management costs for fish- technological innovation scenarios represent policy reform eries that are currently weakly managed. If a fishery is man- plus a 50% and (a more ambitious) 95% reduction in fishaged, its production changes, which alters the supply curve. meal and fish oil requirements for fed mariculture producProduction occurs in a given fishery only if future profit > 0. tion. The supply curve for bivalve (unfed) mariculture The third supply curve (MSY) assumes that all fisheries are (Fig. 1.3) reflects production in the set of pixels for which managed to maximize sustainable yield, regardless of the unfed mariculture can be profitably produced at any given cost or benefit of doing so (Fig. 1.3). Supply curves under price.

1  The Future of Food from the Sea

9

5.2 Supply Meets Demand

5.4 Data Availability

To estimate how food from the sea might help to meet future increases in demand at the global level, we require estimates of the current and future demand curves of food from the sea. The intersection of future demand curves and our estimated sustainable supply curves provides an estimate of food from the sea in 2050. As a benchmark, we assume that the three sectors are independent, but that increases in demand are parametric, so each of the three sectors experiences a proportional increase in future demand—for example, as global population and per capita incomes rise (see Supplementary Information for detailed results, assuming all aquatic foods are perfect substitutes). We assume a straightforward structure in which each sector faces an isoelastic demand (for example, see Cai and Leung (2017), with own price elasticity = −0.382 (Muhammad et al. 2011); and sector-specific income elasticities estimated from Cai and Leung (2017)). Using these elasticities, the coefficient on current-demand curve in each sector (current, in Fig. 1.4) is tuned so the demand curve passes through the current price of seafood in that sector (averaged across fish from that sector) given the current global gross domestic product and population. Effectively, this approach assumes that all fish within a sector are substitutes. We do not explicitly estimate a current supply curve because it is not required to perform our calculations and—for reasons stated in the Article—we do not necessarily regard the current supply as sustainable. To project future demand at the global level, we develop two scenarios that we term future and extreme (Fig. 1.4). The future demand represents the demand curve for food from the sea in each sector given exogenous estimates of future population size and global income in 2050 (PwC 2017; United Nations 2017), which are entered as parameters in the demand curve (Supplementary Information). The extreme scenario doubles the quantity demanded at any given price in 2050, relative to the future scenario; we regard demand shifts larger than this amount as unlikely. The Supplementary Information contains an extensive set of robustness checks and sensitivity analyses. One important alternative to the model in the Article is to allow all fish to be perfect substitutes in the future. Under that model, land-­based fish production (aquaculture and capture) must be accounted for because those fish act as substitutes for food from the sea. Although this tends to increase the final estimates of food production from the sea, our qualitative findings are robust to this assumption and the Supplementary Information reports how this changes the model results described in the Article.

All datasets analysed during the current study are available in a Dryad repository at https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/ doi/10.25349/D96G6H.

5.3 Reporting Summary Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

5.5 Code Availability All code used to conduct the study are available in a GitHub repository: https://github.com/emlab-­ucsb/future_ food_from_sea. Acknowledgements  This research is adapted from a Blue Paper commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy entitled ‘The Future of Food from the Sea’. We thank the high-level panel for a sustainable ocean economy, N. Frost, K. Teleki, T. Clavelle and A.  Merkl for inspiration and comments. We thank SYSTEMIQ (C.C., C.M.F., T.M., E.O’R. and A.J.P.), World Resources Institute (C.C., C.M.F., T.M., E.O’R. and A.J.P.), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (L.C. and S.G.), the European Research Council (679812) (E.O.), ANID PIA/BASAL 0002 (S.G.) and GAIN-Xunta de Galicia (E.O.) for financial support. Author Contributions  C.C., L.C., S.G. and A.J.P. conceived the study. C.C., L.C., C.M.F., H.E.F., S.G., T.M. and A.J.P. contributed to the study design. C.C., L.C., C.M.F., J.M., T.M., R.N. and A.J.P. contributed to the acquisition and analysis of data. C.C., L.C., M.Á.C.-M., C.M.F., H.E.F., S.G., T.M., R.N., A.J.P. and S.H.T. contributed to the interpretation of results. C.C., L.C., M.A.C., H.E.F., S.G., C.D.G., G.I., I.M.-S., J.M., T.M., M.C.M., M.M., C.L.d.M., R.N., L.N., E.O., E.O’R., A.M.P, A.J.P., J.L. and S.H.T. wrote and edited the manuscript. Competing Interests  C.C. serves as trustee for Environmental Defense Fund and Global Fishing Watch. H.E.F. serves as a scientific advisor on the Technical Advisory Group for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. R.N. serves on the scientific advisory board for Oceana and Nature Food. C.L.d.M. has undertaken work funded by government agencies, fishery industry organizations and regional fisheries management organizations. C.D.G. serves on the scientific advisory board for Oceana.

Additional Information Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­020-­2616-­y. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.C., L.C. or S.G. Peer review information Nature thanks Dale Squires and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Reprints and permissions information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints.

10

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

1  The Future of Food from the Sea

11

12

References

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS (2018c) Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2:1745–1750 Aas TS, Ytrestøyl T, Åsgård T (2019) Utilization of feed resources Gaines SD et  al (2018) Improved fisheries management could offset in the production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway: an many negative effects of climate change. Sci. Adv. 4:1378 update for 2016. Aquacult. Rep. 15:100216 Gentry RR et al (2017) Mapping the global potential for marine aquaAbate TG, Nielsen R, Tveterås R (2016) Stringency of environmental culture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:1317–1324 regulation and aquaculture growth: a cross-country analysis. Aquac. Gentry RR, Ruff EO, Lester SE (2019) Temporal patterns of adoption Econ. Manag. 20:201–221 of mariculture innovation globally. Nat Sustain 2:949–956 Allison EH (2011) Aquaculture, fisheries, poverty and food security Golden CD et  al (2016) Fall in fish catch threatens human health. (Working Paper 2011–65). WorldFish Center, Penang Nature 534:317–320 Amundson R et al (2015) Soil and human security in the 21st century. Hicks CC et al (2019) Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutriScience 348:1261071 ent deficiencies. Nature 574:95–98 Bacher K (2015) Perceptions and misconceptions of aquaculture: a Hilborn R, Costello C (2018) The potential for blue growth in marine global overview. FAO, Rome fish yield, profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Mar. Policy Belton B, Bush SR, Little DC (2018) Not just for the wealthy: rethink87:350–355 ing farmed fish consumption in the Global South. Glob. Food Secur. Hilborn R et  al (2020) Effective fisheries management instrumen16:85–92 tal in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA Bronnmann J, Asche F (2017) Sustainable seafood from aquaculture 117:2218–2224 and wild fisheries: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Joffre OM, Klerkx L, Dickson M, Verdegem M (2017) How is innoGermany. Ecol. Econ. 142:113–119 vation in aquaculture conceptualized and managed? A systematic Cai J, Leung P (2017) Short-term projection of global fish demand and literature review and reflection framework to inform analysis and supply gaps. FAO, Rome action. Aquaculture 470:129–148 Cao L et al (2015) China’s aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries. Kawarazuka N, Béné C (2010) Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaScience 347:133–135 culture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Secur Cashion T, Tyedmers P, Parker RWR (2017) Global reduction fisheries 2:343–357 and their products in the context of sustainable limits. Fish Fish. Klinger D, Naylor R (2012) Searching for solutions in aquacul18:1026–1037 ture: charting a sustainable course. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. Copes P (1970) The backward-bending supply curve of the fishing 37:247–276 industry. Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 17:69–77 Little DC, Newton RW, Beveridge MCM (2016) Aquaculture: a rapidly Costello C et al (2016) Global fishery prospects under contrasting mangrowing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transiagement regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113:5125–5129 tions and potential. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 75:274–286 Costello C et al (2019) The future of food from the sea. World Resources Mangin T et  al (2018) Are fishery management upgrades worth the Institute, Washington. http://oceanpanel.org/future-­food-­sea cost? PLoS ONE 13:e0204258 Davies IP et  al (2019) Governance of marine aquaculture: pitfalls, Mbow C et al (2019) Climate change and land (IPCC special report). potential, and pathways forward. Mar. Policy 104:29–36 IPCC, Geneva De Silva S, Davy F (2010) Success stories in Asian aquaculture. Melnychuk MC, Clavelle T, Owashi B, Strauss K (2017) Reconstruction Springer, Cham of global ex-vessel prices of fished species. ICES J.  Mar. Sci. Edwards P, Zhang W, Belton B, Little DC (2019) Misunderstandings, 74:121–133 myths and mantras in aquaculture: its contribution to world food Muhammad A, Seale JL Jr, Meade B, Regmi A (2011) International supplies has been systematically over reported. Mar. Policy evidence on food consumption patterns: an update using 2005 106:103547 International Comparison Program Data. Technical bulletin No. European Union (2008) Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of TB-1929. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementaNielsen M (2006) Trade liberalisation, resource sustainability and weltion of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production fare: the case of East Baltic cod. Ecol. Econ. 58:650–664 and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H (2012) The price of protein: review of labelling and control. Off J Eur 250:1–84 land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37:760–770 FAO (2020) FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home OECD & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2019) FishStatJ  – soft(2019) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2019–2028. OECD, Paris ware for fishery and aquaculture statistical time series. http://www. Olsen Y (2011) Resources for fish feed in future mariculture. Aquacult. fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en Environ. Interact. 1:187–200 Foley JA et  al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science PwC (2017) The Long view: how will the global economic order 309:570–574 change by 2050? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-­2050/assets/ Foley JA et  al (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature pwc-­the-­world-­in-­2050-­full-­report-­feb-­2017.pdf 478:337–342 Ricard D, Minto C, Jensen OP, Baum JK (2012) Examining the knowlFroehlich HE, Gentry RR, Rust MB, Grimm D, Halpern BS (2017) edge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotempothe RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish 13:380–398 ral patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS ONE 12: Shah MR et al (2018) Microalgae in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquae0169281 culture industry. J. Appl. Phycol. 30:197–213 Froehlich HE, Jacobsen NS, Essington TE, Clavelle T, Halpern BS The Sea Grant Law Center (2019) Overcoming impediments to shell(2018a) Avoiding the ecological limits of forage fish for fed aquafish aquaculture through legal research and outreach: case studies. culture. Nat. Sustain. 1:298–303 NOAA, Washington Froehlich HE, Runge CA, Gentry RR, Gaines SD, Halpern BS (2018b) Troell M et al (2014) Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-­ system? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111:13257–13263 dominant world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115:5295–5300

1  The Future of Food from the Sea Troell M, Jonell M, Henriksson PJG (2017) Ocean space for seafood. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:1224–1225 UNDP (2020) Sustainable development goal 2, sustainable development goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2. Accessed 27 July 2020 United Nations (2017) World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. World population projected to

13 reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. https://www. un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-­population-­ prospects-­2017.html Ye Y, Gutierrez NL (2017) Ending fishery overexploitation by expanding from local successes to globalized solutions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:179

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

2

The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

Highlights • The ocean is critically important to our global economy. Collectively, it is estimated that ocean-based industries and activities contribute hundreds of millions of jobs and approximately US $2.5 trillion to the global economy each year, making it the world’s seventh-largest economy when compared with national gross domestic products. In addition, the nonmarket services and benefits provided by the global ocean are significant and may in fact far exceed the value added by market-based goods and services. • Climate change is altering ocean climate, chemistry, circulation, sea level and ice distribution. Collectively, these system changes have critical impacts on the habitats, biological productivities and species assemblages that underpin many of the economic benefits of the sea. • Swift efforts to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are needed to maintain a robust ocean economy. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates that climate-induced declines in ocean health will cost the global economy $428 billion/ year by 2050 and $1.98 trillion/year by 2100. • Climate change is reducing the productivities and changing the spatial distributions of economically important marine species and their habitats. All countries stand to gain significant benefits relative to a business-as-usual trajectory by implementing climate-adaptive fisheries management reforms that address both changes in species’ distributions and productivities due to climate change. Many countries could maintain or improve profits and catches into the future with effective adaptation. Originally published in: Gaines, S., R.  Cabral, C.  Free, Y.  Golbuu, et  al. 2019. The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at www.oceanpanel.org/ expected-­impacts-­climate-­change-­ocean-­economy. Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission. Published under license from the “World Research Institute”.

• The potential of marine aquaculture (mariculture) is likely to remain high under climate change and, with careful planning, mariculture could offset losses in food and income from capture fisheries in those countries that will experience losses in that sector. Expanding the potential for marine aquaculture will require enhancing technical capacities, defining best practices, easing undue regulatory burdens, increasing access to credit and insurance, breeding stocks for faster growth and improving feed technology. • The combined effects of ocean warming and acidification result in predictions of negative impacts on coral reef cover and tourism values for all countries, with magnitudes dependent on the strength of climate change. For a high emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), coral cover is expected to decline by 72–87%, causing on-reef tourism values to decrease by over 90% in 2100. • Climate change impacts will differ by country and sector and solutions must be context-specific. By exploring climate change impacts at the country level for fisheries, aquaculture and reef tourism, countries can assess what they stand to gain or lose due to climate change and understand how they might capitalise on these predictions to inform their investments and actions. • Implementing certain key strategies will help build socioecological resilience to climate change and ensure the continued, or improved, provision of functions and services from the ocean, especially for the most vulnerable coastal nations. These strategies include the following: –– A focus on equity. Climate change is likely to cause and exacerbate global inequities, reducing resilience and thereby likely worsening outcomes under all climate change scenarios. It will thus be profoundly important to examine the equity implications of all new and existing management decisions across all three sectors.

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_2

15

16

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

–– Looking forward. The future of the ocean economy is expected to drastically change given climate change, and the nature and magnitude of these changes can be highly variable. Each of these three sectors will need to work to understand risks and anticipate changes, and build precautionary and adaptive strategies into their management decisions. –– Cooperating across boundaries. As suitable habitats shift and change, marine species will move across jurisdictional boundaries and regional, national and international cooperative agreements will be necessary to ensure that these species are well-managed, and that the benefits are fairly distributed during and after the transitions.

1.2 The Ocean Economy: Essentials

The ocean economy consists broadly of all ocean-based human activities that generate revenue, employment and other monetary and nonmonetary benefits (OECD 2016). Some of the ocean benefits, and the resources needed to generate them, are market-based in that they are traded on global markets and have market prices. Examples of market-based ocean benefits include the following: wild capture fisheries and marine aquaculture (also known as mariculture); pharmaceuticals; fossil fuel energy resources such as oil and gas; renewable energy resources such as wave, wind or thermal energy; the use of the ocean surface for transportation (shipping); ocean-based tourism; and emerging blue carbon markets. Following the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 1 Introduction framework, most of the marketable benefits mentioned are material contributions (e.g. food, energy sources, genetic 1.1 Overview resources), but other important marketable contributions to people are regulating services (e.g. carbon sequestration) The ocean is critically important to our global economy. and nonmaterial (e.g. tourism). Collectively, it is estimated that ocean-based industries and Many other ocean benefits are not traded on markets, and activities contribute hundreds of millions of jobs and approx- their values are thus far more difficult to assess. The set of imately US $2.5 trillion to the global economy each year, nonmarket ocean benefits is very large (Polasky and Segermaking it the world’s seventh-largest economy when com- son 2009; Costanza et  al. 2014) and ranges from different pared with national gross domestic products (GDPs) (Hoegh-­ ecosystem services to the broader category of nonmaterial Guldberg 2015; IPCC 2019). In addition, the nonmarket contributions to people. In terms of ecosystem services, nonservices and benefits provided by the ocean are significant market benefits include most of the ocean’s cultural services and may in fact far exceed the value added by market-based (e.g. swimming, recreational fishing, observing sea life, goods and services (Costanza et al. 2014). the existence value of the ocean’s diverse biota). In addiAnthropogenic climate change, driven by the exponential tion, ecosystem services include regulating services—the increase in emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) since ocean’s contribution to the global water, energy and chemithe industrial revolution, will continue to impact the ocean cal circulation systems, as well as the ocean’s role in climate through a variety of channels. The severity of effects will regulation, carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake and coastal prodepend greatly on the extent of warming reached through tection—which are typically not accounted for in existing GHG emissions (IPCC 2018, 2019). The resulting changes markets. The IPBES framework further adds to the ocean’s to ocean processes and functioning have broad implications nonmaterial contributions by including learning and inspifor our global economy that must be taken into account, both ration (i.e. education, scientific information), psychological to inform adaptation efforts and motivate urgent mitigation experiences (i.e. relaxation, healing, aesthetic enjoyment), strategies. supporting identities (i.e. the basis for spiritual and social-­ In this paper, we focus on those sectors of the ocean econ- cohesion experiences, myths and traditional knowledge) and omy that are most in need of adaptation to ensure they can maintenance of options for future generations and innovacontinue to provide valued functions as the climate changes: tions and needs (Díaz et al. 2015, 2018). capture fisheries, marine aquaculture, and marine and coastal tourism. We also briefly discuss other marine-based sectors, 1.2.1 The Market-Based Ocean Economy some of which generate higher monetary value at a global The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developscale, but either face less significant existential risks from ment (OECD) projects that market-based ocean industries the changing climate (e.g. shipping), or must be drastically will expand at least as fast as the global economy as a whole transitioned to avoid worsening the climate crisis (e.g. oil over the next decade. The OECD (2016) outlines the ocean and gas extraction). However, we leave deeper discussion of industries that contribute the most in terms of production these important industries and the issues surrounding them value and employment (see Table 2.1). to other Blue Papers (Ocean Energy and Mineral Sources The rankings of ocean industries are quite different for and Coastal Development). these two economic outputs. Energy production, shipping

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy Table 2.1  Ocean industries contributing most to the ocean economy

1. Offshore oil and gas 2. Marine and coastal tourism 3. Port activities 4. Maritime equipment 5. Fisheries, marine aquaculture and fish processing 6. Ocean transportation 7. Shipbuilding and repair 8. Offshore wind

% of production value 34 26 13 11 6

% of employment 6 22 5 7 49

5 4 1

4 6 1

Source: OECD (2016) Note: Data are from 2010

and tourism dominate production values, while nearly half of all ocean employment arises from food production. Therefore, the impacts of climate disruptions on these industries can have quite disparate social and economic consequences.

1.2.2 The Nonmarket Ocean Economy Despite the complexities and theoretical challenges, a number of researchers have attempted to calculate the value of the diverse ecosystem services provided by the ocean. Although there is much debate, these assessments generally conclude that nonmarket services from the ocean are nearly comparable in value to the entire market-based gross global product (i.e. from the entire global economy). For example, a prominent evaluation by Costanza et  al. (2014) assessed the value of global ocean ecosystem services to be almost $50 trillion in 2011. This translates to more than 80% of the gross global product in that year, or 30 times more than the ocean-based gross value added. Recent initiatives, such as IPBES, broaden the concept of valuation of nonmarket goods and ecosystem services even further to the more inclusive Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). The ocean provides a number of these important contributions, which arise from a diversity of human-ocean relationships, including those of indigenous people and local communities (Díaz et al. 2015; Pascual et al. 2017). Although we focus on measuring the impacts of climate change on the market ocean economy in this assessment, it is clear that solutions to those challenges could generate far larger returns from the added benefits they provide to these nonmarket components of the ocean economy.

2 How Rising Greenhouse Gasses Alter the Ocean Climate change is altering ocean climate, chemistry, circulation, sea level and ice distribution (Brander 2010; García Molinos et  al. 2016; IPCC 2019). Collectively, these system changes have critical impacts on the habitats, biotic

17

productivities and species assemblages (Doney et al. 2012; Poloczanska et  al. 2013; Pinsky et  al. 2013; Visser 2016; Bryndum-Buchholz et  al. 2019; Lotze et  al. 2019) that underpin many of the economic benefits of the sea (Barange et al. 2018; Cheung et al. 2010; Free et al. 2019a; Lam et al. 2016; Sumaila et al. 2011). They also affect the risks of various human activities and developments (Gattuso et al. 2015; de Suarez et al. 2014; Barange et al. 2014). Unprecedented ocean changes are already occurring across all latitudes (Barange et al. 2018; Friedrich et al. 2012; Holbrook et al. 1997; IPCC 2019; Kleisner et al. 2017; Walther et al. 2002), with a high risk of negative impacts to many ocean organisms, ecosystems and services (Gattuso et  al. 2015; IPCC 2019; Lotze et al. 2019). These impacts are likely to increase dramatically toward the end of this century, depending on the extent of future GHG emissions, with potentially direct consequences for ecosystem services, the ocean economy and human welfare (IPCC 2019; Pecl et al. 2017). Below, we describe these effects individually, but many of these influences may synergistically or antagonistically interact, potentially with additional consequences (see, for example, Rosa and Seibel 2008). Throughout this paper, we rely on the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (van Vuuren et  al. 2011) adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fifth Assessment Report to describe potential GHG emission trajectories and associated climate futures. The RCP scenarios are named according to the projected radiative forcing experienced in 2100 (2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 Watts per square metre [W/m2], respectively). They roughly correspond to projected increases in planetary surface temperatures relative to 1850–1900 of 1.6, 2.5, 2.9 and 4.3 °C, respectively, by the end of this century (IPCC 2019).

2.1 Altered Ocean Temperatures and Disturbances Climate change has already contributed to substantial warming of the ocean over most of the globe. The ocean has absorbed ~93% of additional heat, leading to significant warming of the upper ocean (above 700 metres [m]) and warming of deeper waters (700–2000 m), increasing in strength since the 1980s (Cheng et  al. 2017). Sea surface temperatures have increased by an average of 0.7 °C globally since 1900 (Barange et  al. 2018; Jewett and Romanou 2017). RCP scenarios suggest that these trends, which already exceed the range in natural seasonal variability in subtropical areas and the Arctic, will continue (IPCC 2014, 2019). Future upper ocean warming is expected to be most pronounced in tropical and Northern Hemisphere subtropical regions, while deep water warming is expected to be more pronounced in the Southern Ocean (Barange et  al. 2018;

18

IPCC 2019; Gattuso et  al. 2015). By 2100, the ocean as a whole is likely to have warmed by two to four times (RCP 2.6) to five to seven times (RCP 8.5) as much as the warming observed since 1970 (IPCC 2019). As these warming trends continue, the suitable distribution ranges of many marine species are expected to shift poleward. In general, species that are able to move to cooler waters, and have suitable habitats to move to, will do so (Barange et al. 2018; Cheung et al. 2010; IPCC 2019; Pinsky et al. 2013). Organisms and habitats that cannot move will either adapt to the new conditions caused by climate change or become extirpated, unless extensive transplantation or other initiatives are mounted to prevent this. Significant habitat losses are predicted in many areas, especially in the Arctic and coral reef ecosystems, resulting in altered community assemblages, predator-prey mismatches and local extinctions (Doney et  al. 2014; Free et  al. 2019a; Gattuso et al. 2015; Holbrook et al. 1997; IPCC 2019). Warming waters, along with an increase in episodic ‘marine heat waves’, ocean acidification (discussed below) and the spread of diseases, will lead to mass coral bleaching and mortality throughout the ranges of most coral species (Donner et  al. 2005; FAO 2018; Gattuso et  al. 2015; Hoegh-­Guldberg 1999; IPCC 2019; Kubicek et  al. 2019; McClanahan et  al. 2002). Intense reshufflings of current biodiversity patterns are also anticipated in biogeographical transition zones, where local populations of multiple species are at or close to their thermal tolerance limits. As a result of these movements, studies have predicted 30–70% average increases in potential fish production at high latitudes, and decreases of up to 40% in the tropics (Barange et al. 2018; Cheung et  al. 2010). Indeed, ongoing rapid replacement of cold-affinity species by warm-affinity species has been recently documented in tropical-to-temperate (Kumagai et  al. 2018; Verges et  al. 2014) and boreal-to-Arctic (Fossheim et al. 2015) regions. Furthermore, tropical cyclones, extreme sea level events including storm surges and flooding and precipitation over the ocean are predicted to increase in intensity and frequency through the first half of this century due to ocean circulation changes (discussed below) (Barange et  al. 2018; Hartmann et al. 2013; IPCC 2014, 2019; Kirtman et al. 2013; Kopp et al. 2014; Ren et al. 2013). In addition, recent models and observational data indicate that recurring climate patterns such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation are likely to increase in frequency and intensity as the ocean warms (Barange et al. 2018; Cai et al. 2014, 2015; IPCC 2019; Wang et al. 2017), with potentially important impacts on fishing, aquaculture and tourism operations. River flows and flooding may also change with increased snowmelt and more variable landbased precipitation, reducing salinity, increasing sedimentation and impacting productivity in nearshore waters (IPCC 2019; Jha et  al. 2006; Pervez and Henebry 2015; Siderius

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

et  al. 2013; Loo et  al. 2015). Finally, ocean warming leads to increased stratification of the water column and reduced water circulation and mixing (Barange et al. 2018; FAO 2018; IPCC 2019; Jacox and Edwards 2011; Oschlies et al. 2018).

2.2 Sea Level Rise and an Altered Distribution of Ice Polar areas have seen drastic changes including shifts in the timing of the annual melt seasons, changes in snow cover and changes in ice sheet and glacier mass, which have resulted in sea level rise. Globally, mean sea level rose on average by 0.16  m from 1902 to 2015, and estimates indicate that by 2100, the global mean sea level will rise between 0.29 m and 0.59 m under RCP 2.6, and between 0.61 m and 1.1 m under RCP 8.5 (Barange et al. 2018; IPCC 2019; Kopp et al. 2014). The rate of increase varies across regions—in the western Pacific, sea level is increasing at three times the global average, while the rate of increase in the eastern Pacific is null or negative (Barange et al. 2018; Dangendorf et al. 2017). The economic consequences of global sea level rise will therefore also be highly heterogeneous across regions, as well as across sectors, with likely significant impacts stemming from the modification of coastlines, reduced coastal productivity as reefs and seagrasses are submerged and increased flooding (Barange et al. 2018; IPCC 2019). In the Arctic, annual sea ice extent has decreased at a rate of 3.5–4.1% per decade, plummeting to a rate of −13% in September, the month marking the end of the melt season. This strong downward trend in extent is accompanied by a progressive loss of multiyear sea ice with over 50% of its extent lost during the period 1999–2017 (Kwok 2018; IPCC 2019). Meanwhile, mass lost from the Antarctic ice sheet tripled between 2007 and 2016 relative to the previous decade, leading to the lowest average monthly and yearly Antarctic sea ice extents on record in 2017 (IPCC 2019; Parkinson 2019). The Greenland Ice Sheet’s mass loss doubled over this same period, and the rates of mass loss for both Greenland and Antarctic sea ice are expected to increase throughout the twenty-first century and beyond (IPCC 2019). Together, these two ice sheets are projected to contribute 0.11 m to global mean sea level rise under RCP 2.6, and 0.27 m under RCP 8.5 (IPCC 2019). While reductions in sea ice have opened new routes for international shipping, potentially reducing costs to this sector, these changes have also resulted in losses to sea ice–based travel and tourism, and pose risks to cultural livelihoods such as subsistence fishing and hunting for polar species (IPCC 2019). Glaciers and land-based ice sheets across the world have also shrunk (Barange et al. 2018; IPCC 2019) and their combined influence was the dominant source of sea level rise between 2006 and 2015 (IPCC 2019).

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

Sea level rise, combined with increased storm frequency and intensity, is expected to have significant negative impacts on ocean and coastal economy infrastructure, including damage to ports, aquaculture operations and offshore energy structures, and added risks and constraints on shipping (IPCC 2019). These impacts are likely to be among the costliest and potentially most disruptive of all the climate-driven ocean changes. For example, global annual flood costs from sea level rise under RCP 8.5 are estimated at $14 trillion/year (Jevrejeva et  al. 2018). Furthermore, although there is uncertainty around exact numbers, sea level rise and other climate-­related ocean changes will likely lead to the displacement of millions of people worldwide, with the poorest households facing the greatest risk (IPCC 2019). Low-lying island nations, such as Maldives, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Nauru, are especially vulnerable, with sea level rise threatening their entire economies and populations.

2.3 Altered Ocean Chemistry Ocean acidity has increased by 26% since the industrial revolution, with regional variability in severity and rate of change (Barange et al. 2018; Gattuso et al. 2015; IPCC 2014, 2019; Jewett and Romanou 2017). This increase has been driven primarily by the oceanic absorption of CO2, which lowers ocean pH (by increasing bicarbonate and hydrogen ion concentrations) and carbonate ion concentrations, and increases the partial pressure of CO2 and dissolved inorganic carbon. These changes can impact many marine organisms, particularly in early life stages, but are especially detrimental to corals and organisms that form carbonate shells (Barange et  al. 2018; FAO 2018; Pörtner et al. 2014), and perhaps beneficial for some photosynthetic, non-calcifying taxa (Kroeker et  al. 2013). Observed trends of declining ocean pH already exceed the natural seasonal variability throughout most of the open ocean, and they are expected to continue throughout this century (Barange et al. 2018; Gattuso et al. 2015; Henson et al. 2017; IPCC 2019). By 2100, surface ocean pH is projected to decline by 0.036–0.042 pH units under RCP 2.6, or 0.287–0.29 pH units under RCP 8.5. High-latitude waters, deep waters and upwelling regions will be the first to see carbonate ion concentrations drop below the ‘saturation point’ (meaning below the point at which shell and reef formation is possible; the Arctic Ocean, the northeastern Pacific and the California upwelling system already experience seasonally undersaturated conditions), while the tropical ocean (where current carbonate ion concentrations are higher) will experience the largest absolute decreases in carbonate ion concentration and pH (Barange et  al. 2018; Harris et  al. 2013). Warm water corals will be impacted by decreased carbonate ion satura-

19

tion levels even where waters do not become undersaturated (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2017). Even if global warming is limited to 1.5 °C, warm water corals are likely to suffer significant negative impacts, including changes to community composition and diversity, local extinctions and reductions in range and extent (IPCC 2019). Coastal seawater acidification can be intensified by additional carbon from riverine input or through coastal productivity stimulated from land-based nutrient inputs, or nutrients released from sediments, aquaculture, sewage discharges and other point sources (Gattuso et al. 2015). These impacts will have significant negative effects on coral reef– related tourism and fishery operations as well as on shellfish aquaculture operations (although see below for a discussion of the potential for aquaculture adaptation and expansion). Climate change is also impacting the dissolved oxygen content in ocean systems across the globe. Warming-driven stratification of the water column, exacerbated by other physical and biogeochemical processes, reduces the dissolved oxygen content in ocean water (Barange et al. 2018; Breitburg et al. 2018; Gattuso et al. 2015; IPCC 2019; Jacox and Edwards 2011; Oschlies et al. 2018). In recent decades, oxygen concentration in coastal waters and the open ocean has decreased, while the prevalence and size of ‘oxygen minimum zones’ (OMZs), areas where oxygen consumption by sediment bacteria exceeds the availability of oxygen, have increased, especially in the tropics, although it is difficult to conclusively attribute these shifts to human activity in these regions (Barange et  al. 2018; Breitburg et  al. 2018; IPCC 2019; Oschlies et al. 2018; Stramma et al. 2010; Levin 2002). These trends are expected to continue, with the whole-ocean oxygen inventory expected to decrease by 1.6– 2% (RCP 2.6) to 3.2–3.7% (RCP 8.5), and the global volume of OMZs expected to increase by 7.0 ± 5.6% by 2100 under RCP 8.5 (Barange et al. 2018; Fu et al. 2018; Gattuso et al. 2015; IPCC 2019). Increased deoxygenation will likely lead to habitat compression, shifts in distribution and losses in species abundance and biodiversity (Breitburg et  al. 2018; Stramma et  al. 2010; Levin 2002). Furthermore, observed deoxygenation is generally worse than modelled results, which emphasises the need to improve our understanding of the processes driving deoxygenation to reduce the model uncertainty in our projections (Bopp et  al. 2013; Oschlies et al. 2018). Deoxygenation and OMZs affect species in different ways and to different degrees depending on varying oxygen tolerances. While some hypoxia-adapted species may benefit, impacts on most fish and invertebrates will be negative, and may include restricted vertical and horizontal migration, compressed habitats, alterations to predator-prey interactions and increased competition, impairment of reproductive capacity, reduced growth, vision impairments, increased disease incidence, epigenetic changes and death from

20

a­ sphyxiation (Barange et al. 2018; Breitburg et al. 2018; Eby and Crowder 2002; Gattuso et al. 2015; IPCC 2019; Oschlies et al. 2018). The combination of ocean warming, increased acidity and decreased oxygen availability is predicted to result in significant decreases in both the average size and abundance of many important fishery species (Breitburg et al. 2018).

2.4 Altered Circulation Patterns Water circulation in the ocean, known as the ‘global conveyor belt’, is responsible for the redistribution of heat and freshwater, influencing local climates, productivity levels and ocean chemistry. A warming climate increases inflows of warm freshwater (from increased precipitation and melting glaciers and sea ice), which can reduce the formation of sea ice and sinking of cold salt water. This influx slows parts of global conveyor belt circulation (Barange et  al. 2018; IPCC 2019; Liu et al. 2017). The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Gulf Stream, which are responsible for a significant portion of the redistribution of heat from the tropics to the middle and high latitudes as well as of the ocean’s capacity to sequester carbon, are showing signs of weakening (Caesar et al. 2018; IPCC 2019; Thornalley et al. 2018; Barange et al. 2018) and may continue to do so under all RCP scenarios (IPCC 2019). In the Atlantic, this weakening is driving lower sea surface temperatures in the subpolar Atlantic Ocean and a warming and northward shift of the Gulf Stream, which is expected to further weaken in the coming decades (Caesar et al. 2018; Thornalley et al. 2018; Barange et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2017). These changes could lead to dramatic shifts in weather and local and regional climate patterns (IPCC 2019), which would have significant impacts on the ocean economy (e.g. through damage to infrastructure) and society as a whole. All western boundary currents other than the Gulf Stream are expected to intensify in response to tropical atmospheric changes and shifts in wind patterns resulting from climate change and GHG concentrations, likely strengthening coastal storm systems (Barange et  al. 2018; Yang et al. 2016). The intensity of the eastern boundary currents, responsible for the major coastal upwelling zones and thus for some of the most productive waters in the world, will also likely change, although there is more uncertainty around the severity and direction of these changes, as well as around the resulting impacts (Bakun et al. 2015; Barange et al. 2018; Brady et al. 2017). As the land and ocean warm at different rates, stronger upwelling-favourable winds may strengthen these patterns; however, increased thermal stratification may restrict the depth of upwelling waters, and thus limit the amount of nutrients brought with them (Bakun 1990; Barange et al. 2018; Jacox and Edwards 2011;

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Rykaczewski et al. 2015; Sydeman et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2015). The impacts of intensified upwelling may result in a net increase in nutrient inputs and primary productivity or, alternatively, increase the presence of low oxygen and more acidic waters along the continental shelf (Bakun et al. 2015; Barange et al. 2018). Changes in either direction will have critical impacts for the many valuable marine capture fisheries located in and around upwelling zones. The most recent estimations at a global scale show a decrease in primary productivity of 7–16% by 2100 for RCP 8.5, largely driven by changes to circulatory and upwelling patterns as well as thermal stratification (IPCC 2019). However, the interaction and relative importance of these forces, as well as of regional processes and seasonal variability, will vary across geographies (Barange et al. 2018; IPCC 2019), and thus local data collection and modelling will be necessary to inform management.

3 Connecting the Links Between Climate Change and the Ocean Economy 3.1 Capture Fisheries 3.1.1 Importance of Capture Fisheries to the Ocean Economy In 2016, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that marine capture fisheries produced 79.3 million metric tonnes (mmt) of landings, representing 46.4% of global seafood production (170.9 mmt) and $130 billion in first sale value (FAO 2018). It also estimated that approximately 30.6 million people participated—either full time, part time, or occasionally—in capture fisheries, operating approximately 4.6 million fishing vessels. Small-­scale fisheries are the backbone of socioeconomic well-being in many coastal communities (Bene 2004; Béné et  al. 2007, 2010), especially in the developing tropics where the majority of fish-dependent countries are located (Golden et  al. 2016). Fish and fish products are also among the most traded food commodities in the world. In 2016, approximately 35% of production entered international trade for either human consumption or nonfood uses (FAO 2018). The 60 mmt ($143 billion) of fish products exported in 2016 constituted a 245% increase relative to 1976 exports ($8 billion). Over this time period, the rate of growth of exports from developing countries surpassed that from developed countries (FAO 2018). Finally, the average annual increase in fish consumption (3.2%) has outpaced the average annual increase in human population growth (1.6%), and demand for fish is projected to increase as the human population continues to grow and become increasingly wealthy (FAO 2018).

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

3.1.2 Impacts of Climate Change on Capture Fisheries Climate change is significantly altering the ability for marine fisheries to provide food and income for people around the world (IPCC 2019). These changes are commonly viewed as occurring through impacts on either the distribution of fish stocks (i.e. where fish can be caught and by whom) or the productivity of fish stocks (i.e. how much fish can be caught). In general, productivity is predicted to decrease in tropical and temperate regions and increase toward the poles (Lotze et al. 2019) as marine organisms shift their distributions to maintain their preferred temperatures (Pinsky et  al. 2013; Poloczanska et  al. 2013; Poloczanska et  al. 2016). These regional shifts in productivity, range and fishing opportunity are likely to result in regional discrepancies in food and profits from fisheries (Lam et al. 2016), with tropical developing countries and small island developing states exhibiting the greatest vulnerability to the climate change (Allison et  al. 2009; Blasiak et al. 2017; Guillotreau et al. 2012). In the remainder of this Sect. 3.1.2, we detail how both retrospective and forward-looking studies have revealed the impact of climate change on the distributions and productivities of marine fisheries and the implications of these observations and predictions for adapting fisheries management to climate change. In Sect. 3.1.3, we present results from a new study (Free et al. 2019b) that demonstrate the country-level economic and food provisioning benefits of reforming fisheries management to account for shifting distributions and productivities. Finally, in Sect. 3.1.4, we outline how fisheries could implement climate-adaptive reforms along a gradient of scientific, management and enforcement capacities. Marine fish and invertebrates are shifting distributions to track their preferred temperatures. Adaptive international agreements that prioritise equitable outcomes will be necessary to ensure that management remains sustainable and just as species shift in and out of management jurisdictions. Observed changes: As the ocean has warmed, marine fish and invertebrates have shifted their distributions to track their preferred temperatures (Perry et al. 2005; Dulvy et al. 2008; Poloczanska et al. 2013; Pinsky et al. 2013). In general, this has resulted in shifts poleward and into deeper waters. At a mean rate of 72 kilometres (km) per decade, marine species have been moving an order of magnitude faster than terrestrial species (Poloczanska et  al. 2013). These distribution shifts are already generating management challenges (Pinsky et al. 2018). For example, a ‘mackerel war’ erupted in 2007 when the northeast Atlantic mackerel stock shifted from waters managed by the European Union, Norway and Faroe Islands into Icelandic and Greenland waters. Disagreements over the drivers of the shift, the expected duration of the shift, and appropriate catch reallocations resulted in the stock becoming increasingly overfished (Spijkers and Boonstra 2017).

21

Forecasted changes: The rate of distribution shifts and associated management conflicts are anticipated to increase under climate change. All studies forecast generally poleward shifts in species distribution and productivity under continued warming (Lotze et al. 2019), often with a decrease in species diversity in equatorial regions, an increase in diversity in poleward regions and the subsequent formation of novel marine communities (García Molinos et  al. 2016; Cheung et al. 2016). These shifts are likely to increase the risk of management conflicts over transboundary stocks. For example, 23–35% of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are expected to receive a new stock by 2100 under strong greenhouse gas mitigation (RCP 2.6) to business-as-usual mitigation (RCP 8.5) scenarios, respectively (Pinsky et al. 2018). Implications for adaptation: Establishing and strengthening international institutions and agreements to better manage stocks shifting in and out of jurisdictions will be important. These agreements will need to be both adaptive, to ensure that management remains effective under continued uncertainty, and inclusive of all impacted groups, to ensure that outcomes are equitable. As with management decisions made at the fishery and community scales, these international agreements must engender procedural, distributional and recognitional equity if they are to be truly resilient (Matin et al. 2018; Meerow et al. 2019). See Opportunity for Action #3 in Sect. 3.1.4 for more detail. Climate change is reducing the productivity of marine fisheries globally. Regional impacts are especially pronounced, with some regions experiencing large gains in productivity while others experiencing large losses. Resilience to climate change can be enhanced by implementing adaptive, inclusive and transparent ‘primary fisheries management’, by accounting for shifting productivity in assessment and management and by rebuilding overfished stocks. Solutions should be developed through processes that ensure procedural, distributional and recognitional equity at all stages. Observed changes: Free et  al. (2019a) estimate that ocean warming has already driven a 4.1% decline in the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the maximum amount of catch that can be harvested for perpetuity, of 235 of the largest industrial fisheries over the past 80 years. The North Sea, which supports large commercial fisheries, and four East Asian marine ecoregions, which support some of the fastest-­growing human populations, have experienced losses in MSY of 15–35%. Meanwhile, the Baltic Sea and other regions have seen increases in MSY of up to 15%. Changes in productivity are driven by changes in growth, mortality or recruitment rates resulting from changing environmental conditions, phenologies (i.e. mismatches in the timing of juvenile recruitment and food availability), disease or food web structures, as well as changes in carrying capacities resulting from distribution shifts or habitat degradation (Hol-

22

lowed et al. 2013). In general, well-managed fisheries have been the most resilient to these changes while overexploited fisheries have been the most vulnerable (Britten et al. 2016; Free et al. 2019a). Forecasted changes: An ensemble of six marine ecosystem models (Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2019; Lotze et al. 2019) forecasts decreases in marine animal biomass of 4.8, 8.6, 10.4 and 17.2% by 2100 under RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5, which represent increasingly severe greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. The ensemble model and its constituent models consistently predict reduced productivity in tropical to temperate regions and increased productivity at the poles. For example, marine animal biomass is forecast to decline by 15–30% in the North/South Atlantic, North/South Pacific and Indian Ocean basins by 2100 while increasing by 20–80% in the polar Arctic and Southern Ocean basins (BryndumBuchholz et al. 2019). Regional disparities in marine animal biomass become increasingly pronounced under increasingly severe emissions scenarios. The redistribution of catch potential will drive a concomitant redistribution of revenues (Lam et al. 2016) and nutrition (Golden et al. 2016; Hicks et al. 2019). Implications for adaptation: First and foremost, in both low- and high-capacity fisheries systems, implementing general fisheries reforms will enhance resilience to climate change as well-managed fisheries are the most ecologically (Free et  al. 2019a) and socioeconomically resilient to climate change. In low-capacity fisheries systems, this can be achieved through ‘primary fisheries management’ (Cochrane et al. 2011), which uses the best available science to inform precautionary management while building institutional capacity for adaptive and participatory co-management. To do so, adaptation policy should target the most vulnerable communities, which in fisheries are typically women and migrant fishers; those with highly fisheries-dependent livelihoods in terms of nutrition and income; and the agency of these individuals to adapt (Cinner et  al. 2018). In high-­ capacity fisheries systems, this will involve accounting for shifting productivity in fisheries stock assessments and management procedures. See Opportunities for Action #1–2 and #4–5 in Sect. 3.1.4 for more detail.

3.1.3 Ability for management to mitigate the impacts of climate change Most forecasts of the impacts of climate change on fisheries compare the maximum biological potential for food production today with that in the future (Cheung et al. 2010; Lam et al. 2016). While this is useful for understanding the biological limits of the ocean under climate change, it fails to consider the effects of alternative human responses (Barange 2019), which could either limit or exacerbate the impacts of climate change on society. The actions of fishers, man-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

agement institutions and markets all influence the benefits derived from fisheries (Costello et al. 2016) and could mitigate many of the negative impacts of climate change (Gaines et al. 2018). Thus, we present a recent analysis (Free et al. 2019b)1 that documents the benefits countries stand to gain by implementing climate-adaptive fisheries management reforms that address both changes in species distribution and productivity due to climate change. Methods: Free et al. (2019b) forecasted the distributions and productivities of 779 harvested marine species out to 2100 under three greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (RCPs 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), and compared the status of these fisheries and the amount of catch and profits derived from them under both climate-adaptive management and business-as-usual management. Under climate-adaptive management, fisheries management dynamically updates economically optimum harvest rates to match shifts in productivity, and transboundary institutions maintain management performance as shifts in distribution move stocks into new management jurisdictions. Under business-as-usual management, current (rather than economically optimal) harvest rates are initially applied and are gradually transitioned to open access as stocks shift into new management jurisdictions (see Free et al. 2019b for details on the management scenarios). Free et  al. (2019b) then measured the extent to which climate-adaptive management could maintain catch and profits into the future and generate catch and profits relative to business-as-usual management. Results: Even countries experiencing declines in fisheries productivity and catch potential would derive more catch and profits through climate-adaptive management than through business-as-usual management (Fig.  2.1). Furthermore, in many countries, adaptive management would not only reduce the impacts of climate change, but actually increase catch and profits relative to today (Fig. 2.1). Climate-adaptive fisheries management results in greater cumulative profits than business-as-usual management for 99% of countries under RCPs 6.0 and 8.5. It results in greater cumulative catches than business-as-usual management in 98% and 67% of countries in RCPs 6.0 and 8.5, respectively. Furthermore, under adaptive management, 71% and 45% of countries derive more catch and profits from fisheries in 2100 relative to today under RCPs 6.0 and 8.5, respectively. The impacts of climate change on fisheries and the opportunities and benefits of climate-adaptive fisheries management reforms can be explored for specific countries in an interactive web application created by the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB 2019).

This paper is currently under peer review but a pre-print is publicly available on BioRxiv here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/804831v1. 1 

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

23

a

b

c

Fig. 2.1  Ability for adaptive fisheries management to mitigate impacts of climate change. Notes: (a) shows that maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is forecast to decrease in equatorial exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and increase in poleward EEZs through 2100. (b) shows that adaptive management results in higher catch and profits in 2100 relative to today for many, but not all, EEZs despite climate change. (c)

shows that adaptive management nearly always yields more cumulative profits than business-as-usual management and frequently yields more cumulative catches than business-as-usual management. In all panels, deeper reds show countries losing MSY and deeper blues show countries gaining MSY under climate change. (Source: Adapted from Free et al. 2019b)

Implications for adaptation: Fisheries management that accounts for shifts in species distributions and productivities due to climate change will generate better outcomes than business-as-usual management in all countries, even those hardest hit by climate change. Challenges for improving management include the lack of financial and technical capacity for monitoring and evalu-

ating fisheries in many regions of the world, both for small-­ scale and industrial fisheries, and the conflicts emerging in fisheries due to climate change and other drivers (Spijkers et al. 2019). In the next section, we detail five key opportunities for action for implementing such reforms.

24

3.1.4 Opportunities for action and key conclusions Building a socioecological system that is resilient to climate change is key to ensuring healthy, productive fisheries in the future. Below are five overarching, high-priority opportunities for designing fisheries management approaches in the context of a changing climate along a gradient of scientific, management and enforcement capacities:

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

forward-­looking management. This can be achieved by aligning management policies with the spatiotemporal scales of climate change, ecosystem change and socioeconomic responses (Holsman et  al. 2019). In higher-­ capacity systems, this could involve four broad strategies. First, managers can envision and prepare for alternative futures using tools such as forecasts (Hobday et al. 2016), structured scenario planning (Moore et al. 2013), holistic ecosystem models (Gaichas et al. 2016), risk assessments (Holsman et al. 2017) and climate vulnerability analyses 1. Implement best practices in fisheries management. (Hare et al. 2016). Second, the proliferation of near real-­ Historically, well-managed fisheries have been among the time biological, oceanographic, social and/or economic most resilient to climate change (Free et al. 2019a), and data can be harnessed for proactive and dynamic adjustour results predict that well-intended, albeit imperfect, ments in spatial and temporal management actions management will continue to confer climate resilience. (Hazen et al. 2018). Together, these results indicate that the wider implemenThird, developing harvest control rules that account tation of best practices in fisheries management will mitifor or are robust to changing environmental conditions gate many of the negative impacts of climate change. affecting productivity can increase catch while reducing In higher-capacity systems, best practices include scithe probability of overfishing (Tommasi et  al. 2017). entifically informed catch limits, accountability meaFinally, all of these management procedures should be sures, regional flexibility in policy practices and the simulation tested through management strategy evaluaprotection of essential fish habitats (Miller et al. 2018b). tions (Punt et al. 2016) to measure the efficacy of alternaIn the United States, such measures have contributed to tive strategies and their robustness under different climate dramatic declines in overfishing, increases in biomass scenarios (Punt et al. 2014). and maintenance of catch and profits (NOAA 2018). In lower-capacity systems, forward-looking fisheries In lower-capacity systems, best practices include management could include precautionary management to implementing ‘primary fisheries management’ (Cochrane buffer against uncertainty (Richards and Maguire 1998) et  al. 2011)—which uses the best available science and as well as management strategies that preserve a populaprecautionary principles to manage data-poor and tion’s resilience, age structure and genetic diversity. For capacity-­limited fisheries—and establishing local, rights-­ example, size limits, seasonal closures and protected based management (Ojea et al. 2017) to incentivise susareas can be used to protect the big, old, fecund females tainable stewardship. (BOFFs) that disproportionately contribute to reproducRights-based management systems include catch tive output (Hixon et al. 2014) and to maintain the genetic share programmes, such as Individual Transferable diversity required to promote evolutionary adaptations to Quotas (ITQs) and Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries climate change. (TURFs), which define property rights over catch and space, respectively (Costello et al. 2010). By giving users 3. Establish and strengthen international institutions and agreements to better manage stocks shifting in ownership of the resource, well-designed, rights-based and out of jurisdictions. Shifting distributions are management systems incentivise long-term stewardship already generating management challenges and the rates and have been shown to promote compliance, prevent of these shifts and associated conflicts are expected to overfishing and increase profits (Costello et  al. 2016; increase with climate change (Pinsky et al. 2018; Spijkers Costello et al. 2008; Melnychuk et al. 2011). Enforcement and Boonstra 2017; Spijkers et al. 2019). New or strengthand the strength of fishing pressure limits are also key for ened international institutions and agreements will be successful fisheries management (Melnychuk et al. 2017) necessary to ensure that management remains sustainable and contribute to a precautionary approach in the face of as stocks shift between jurisdictions. climate change. Overall, fisheries best practices confer First, this will require sharing data between regional ecological resilience by maintaining healthy stock sizes, fisheries management organisations or countries to idenage structures, and genetic diversity and building sociotify, describe and forecast shifting stocks. Second, it will economic resilience by providing a portfolio of options to require a commitment to using these shared data to fishers and a buffer against climate-­driven losses in any inform collaborative management. For example, these one target stock. data could be used to regularly and objectively update 2. Be dynamic, flexible and forward-looking. Adapting to national allocations of catch or effort based on changes climate change will require dynamic, flexible and

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

4.





in distribution rather than historical allocations (e.g. Havice 2013; Aqorau et  al. 2018). An alternative approach could be to develop fisheries permits that are tradeable across political boundaries, which would provide future resource users access to fisheries not yet in their waters and incentivise good management (Serdy 2016). Finally, incentivising the cooperation necessary to establish data sharing and collaborative management will require overcoming prevailing management mentalities that one party ‘wins’ while the other ‘loses’ when stocks shift across boundaries. This could involve broadening negotiations to allow for alternative avenues of compensation or ‘side payments’ (Miller and Munro 2004). In cases where establishing international cooperation proves difficult, marine protected areas (MPAs) placed along country borders could buy time for negotiations by protecting stocks as they shift across borders (Roberts et  al. 2017). A more precautionary approach would be to put new fishing areas on hold until adaptive management can be put in place, as illustrated by the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (Schatz et al. 2019). Build socioeconomic resilience. The impact of climate change on fishing communities can be reduced through measures that increase socioeconomic resilience and adaptive capacity to environmental variability and changing fisheries (Cinner et  al. 2018; Charles 2012; Fedele et al. 2019). Across low- to high-capacity systems, these measures include policies that do the following: (a) facilitate flexibility, such as by supporting access to multiple fisheries and alternative livelihoods (b) provide better assets, such as the enhancement of fisheries technology and capacity (c) provide better organisation in the system, including through multilevel governance, community-based management and other governance structures (Holsman et al. 2019; Ojea et al. 2017) (d) promote agency and learning (Cinner et al. 2018) For example, policies that promote access to multiple fisheries provide fishers with a portfolio of fishing opportunities that can buffer against variability (Kasperski and Holland 2013; Cline et al. 2017), while policies that help diversify livelihoods reduce reliance on fisheries (Cinner et  al. 2009; Daw et  al. 2012). Increased mobility through technological enhancements can increase social resilience by allowing fishers to follow shifting stocks (Cinner et  al. 2018), but can also result in the migration of fishers. Multilevel governance promotes flexibility in resource governance by matching ecological resilience and management across scales (Hughes et al. 2005).

25

Community-based management can increase adaptive capacity by incorporating local knowledge and can improve sustainability by fostering a sense of stewardship (Gutiérrez et  al. 2011). Spatial rights-based approaches such as TURFs may confer social resilience insofar as they are often community managed and allow fishers to generate revenues through other compatible activities such as tourism, recreation and aquaculture (Moreno and Revenga 2014). On the other hand, ITQs may confer a different kind of resilience because rights are defined over fish catches, not spatial areas, so they may be more resilient to range shifts arising from climate change. Furthermore, all of these measures can be designed to reduce fishing pressure and promote ecological resilience to climate change. 5. Use principles of fairness and equity to drive policy decisions. The challenges of maintaining fairness and equity, such as adequately including the representation and needs of vulnerable marine livelihoods (i.e. those of women, migrants, indigenous peoples), are likely to be created or amplified by climate change. For example, on a regional level, we expect to see greater impacts in the equatorial region, which could exacerbate existing patterns of food insecurity and poverty. In the case of more informal or unregulated economies and fishing activities (e.g. shellfish gathering, fish processing), which are most times performed by women (Harper et al. 2017) and marginalised groups (Barange et al. 2018), there is a risk to being left out from regulations, leading to maladaptation. At a more local level, climate change can shift the distribution of resources, thereby changing the impact on human populations from past patterns. Without an adequate response, these impacts could lead to inequalities, unrest and severe social disruption, thus likely worsening outcomes in the face of climate change. Addressing the inequities created by climate change is valuable in its own right to stem these potential negative consequences and deliver increased social resilience and stability. At the same time, using fairness and equity to guide policies can also help foster important buy-in to policies necessary for addressing climate change effects so that adoption is swifter and more complete. Finally, developing equitable solutions can help uncover and target the underlying drivers of both existing inequities and climate change itself, thereby allowing for wholesale system transformation when it is necessary to create equitable resilience (Cohen et al. 2019; Matin et al. 2018; Meerow et al. 2019; Mikulewicz 2019). Thus, equity is not just a valuable goal of management and policy reform; it is also a critical input into these decisions as it serves as a functional driver of climate resilience.

26

3.2 Marine Aquaculture 3.2.1 Importance of Mariculture to the Ocean Economy Aquaculture, the cultivation of aquatic animals and plants, is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and now produces more seafood than wild capture fisheries (FAO 2018). Although marine aquaculture, hereafter called ‘mariculture’, currently represents only one-third of total aquaculture production (freshwater/inland aquaculture represents the remainder), this proportion is increasing. In 2016, mariculture produced 38.6 mmt of seafood worth $67.4 billion at first sale. Over half of this production was shelled molluscs (58.8%), while finfish and crustaceans represented 23% and 17% of production, respectively (FAO 2018). When converted to edible food equivalents, finfish mariculture provides the most food by volume (Edwards et al. 2019). Additionally, fed aquaculture (including finfish and crustaceans), which requires feed inputs, is growing faster than unfed bivalve aquaculture due to increasing demand for these commodities (Tacon et  al. 2011; Hasan 2017). 3.2.2 Impacts of climate change on mariculture Mariculture production is vulnerable to climate change through impacts both on the cultivated organisms as well as on the cost and infrastructure of conducting mariculture operations. Like wild marine species, cultivated marine species are impacted by changing environmental conditions (Weatherdon et al. 2016), but unlike wild species, humans can induce accelerated adaptation in cultivated species through selective breeding (SaeLim et  al. 2017). Unlike most wild capture fisheries, mariculture operations require a significant amount of shore- and ocean-based infrastructure for cultivating marine species through multiple life stages. Both shore- and ocean-based infrastructure are vulnerable to storms, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity under climate change (IPCC 2019), and ocean-­b ased infrastructure such as lines, cages and pens must be actively moved in response to poor environmental conditions such as harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, or changing salinity or temperature, which increases costs and disproportionately impacts farmers unable to relocate (Dabbadie et al. 2018). As with capture fisheries, the impacts of climate change on aquaculture are expected to vary by location, species and method of production (Soto et al. 2018). The primary threats to unfed bivalve aquaculture and fed finfish and crustacean aquaculture are the following:

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

1. Ocean warming is expected to raise mortality rates and lower productivity for higher-trophic-level species (bivalves, finfish, crustaceans) (Rosa et al. 2014). 2. Sea level rise will increase the intrusion of saline water into deltas and estuaries compromising brackish-water aquaculture (De Silva 2012; Garai 2014), and shifting shoreline morphology could reduce habitat availability (bivalves, finfish, crustaceans). 3. Increasing storm strength and frequency pose risks to infrastructure (De Silva 2012), and increased weather variability has been associated with lower profits (bivalves, finfish, crustaceans) (Li et al. 2014). 4. Ocean acidification impedes the calcification of mollusc shells (Gazeau et al. 2013) resulting in reduced recruitment, higher mortality (Barton et  al. 2012; Green et  al. 2013) and increased vulnerability to disease and parasites (bivalves). 5. Increasing rainfall will raise the turbidity and nutrient loading of rivers, potentially causing more harmful algal blooms (HABs) that reduce production and threaten human health (bivalves, finfish, crustaceans) (Himes-­ Cornell et al. 2013; Rosa et al. 2014). 6. The emergence, translocation and virulence of disease, pathogens and parasites are impacted by climate change. For example, warming can increase susceptibility to disease, promote the influx of new pathogens (Rowley et al. 2014) and increase the toxicity of common pollutants (bivalves, finfish, crustaceans) (Fabbri and Dinelli 2014). 7. Reduced feed availability resulting from climate change and/or overfishing could challenge the growth potential for fed aquaculture (finfish, crustaceans) (Froehlich et al. 2018a).

3.2.3 Potential for mariculture production to grow under climate change While marine capture fisheries production has stagnated over the past three decades, mariculture production has expanded rapidly, and is likely to become the source of new seafood production as the human population and demand for seafood grow (FAO 2018). However, the extent to which climate change could impede the ability for sustainable mariculture to meet growing food demand is unknown (IPCC 2019). Although there are no global-scale estimates of how climate change is likely to impact mariculture profitability and productivity, four recent studies collectively suggest that the potential for sustainable and profitable mariculture is likely to remain high under climate change. First, Gentry et al. (2017) mapped the biological potential for mariculture and estimated that bivalve and finfish mariculture could respectively generate 767.7 mmt and 15.6 billion mt of production per year (>700 times more production

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

than today). Second, the Blue Paper The Future of Food from the Sea (Costello et al. 2019) refined this analysis to account for economic feasibility and the limited availability of feed for fed finfish aquaculture, and estimated that bivalve and finfish mariculture could respectively generate 483.0  mmt and 10.5  mmt of production per year under current prices and feed compositions (~21 times more production than today). Third, Froehlich et al. (2018b) forecasted mariculture production potential under a high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) and found only slight declines in suitable habitat and production potential across continents. Finally, Klinger et  al. (2017) suggest that breeding a larger proportion of mariculture stocks for fast growth could, on its own, more than offset the forecasted declines in productivity. In the remainder of this Sect. 3.2.3, we provide a brief overview of this chain of evidence. 1. Enormous areas of the ocean are suitable for bivalve and finfish mariculture and the vast majority of countries would need to farm less than 1% of their exclusive economic zones to match current levels of seafood consumption. Gentry et al. (2017) mapped the biological production potential for finfish and bivalve mariculture based on the growth potential of 180 mariculture species (120 finfish, 60 bivalves) constrained by their temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, primary production tolerances and existing human uses (i.e. protected areas, shipping lanes and oil rigs). Overall, they estimated an enormous untapped potential for mariculture: bivalve and finfish mariculture could generate 767.7  mmt (over 2.5 million square kilometres [km2] of suitable habitat) and 15.6 billion mt per year (over 11.4 million km2), respectively. By comparison, bivalve and finfish mariculture currently produce only 15.3 and 7.7 mmt per year, respectively (FAO 2018). However, their analysis did not consider the economic feasibility of this production or the limited availability of feed for fed mariculture. 2. Current mariculture production is far under capacity even after accounting for economic feasibility and limited feed availability. Advancements in feed technology would dramatically expand the production potential of finfish mariculture. In their Blue Paper, Costello et  al. (2019) refined the Gentry et  al. (2017) analysis by calculating the cost and feed demand of their production estimates and assuming that mariculture production will occur only in profitable areas and that finfish mariculture production is capped by feed availability. They show that global- and country-level mariculture production is significantly under capacity. Bivalve production of 483.0 mmt should be possible at today’s prices for maricultured bivalves ($1400 per mt of blue mussels). This is 467.7 mmt (>3000%) more than the current pro-

27

duction of 15.3  mmt. Additionally, 10.5  mmt of finfish production should be possible at today’s prices for maricultured finfish ($7000 per mt of Atlantic salmon) and today’s feed composition. This is 2.8  mmt (36%) more than the current production of 7.7 mmt. However, technological advances resulting in a 95% reduction in the reliance of feed on fish ingredients (Oliva-Teles et al. 2015) would unlock a 209.6 mmt (>2700%) increase in finfish production to 217.3  mmt. The majority of these underages in mariculture production occur in equatorial countries (Fig.  2.2 on the following page), suggesting that mariculture expansion could mitigate the losses in capture fisheries productivity expected for these regions, potentially offsetting some of the inequities associated with these climate change impacts. Furthermore, mariculture operations can provide a critical source of jobs and income to local communities, especially to vulnerable groups such as unskilled workers (Irz et al. 2007) who might otherwise be made significantly worse off by climate change. 3. Although climate change is expected to reduce mariculture production potential, the magnitude of this reduction is small relative to the sheer potential for production. Froehlich et al. (2018b) extended the work of Gentry et al. (2017) to predict how finfish and bivalve mariculture will change from now to 2090 under the warming, acidification and primary productivity shifts associated with a high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). They forecast a global increase in the suitable habitat available for finfish mariculture, particularly in polar and subpolar regions. Conversely, they forecast a global decrease in the suitable habitat available for bivalve mariculture due to the negative impact of ocean acidification. In both sectors, the growth and production potential of the suitable habitat decreases over time. As a result, global mariculture production is likely to decline by mid-­ century, with the greatest certainty around bivalve declines. However, the relevance of these declines is unclear, because Froehlich et al. (2018b) do not publish the nominal production potential (i.e. metric tonnes of food) for 2090. Even if climate change reduced the 495.5 mmt of mariculture production estimated to be economically feasible with today’s feed technology (Costello et al. 2019) by 90%, mariculture would still be 28% more productive than it is today (49.4 mmt versus 38.6 mmt). 4. Breeding a larger proportion of mariculture stocks for fast growth could more than offset the negative impacts of climate change on mariculture production potential. Klinger et  al. (2017) mapped the production potential of three important finfish mariculture species— Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and cobia (Rachycentron canadum)—under a

28

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 2.2  Mariculture production underages for bivalves and finfish. Notes: Mariculture production underages for bivalves at current prices ($1700/mt for blue mussels) (top map) and finfish at current prices

($7000/mt for Atlantic salmon) with a 95% reduction in the reliance of feed on fish ingredients (bottom map). (Source: Adapted from Costello et al. 2019)

high emissions scenario (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Climate Model version 2.5 and estimated that increases in annual growth rates of 25–41% would be required to offset warming-induced declines in annual growth rates. They found that selective breeding programmes for faster growth in these species would increase growth rates by 10–15% per generation or by 100–200% over multiple generations—more than enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change. Given that only

10% of global mariculture production is currently derived from selectively bred stocks (Gjedrem et al. 2012), breeding a larger proportion of stocks for fast growth could, on its own, offset the negative impacts of climate change predicted by Froehlich et al. (2018b). Although these four studies collectively present a chain of evidence to suggest that mariculture potential will remain high under climate change, they do not consider the social

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

(Froehlich et  al. 2017), regulatory (Abate et  al. 2016) or capacity barriers to mariculture development (Gentry et al. 2019); the challenges posed by climate-driven increases in HABs, diseases and storm frequency (IPCC 2019); or the environmental impacts of mariculture (Clavelle et al. 2019). In the next Sect. 3.2.4, we detail these challenges.

3.2.4 Barriers and Trade-Offs in the Expansion of Mariculture If the potential for mariculture production is so large, why is current production so low? This gap is likely driven by two factors: a lack of expertise and capacity for conducting mariculture operations in many developing countries; and challenging regulatory barriers for developing mariculture operations in many developed countries. First, countries with low or crashed mariculture production exhibit lower GDPs and business friendliness scores than countries with stable or increasing mariculture production (Gentry et  al. 2019). In Palau, for example, many mariculture operations have been initiated with outside funding but failed once the initial funding period ended. The longest-running mariculture operation in Palau is a government subsidised clam hatchery that would be unprofitable without government support (Y.  Golbuu, personal communication). Second, countries with stricter environmental regulations have exhibited lower production and production growth than countries with more lenient regulations (Abate et al. 2016). For example, despite having one of the largest EEZs and longest coastlines, the United States produces only 1% of global mariculture (FAO 2018) due to precautionary regulations on mariculture zoning (Wardle 2017; Sea Grant California et al. 2019). Mariculture operations can also pose a risk to marine ecosystems and the wild capture fisheries supported by these ecosystems (Clavelle et al. 2019). They can degrade habitats (Richards and Friess 2016), reduce water quality (Price et al. 2015), spread disease (Lafferty et al. 2015), hybridise with wild species (Lind et al. 2012) and introduce invasive species (Diana 2009). The expansion of mariculture should depend on adopting best practices for preventing or reducing these impacts (Klinger and Naylor 2012) including by doing the following: 1. using marine spatial planning to site mariculture in productive and profitable areas that minimise impacts on ecosystems 2. conducting offshore or integrated multitrophic mariculture to reduce eutrophication risk 3. expanding unfed bivalve mariculture, which has lower environmental impacts compared with fed finfish mariculture See the Blue Paper The Future of Food from the Sea (Costello et al. 2019) for more details regarding the ecosystem impacts

29

of mariculture and the opportunities for adaptation to reduce these impacts.

3.2.5 Adapting marine aquaculture to climate change Selective Breeding for Fast Growth Although selective breeding—the breeding of cultivated plants and animals to inherit specific traits—has historically been implemented less in aquaculture than in terrestrial farming (Gjedrem et al. 2012), aquaculture species are increasingly being bred to increase productivity and disease resistance (Gjedrem and Baranski 2009). The majority of breeding programmes have focused on increasing growth rates and maximising productivity and have been met with success. For example, Atlantic salmon breeding programmes have increased harvest weight by 12% per generation with cumulative genetic gains of ~200% over multiple generations (Janssen et  al. 2016). Similarly, seabream breeding programmes have increased harvest weight by 10–15% per generation with cumulative genetic gains of ~100% over multiple generations (Janssen et al. 2016). These cumulative gains exceed the 25–41% total increase in annual growth rate thought to be necessary to offset the most extreme climate-­ induced decreases in mariculture productivity (Klinger et al. 2017); thus, selective breeding for fast growth rates alone could be sufficient to offset many of the negative impacts of climate change on mariculture. Selective Breeding for Temperature Tolerance Selective breeding for fast growth rates at elevated temperatures could further offset the impacts of climate change on mariculture but has yet to be widely implemented (Gjedrem et al. 2012) and has been met with mixed success (Gjedrem and Baranski 2009; Sae-Lim et  al. 2015). Some selective breeding programmes have successfully resulted in increased temperature tolerances (Sae-Lim et al. 2017), but these breeding programmes can be costly (Ponzoni et al. 2008; Gjedrem et al. 2012). Furthermore, the use of selectively bred fish can pose risks to wild populations and ecosystems (Lind et  al. 2012). Cultured fish frequently escape from aquaculture facilities (Jensen et  al. 2010) and can interbreed with wild fish, leading to reduced genetic variability and a reduction in fitness in wild populations (Hutchings and Fraser 2008). However, in tropical countries where wild populations are projected to diminish (Lotze et  al. 2019), this risk may be inherently reduced or deemed acceptable under climate change. Risk-Based Planning and Environmental Monitoring Systems The siting of mariculture farms based on risk-based zoning coupled with the active monitoring and responsive relocation of pens, cages and lines could help to minimise the impacts

30

of both climate change and climate variability on mariculture production potential (Soto et al. 2018). To date, most mariculture site selections have been ad hoc, but a growing number of national and regional authorities are beginning to plan mariculture zoning using risk analysis (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al. 2017; Xinhua et al. 2017; Lester et al. 2018; Sainz et al. 2019). After siting mariculture farms in locations forecast to experience low climate risk, environmental monitoring systems could be used to track changes in environmental conditions, provide early warnings about oncoming environmental risks (e.g. HABs) and give farmers the opportunity to prepare for adverse conditions or relocate cages, pens and lines if logistically feasible (Soto et al. 2018). Access to Affordable Credit And Insurance Policies that increase mariculture farmers’ access to credit and insurance options will also help promote the development and expansion of mariculture in the face of climate change (Soto et al. 2018). Access to affordable credit is necessary for funding both the upfront capital costs of establishing a mariculture farm as well as the annual operating costs required to adapt to or recover from climate-induced stressors (Karim et al. 2014). Increased access could be promoted through microfinance schemes or loan guarantee funds (Soto et al. 2018). Similarly, increasing storm frequency and intensity will necessitate providing more insurance options for mariculture farmers. Pilot programmes in China and Vietnam indicate that insuring small-scale farms, which are particularly vulnerable and also major contributors to food security, is a profitable investment (Nguyen and Pongthanapanich 2016; Xinhua et al. 2017). The expansion of mariculture depends on it becoming a more efficient and lower-risk business endeavour and the insurance-pooled model used in these pilot programmes has helped raise production efficiencies while reducing production and market risks. Reducing Feed Limitations for Fed Mariculture Innovations in feed technology could greatly enhance the potential for fed mariculture (Costello et al. 2019; Froehlich et  al. 2018a) and increase the opportunities for production under climate change. The amount of feed available for mariculture can be increased through a variety of mechanisms including the following: 1. ending over- and underfishing of the forage fish fisheries targeted for the production of fish meal (FM) and fish oil (FO) from whole fish (Froehlich et al. 2018a) 2. processing a larger proportion of landings for trimmings and diverting these by-products to the production of FM and FO (Jackson and Newton 2016) 3. reducing the amount of FM and FO used in the diets of non-carnivorous aquaculture species such as carp and

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

other freshwater fishes, and terrestrially farmed species such as pigs and chickens (Froehlich et al. 2018a) 4. replacing fish ingredients with alternative sources of protein 5. increasing feed conversion rates

3.2.6 Opportunities for action and key conclusions 1. Mariculture can provide food and income in countries losing access to capture fisheries. Current mariculture production is far below potential production in many countries and the continued development of mariculture could provide food and employment in countries with climate-driven declines in capture fisheries. 2. Expanding mariculture will require preventing, reducing and accepting the environmental trade-offs of mariculture. Mariculture poses risks to marine ecosystems and capture fisheries and its expansion has frequently been impeded by these concerns. Expanding mariculture will depend on preventing and reducing these risks and establishing clear best practices that will help ease the regulatory burden. 3. Finfish mariculture could generate more food and income through advancements in feed technology. The production potential of finfish mariculture is challenged by the availability of fishmeal and fish oil from capture fisheries. Optimally managing forage fisheries, processing by-products for FM and FO, removing FM and FO from the diets of non-carnivorous fish and terrestrially farmed animals and replacing fish ingredients with alternative sources of protein would increase the viability of finfish mariculture. 4. Mariculture species should be selectively bred for fast growth and robustness to climate change. Despite the advantages of selective breeding, only 10% of global mariculture production is currently derived from selectively bred stocks (Gjedrem et al. 2012). Breeding a larger proportion of aquaculture stocks for fast growth could, on its own, offset the negative impacts of climate change on mariculture (Klinger et al. 2017). However, this will also necessitate increased efforts to reduce escapement, minimise pollution and mitigate other potential negative environmental impacts of mariculture. 5. Increase access to financial services such as credit and insurance. Mariculture is expected to become more expensive and riskier under climate change; increased access to credit and insurance for mariculture farmers will be necessary to assist with these costs and risks. 6. Siting mariculture farms in low-risk areas and actively monitoring and responding to changing environmental conditions can enhance resilience to climate change.

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

3.3 Marine and Coastal Tourism 3.3.1 Importance of marine tourism to the ocean economy Marine and coastal tourism, referred to collectively as ocean tourism in this report, was the second-largest oceanrelated economic sector in 2010, next to offshore oil and gas (OECD 2016). Ocean tourism is projected to be the top contributor of ocean industries by 2030  in terms of production value, when it will account for 26% of the ocean-based economy, compared with 21% for oil and gas (OECD 2016). Ocean tourism dwarfs the contribution of industrial capture fisheries, which constitute only 1% of ocean-based industries’ production value (not accounting for artisanal fisheries, which are a critical component of the economies of Asia and Africa). The range of ocean tourism activities include beach tourism, recreational fishing, swimming, snorkelling, diving, whale watching, and taking cruises, among others. Ocean tourism’s global direct value added was estimated at $390 billion in 2010, directly providing seven million full-time jobs. In addition, the ocean is a source of recreation for millions of people in the developed and developing worlds (Ghermandi and Nunes 2013; Arlinghaus et al. 2019). For comparison, the global value added of industrial capture fisheries was $21 billion in 2010 (OECD 2016), providing 11 million full-time jobs (artisanal fisheries not included). Ocean tourism directly supports the livelihoods of millions of people and the economies of the developing tropics and many small island developing states. For example, coral reef tourism alone contributes over 40% of the gross domestic products of Maldives, Palau and St. Barthélemy (Spalding et al. 2017; Siegel et al. 2019). Despite the importance of ocean tourism in the economy, data and research on the impacts of climate change in the tourism sector are limited (Scott et al. 2012). Because coral reef tourism is one of the best-studied sectors (Scott et al. 2012), and potentially one of the most valuable ocean tourism options for many coastal nations, we focus our analysis on this sector. Coral reef tourism is worth $35.8 billion globally every year (Spalding et  al. 2017). We present a first- of-its-kind analysis of how climate change will affect coral reef tourism values at a country/territory level and explore options for nations and local communities to best prepare for the impacts of climate change. 3.3.2 Impacts of climate change on marine tourism Weather conditions and attractiveness/uniqueness of the environment are key factors drawing people to ocean tourism (Moreno and Amelung 2009), and climate change impacts

31

both. Understanding the potential impacts of climate change on tourism requires understanding how climate change will impact the physical and ecological resources on which tourism depends. Marine heatwaves, or periods of extremely high ocean temperatures, have affected marine organisms and ecosystems (e.g. fisheries, coral reefs) in the last two decades and are expected to increase in frequency, intensity, duration and spatial extent (IPCC 2019). Marine heatwaves have critical impacts over habitat formation species (e.g. seagrasses, corals, kelps) that can disrupt the provision of ecosystem services (Smale et al. 2019). Future ocean warming will increase the frequency, intensity and spatial extent of bleaching events (Donner et al. 2005; IPCC 2019) that cause coral reef mortality (e.g. Arceo et al. 2001) and a subsequent reduction in reef fish diversity and numbers (e.g. Graham et  al. 2007) that on-­reef tourism depends on. Storms and storm surges are also expected to increase in intensity and become more frequent (IPCC 2019), causing a reduction in the desirability of a place for tourism, disrupting transportation (flights and ferries), and potentially destroying the coastal infrastructure that supports tourism. Sea level rise impacts coastal integrity and coastal assets and, together with extreme events, causes coastal erosion that, if constrained by urbanisation, can lead to coastal squeeze (Toimil et al. 2018; Scott et al. 2012). This has a known negative impact on visitors’ perceptions and associated economic impacts (Scott et  al. 2012). Ocean warming also affects fisheries productivity (Free et al. 2019a) and the migration patterns of species that are major draws for tourism (e.g. whales, sharks, turtles) (e.g. Lambert et al. 2010). Climate change interacts with coral reef tourism through its direct impact on the following: 1. coral reefs and associated species on which some reef tourism directly depends (e.g. snorkelling, diving, recreational fishing) 2. weather conditions that drive a user’s preference for the place 3. coastal infrastructure that supports tourism For ocean tourism that directly depends on healthy coral reef ecosystems, such as diving and snorkelling (on-reef tourism), changes in reef conditions are expected to impact tourists’ preferences and coral reef tourism’s economic values. While activities that do not directly depend on reefs (i.e. reef-adjacent activities such as white sand beaches and sunbathing) are also expected to be affected by climate change (directly and indirectly through processes such as the wave attenuation role of reefs and coral reefs as a source of white sand), the magnitude of the impact is hard to measure.

32

3.3.3 Economic Impacts Economic Impacts on Coral Reef Tourism We use the coral reef tourism values per country and territory reported by Spalding et al. (2017) to represent current coral reef tourism values. These values are composed of on-reef and reef-adjacent tourism values. Chen et  al. (2015) performed a meta-analysis of how climate change impacts, in the form of changes in sea surface temperature (SST) and ocean acidification (using atmospheric CO2 levels as a proxy), have affected and will continue to affect coral reef health and coral reef tourism values at the regional and global levels. We used their model to project how changes in SST and ocean acidification will change coral cover at the country level and how these changes in reef conditions would translate to changes in tourism values. We project per-country future tourism value changes (with 2019 as a baseline) using the SST and CO2 projections for RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 climate scenarios from the CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Taylor et  al. 2012). For this report, we present the results for 2100 only to be consistent with the fisheries and aquaculture projections. These are the model’s assumptions about how ocean warming and acidification affect coral reef cover and tourism values: SST effect • When the annual mean SST is less than 22.37°, a 1% increase in SST leads to a 0.67% increase in live coral coverage (relative to the percent of live corals available prior to changes in temperature). • When SST is between 22.37° and 26.85°, a 1% increase in SST leads to a 1.59% increase in live coral coverage. • When SST is greater than 26.85°, a 1% increase in SST leads to a 2.26% decrease in live coral coverage. Ocean acidification effect • Using atmospheric CO2 as a proxy (Table  2.2), a 1% increase in CO2 decreases live coral coverage by 0.61%. Effect of changes in coral cover to coral reef tourism values • A 1% decline in coral cover decreases coral reef value by 3.81%. We limit the effect of climate change to on-reef tourism values only. Other factors not accounted for in the model above are the effects of climate change–associated increases in ocean disturbances such as storms, mass bleaching events that cause extensive reef mortality (Donner 2009; Frieler et al. 2013; Hughes et al. 2017, 2018), heat waves (Smale et al. 2019), sea level rise (Gattuso et al. 2018), algal blooms, jellyfish blooms, cli-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Table 2.2  Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm) for different RCPs using CMIP5 Year\RCP 2019 2030 2050 2100

2.6 409.80 430.78 442.70 420.90

4.5 408.88 435.05 486.54 538.36

6.0 407.40 428.88 477.67 669.72

8.5 412.82 448.83 540.54 935.87

Source: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. “Time Series, Annual RCP45 CO2.” KNMI Climate Explorer. http://climexp.knmi.nl/ getindices.cgi?WMO=CDIACData/RCP45_CO2&STATION=RCP45_ CO2&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere&NPERYEAR=1 Notes: PPM stands for parts per million, RCP for Representative Concentration Pathway and CMIP5 for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5

mate change–related diseases (Sokolow 2009) and water and electricity supply disruptions (Weatherdon et al. 2016). Also important and not included is the confounding effect of local stressors such as nutrient pollution and illegal and destructive fishing, which negatively impact tourism values. Nutrient enrichment has been shown to increase the susceptibility of coral reefs to bleaching (Wiedenmann et  al. 2013), increase the severity of coral diseases (Bruno et  al. 2003) and increase the vulnerability of coral reefs to ocean acidification (Silbiger et al. 2018). Furthermore, the poleward movement (Price et  al. 2019), potential thermal evolution/ adaptation (Speers et  al. 2016; Donner 2009) and speciesspecific responses of corals (Fabricius et  al. 2011) are not accounted for in our projections. All these additional climate change–induced stressors and the confounding effect of local stressors impact local and national economies (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018). The combined effect of warming (SST) and ocean acidification as factors affecting coral reef cover and tourism values results in predictions of negative effects for all countries, with magnitudes dependent on the climate pathways (Fig. 2.3, Table 2.3). For the high-emissions scenario of RCP 8.5, which is characterised by considerable increases in greenhouse gas emissions, coral cover is expected to be reduced by 72–87% (relative to the present coral cover) and on-reef tourism values by over 90% from 2019 to 2100 due to combined ocean warming and acidification. The reduction will be less severe under a stabilisation scenario of RCP 4.5 with an expected reduction of 12–28% and 36–66% in coral cover and onreef tourism values, respectively. Note that the reduction in coral cover is still conservative as other factors such as bleaching events, storms and other climate stressors, which are expected to intensify and become more frequent, are not included in the model. Brander et al. (2012) projects that ocean acidification will cause a 27.5% reduction in global coral cover by 2100 under RCP 8.5 (with 2000 as the baseline year). This value is in line with Chen et al. (2015), which our projections are based on,

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

33

Fig. 2.3  Percent change in coral reef tourism values in 2100 for different climate projections. Notes: Values in 2100 are relative to those in 2019. See Table 2.3 for country values. (Source: Model adapted from Chen et al. 2015) Table 2.3  Percent change in coral reef tourism values in 2100 for different climate projections, by country

Country Egypt Indonesia Mexico Thailand Australia China Philippines Hawaii Japan Malaysia Maldives Puerto Rico Brazil Bahamas Dominican Republic India Honduras United Arab Emirates Jamaica Taiwan

Total coral reef tourism value (US $1000 per year) 6,917,028 3,097,453 2,999,883 2,410,154 2,176,084 1,871,814 1,385,144 1,230,894 1,177,549 1,148,955 1,085,273 648,867 612,864 526,058 511,669 464,082 446,628 445,654 333,386 323,440

% change in coral % on-reef cover (RCP 4.5) 86.3 −12.9 64.3 −25.2 44.8 −14.2 44.8 −25.4 78.3 −14.1 15.3 −16.2 67.4 −25.2 44.8 −13.6 53.9 −13.2 64.3 −25.2 84.4 −25.9 21.3 −26.4 8.3 −25.9 60.5 −26.2 26.5 −26.3 15.3 −26.4 85.8 −26.0 15.3 −26.4 35.1 −26.1 15.3 −25.9

% change in tourism values (RCP 4.5) −39.4 −62.4 −42.4 −62.7 −42.2 −46.6 −62.4 −41.1 −40.2 −62.4 −63.5 −64.2 −63.4 −63.9 −64.0 −64.1 −63.6 −64.2 −63.8 −63.5

% change in coral cover (RCP 8.5) −72.4 −81.7 −82.6 −81.8 −73.1 −71.8 −81.8 −73.0 −72.7 −81.8 −82.2 −82.1 −82.3 −82.2 −82.0 −82.4 −82.1 −83.1 −82.1 −82.2

% change in tourism values (RCP 8.5) −94.0 −95.8 −96.0 −95.8 −94.2 −93.9 −95.8 −94.1 −94.1 −95.8 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −96.0 −95.9 −95.9 (continued)

34

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 2.3 (continued)

Country Guam Mauritius Cayman Islands Cuba Venezuela Virgin Islands of the United States Saudi Arabia Fiji Bermuda Oman Aruba Barbados Costa Rica Panama Colombia Vietnam Tanzania Kuwait Bahrain French Polynesia Qatar Turks and Caicos Islands Palau Guadeloupe Martinique Kenya Sri Lanka Belize Seychelles Mozambique Northern Mariana Islands Ecuador Saint Lucia Madagascar Vanuatu Papua New Guinea Sudan New Caledonia Brunei Grenada Solomon Islands Anguilla Cook Islands Cambodia Micronesia Haiti Iran Tonga Samoa Myanmar Nicaragua

Total coral reef tourism value (US $1000 per year) 323,244 312,389 292,794 283,290 281,865 276,056 268,681 234,676 223,639 221,164 218,226 180,082 169,518 154,178 147,202 137,445 131,076 117,236 115,837 113,657 108,066 97,587 92,503 90,463 89,337 84,152 82,371 80,611 73,141 68,356 61,302 58,883 56,574 50,496 49,991 32,024 28,480 28,465 28,259 23,150 21,984 19,685 19,106 18,285 18,108 15,206 13,345 13,291 12,490 11,581 10,975

% change in coral % on-reef cover (RCP 4.5) 64.3 −25.9 47.4 −25.5 83.2 −25.8 35.1 −25.8 35.1 −26.2 53.9 −26.3 49.7 −27.6 65.4 −24.9 69.2 −13.3 35.1 −27.2 35.1 −26.1 38.7 −26.0 35.1 −26.0 38.7 −26.2 35.1 −26.3 15.3 −25.6 49.7 −26.3 35.1 −12.4 21.3 −11.5 63.1 −24.6 8.3 −25.8 69.2 −26.4 86.3 −25.1 38.7 −26.3 35.1 −26.0 31.0 −26.4 8.3 −26.0 70.8 −25.7 47.4 −26.1 80.9 −26.6 73.0 −25.9 60.5 −26.8 41.9 −25.9 47.4 −26.1 59.0 −24.7 73.0 −25.2 85.8 −27.1 57.4 −15.0 26.5 −24.9 53.9 −25.8 79.5 −25.0 41.9 −26.6 41.9 −25.0 15.3 −25.6 86.3 −25.3 31.0 −26.5 0.0 −12.4 71.6 −15.2 31.0 −24.9 51.9 −26.0 41.9 −25.9

% change in tourism values (RCP 4.5) −63.4 −62.8 −63.4 −63.3 −63.8 −64.0 −65.8 −62.0 −40.3 −65.2 −63.7 −63.5 −63.6 −63.9 −64.0 −63.0 −64.0 −38.2 −36.1 −61.6 −63.3 −64.2 −62.2 −64.0 −63.6 −64.2 −63.5 −63.2 −63.7 −64.4 −63.4 −64.7 −63.4 −63.8 −61.6 −62.4 −65.1 −44.2 −62.0 −63.4 −62.1 −64.4 −62.1 −63.0 −62.5 −64.3 −38.2 −44.5 −62.0 −63.6 −63.4

% change in coral cover (RCP 8.5) −82.2 −82.3 −82.1 −82.0 −82.0 −82.0 −83.5 −81.9 −73.3 −83.1 −82.0 −81.9 −82.3 −82.1 −82.3 −81.9 −82.5 −71.7 −86.6 −81.6 −83.2 −82.3 −81.9 −81.9 −81.9 −82.6 −82.2 −81.3 −82.5 −82.5 −82.2 −83.0 −81.9 −82.5 −82.0 −81.8 −83.0 −82.6 −81.8 −81.9 −81.6 −82.1 −81.6 −81.9 −81.9 −82.2 −84.3 −82.1 −81.5 −81.9 −81.9

% change in tourism values (RCP 8.5) −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −96.1 −95.9 −94.2 −96.0 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −93.8 −96.5 −95.8 −96.1 −95.9 −95.8 −95.9 −95.9 −96.0 −95.9 −95.7 −95.9 −95.9 −95.9 −96.0 −95.8 −95.9 −95.9 −95.8 −96.0 −96.0 −95.8 −95.8 −95.8 −95.9 −95.8 −95.8 −95.8 −95.9 −96.2 −95.9 −95.8 −95.8 −95.8

Source: Country-level tourism values data provided by M. Spalding. Model for change in coral cover adapted from Chen et al. (2015) Notes: Climate change effect. Summary table for all countries and territories with over 50 square kilometres of reef, and total reef-related expenditures of more than $10 million per year. On-reef tourism value pertains to in-water activities such as diving, snorkelling and glass-bottom boats. Adjacent-reef tourism value captures a range of indirect benefits from coral reefs, including the provision of sandy beaches, sheltered water, seafood and attractive views

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

which indicates a coral cover reduction of ~31% due to ocean acidification and ~28% due to ocean warming (for RCP 8.5). Our projections have not incorporated the effects of bleaching, which is expected to be more frequent in the future and can be a greater driver of coral mortality under climate change. Speers et al. (2016) modelled the effects of combined ocean warming, acidification and intensifying bleaching on changes in coral cover and projects that current global coral cover will be reduced by 92% by 2100 under RCP 8.5. The top five countries with the highest coral reef tourism values are Egypt (~$7 billion/year), Indonesia (~$3.1 billion/ year), Mexico (~$3 billion/year), Thailand (~$2.4 billion/ year) and Australia (~$2.2 billion/year). These five countries have 45–86% of their coral reef tourism values based on on-­reef activities (e.g. snorkelling and diving), and climate change impacts (ocean warming plus acidification) will reduce on-reef tourism values by over 90% in 2100 for RCP 8.5 (39–63% for RCP 4.5). The projections above should be interpreted as the effect of climate change on future potential tourism values, holding all other factors equal. Our projections indicate that the degree of climate change impacts depends on the emissions pathways taken in the future, although any of the emissions scenarios would still negatively impact reef tourism values. When most of a country’s coral reef tourism value comes from reef-adjacent activities, climate change may not severely affect that country. The reef-adjacent values, however, will be affected by increased extreme weather events in the area, algal blooms and coastal erosion, which we have not yet incorporated into the current calculations. We reported here how climate change impacts coral cover and the corresponding on-reef tourism values of several national economies. While the coral reef tourism values of all nations are projected to be negatively affected by climate change, nations can still incur positive tourism values in the future as our estimate has not accounted for increases in tourism demand and arrivals in the future—international arrivals are expected to increase 3–5% per year (UNWTO 2016; Lenzen et al. 2018). In accounting for the improvements in tourism values due to an increase in tourist arrivals, it should be noted that the tourism value is a hump shape, or concave function, of tourism arrivals. Additional arrivals increase tourism values up to some point after which the desirability of a place for tourism decreases as tourist numbers further increase. Future research can incorporate the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) to future projections of tourism under climate change to account for not only ecosystem changes, but also changes in the demand for tourism. Economic Impacts in Other Systems Coral reef tourism is not the only tourism sector that will be impacted by climate change. Other non-reef coastal attractions such as the coastal glaciers in Ilulissat Icefjord, Den-

35

mark, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and places such as coastal cities like Venice, Italy (Moreno and Amelung 2009) or Alexandria, Egypt (Scott et  al. 2012) will also be heavily affected by climate change. Beach tourism in tropical and temperate areas is expected to be significantly affected by climate change, especially due to the effect of sea level rise and storms on shoreline erosion (Scott et  al. 2012). For example, in the Mexican Caribbean, the estimated total beach replenishment cost for the main five ocean tourism cities under a future 1 m sea level rise scenario is $330 million (Ruiz-Ramírez et al. 2019), and in the United States, the total beach nourishment cost for 2060 based a 0.32  m scenario amounts to $20.40 billion (Scott et al. 2012). The breaking of ice in the polar region also poses potential danger to cruise ships and navigation. For all these systems, ‘last chance tourism’ is emerging, attracting people to the most vulnerable areas (IPCC 2019). Consequences need to be further explored to understand the implications and dimensions of this trend. Quantifying the impacts of climate change on other ocean tourism activities and beyond will provide a more complete picture of the impacts of climate change on local and national economies, which could potentially motivate local, national and global actions. Ocean Tourism and Equity Ocean tourism has the potential to alleviate poverty, especially in coastal fishing and farming communities where poverty incidences are high. It can boost local and national economic development and improve local welfare. However, unregulated ocean tourism development can bring in several unwanted consequences, such as the degradation of the environmental resource base that the tourism industry depends on, destruction of local cultures and traditional livelihoods and inequitable distribution of economic benefits (Cabral and Aliño 2011). Actions that ensure an equitable and sustainable tourism industry include proper planning of tourism developments, promotion of ecotourism activities that respect local cultures and traditions (including indigenous peoples’ rights over ancestral domains) and implementation of policies that ensure that economic benefits from tourism activities accrue locally (i.e. provide local opportunities).

3.3.4 Opportunities for action and key conclusions 1. Enhance coral reef resilience to climate change. Reducing the negative impacts of climate change and associated ocean disturbances to coastal economies requires improving the resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems to climate change (Gattuso et al. 2018; James et al. 2019; Weatherdon et al. 2016). Establishing marine protected areas and MPA networks can help improve the

36

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

ecological resilience of coral reefs. MPAs protect marine tised. Pressures on and drivers of reef health are often ecosystems and their services from environmental uncerassociated with governance and the socioeconomic needs tainties (Roberts et al. 2017), help minimise the footprints of the people dependent on reefs. Linking fisheries, aquaof human activities such as fishing (Lester et  al. 2009), culture and tourism to local food and livelihood security secure the continuous supply of genetic materials and will improve the portfolio of policies that can be applied serve as climate refugia when sited in cooler, less-­ to reduce climate change’s impacts on local and national impacted areas (Roberts et al. 2017; Mcleod et al. 2009). economies. Marine spatial planning will play a key role Furthermore, MPAs help ensure that coral reefs and assoin maintaining healthy reefs by strategically siting activiciated species that are important draws for tourism are ties in the ocean so that negative interactions can be protected. reduced. Actions include properly siting tourism infraHowever, conventional management approaches that structure and making investments that account for poteninclude MPAs may be insufficient to protect global coral tial future coastal and ocean changes. Management plans reefs under warming and acidifying ocean conditions should explicitly address the role of natural habitats func(Anthony et al. 2017). Assisted relocation and evolution tioning as buffers to climate change on tourism (Ruiz-­ (van Oppen et al. 2017) together with new biotechnology Ramírez et al. 2019). Communities that directly depend practices can enhance the resilience of coral reefs, but on coral reef tourism for their livelihoods need to increase with associated costs. Protection should prioritise ecosystheir adaptive capacities, as this sector is expected to be tem connectivity—while there are preferences for some negatively impacted by the changing climate in all counphysical attributes of coastal tourism, like white sand, and tries. Local governments, private investors and developthere is a tendency to alter the ecosystem to favour some ment agencies can help by improving and developing components (e.g. removing mangroves to access sandy social and institutional arrangements that allow for learnbeaches) (e.g. Cabral and Aliño 2011), it is important to ing (i.e. technical education and skills development) and recognise the huge role these ecosystems play in maindiversifying livelihoods and income sources (Cinner et al. taining coastal integrity. For example, protecting man2018) while incorporating local and indigenous knowlgroves and seagrass beds—which serve as nursery areas edge into the planning and decision process. for a number of coral reef fish species and protect coral 4. Ensure that waste is properly disposed of and that reefs by trapping sediments—enhances reef health and waste treatment facilities are included in coastal tourproductivity. ism infrastructure. As described above, nutrient enrich 2. Protect and regenerate natural habitats. Preserving ment exacerbates ocean acidification. and restoring natural coastal habitats such as coral reefs, Controlling nutrient input from coastal and terrestrial beaches and mangroves increases the resilience of coastal activities will help reduce the impact of climate change areas to climate change (James et al. 2019), providing an on coral reefs and reef tourism. Strategies can include alternative to hard infrastructure that allows for wave ensuring that waste management, such as waste treatment attenuation and shoreline stabilisation (James et al. 2019; facilities/recycling, is included in tourism development Gattuso et al. 2018), as well as providing additional proplans. Pollution combined with overfishing that degrades tections from storm surges and excess flooding (Ruiz-­ coral reefs caused the Caribbean to lose $95–140 million/ Ramírez et  al. 2019). Traditional infrastructures for year in net revenue from coral reef–associated fisheries, tourism such as urbanised beach fronts are expected to $100–300  million/year in reduced tourism revenue and suffer shoreline erosion (coastal squeeze) due to climate $140–420  million/year in reduced coastal protection change (Toimil et  al. 2018; Scott et  al. 2012). In these (Burke et al. 2011). cases, coastal natural habitats can allow for landward 5. Reduce the environmental footprint of tourism retreat; otherwise, beach nourishment will be required to through ecotourism and clean energy investments. maintain tourism in heavily urbanised areas at very high While climate change will inevitably affect tourism, tourcosts (Scott et al. 2012). The quality of nearby sand habiism is also a major contributor of greenhouse gas emistats can be important to reduce those costs (Ruiz-Ramírez sions (Scott et  al. 2012). It is estimated that tourism et al. 2019). contributes 8% of global GHG emissions, with transport, 3. Diversify development portfolios. Diversifying tourism shopping and food as major contributors (Lenzen et  al. activities and investments to include linked ecosystems 2018). With tourism expected to grow 3–5% per year, it is will help maintain diverse ecosystem functions, while important to ensure that the environmental footprint of simultaneously capturing the tourism potential of various tourism is minimised. Future increases in international ecosystems. Ecotourism, or tourism activities that suparrivals do not necessarily translate to economic benefits port nature conservation and education, should be priorifor countries; hence, policies that ensure optimal benefits

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

for national economies while reducing tourism’s footprint, such as those that promote ecotourism activities, should be prioritised. Furthermore, investments in clean and efficient energy in the tourism sector help reduce tourism’s environmental footprint.

3.4 Improving the Energy Efficiency of the Ocean Economy Improving the energy efficiency of ocean-related industries, especially shipping/transportation, would generate climate change benefits as well as benefits to the industries themselves. While significant improvements to the offshore oil and gas industry would require extensive transitioning of investments away from exploration and extraction of fossil fuels and into renewable energy (Allison and Bassett 2015), the shipping industry can make relatively large energy efficiency gains using existing technologies (Allison and Bassett 2015; Ash and Scarbrough 2019; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). For example, switching international shipping to solar-generated, ammonia-based fuel would allow for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Ash and Scarbrough 2019). Related topics are discussed in more depth in the Blue Papers Ocean Energy and Mineral Sources and Coastal Development. Fisheries and aquaculture are already relatively energy efficient, especially when compared with the terrestrial production of animal protein (Allison and Bassett 2015; Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019), but there is great potential in the expansion of carbon- and energy-efficient shellfish aquaculture as well as in the reduction of overcapacity in fisheries (Allison and Bassett 2015). Finally, the tourism sector involves a diverse array of opportunities for improving energy efficiency—from increasing fuel efficiency and using carbon offsets for various modes of travel to improving the energy efficiency of hotels and other tourism destinations around the world (Allison and Bassett 2015).

4 Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation in the Sea Global efforts to mitigate climate change include a variety of approaches that may themselves have impacts on ocean ecosystems, species assemblages and the ocean economy. Here, we discuss the potential marine impacts and opportunities of four major categories of climate change mitigation methods that directly affect the ocean: efforts to conserve and increase ‘blue carbon’ storage; expansion of ocean-based renewable energy generation; deep-sea mining to meet demand for rare earth elements; and geoengineering techniques. We limit our discussion of the three latter topics to their direct impact on the ocean.

37

4.1 Conserving and Expanding Blue Carbon The term ‘blue carbon’ refers to the capacity of marine ecosystems to store organic carbon over centuries or millennia (Serrano et  al. 2019). The ocean is the largest carbon sink on Earth; it has already absorbed more than 90% of Earth’s additional heat and captured nearly one-third of all atmospheric CO2 emissions since the 1700s (Gattuso et al. 2015). Through a process known as the ‘biological pump’, marine organisms convert CO2 into biomass (referred to as carbon ‘fixation’) through photosynthesis. A portion of this carbon is deposited and buried on the seafloor, thus removing it from the atmospheric carbon cycle on a long enough time scale to constitute a carbon sink (at which point this carbon is referred to as having been ‘sequestered’) (Barange et al. 2017; Duarte et al. 2013; Mcleod et al. 2011; Serrano et al. 2019; Vaughan and Lenton 2011). Marine carbon sequestration occurs both in the open ocean and along the coast, and there are opportunities to increase the sequestration capacity and contribute to climate change mitigation in both areas. These opportunities are becoming an important sector of the ocean economy as efforts mature to quantify and monetise (e.g. with carbon pricing) marine ecosystem restoration and management for carbon sequestration (Alongi et  al. 2016; Lavery et al. 2013; Lovelock et al. 2017; Mcleod et al. 2011; Pendleton et al. 2012). As this sector develops, it is critical to consider the implications for vulnerable and marginalised groups, including small-scale fishers, who may be overlooked in blue carbon decision-making (Cohen et al. 2019). Vegetated coastal ecosystems—primarily seagrasses, mangrove forests and tidal marshes—occupy only 0.2% of the global ocean surface, but have an outsize capacity for carbon sequestration, contributing up to 50% of carbon burial in marine sediments (Duarte 2017; Duarte et al. 2013; Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019; Mcleod et  al. 2011; Serrano et al. 2019), far outpacing the capacity per unit area of terrestrial habitats (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; Serrano et al. 2019). Kelp and other macroalgal beds have also recently been identified as contributors to global blue carbon storage (Serrano et al. 2019), and although there is significant debate around whether coral reefs act as carbon sources or sinks, the presence of coral reefs adjacent to seagrass beds and mangrove forests may improve the blue carbon efficacy of the system as a whole (Watanabe and Nakamura 2019). While the capacity to expand the existing inventories of fixed and sequestered carbon in vegetated coastal ecosystems is limited, there is a critical need to protect them from degradation and conversion to alternative land uses (Allison and Bassett 2015; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). These ecosystems are among the most threatened habitats on Earth, and their current and projected loss not only reduces global CO2 uptake, but also releases large amounts of carbon currently stored in their

38

biomass and soils (Allison and Bassett 2015; Duarte 2017; Gattuso et al. 2015; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; Serrano et al. 2019). There may be sizable blue carbon potential in the restoration of marine vegetation where large portions of the coastline have been lost to development, as well as in the expansion of macroalgae aquaculture (Duarte 2017). In addition to their carbon sequestration capacity, vegetated marine ecosystems provide coastal protection and sea level rise mitigation services, regulate water quality, provide critical habitat for many marine species including commercially important fishery targets and enhance system biodiversity and resilience (Serrano et al. 2019). Thus, their protection and restoration would have multiple synergistic benefits (Allison and Bassett 2015). There are also potential opportunities to increase the open ocean’s capacity to sequester carbon where the biological pump moves biogenic carbon to depths of 1000 m or more, capturing it for centuries or longer (Burd et al. 2016). The main sources of this biogenic carbon are faeces, mucus and dead organisms. Researchers have recently suggested that fisheries could be managed to have higher standing stock biomass, even in the face of climate change (Gaines et al. 2018; Hilborn and Costello 2018), which could theoretically increase the input of organic matter (including carbon) to the biological pump, especially when cascading ecosystem impacts of increasing standing stock biomass are considered (Roman and McCarthy 2010). Fostering the recovery of larger, deeper-diving fish and marine mammals could also increase upward fluxes of fixed nitrogen and other limiting nutrients from the deep ocean, thereby spurring additional primary productivity and subsequent CO2 fixation (Aumont et al. 2018). These potential deep-sea carbon sequestration opportunities have thus far been inadequately studied, and would benefit from further exploration.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

4.2 Expanding Ocean Renewables Marine renewable energy sources have significant potential for reducing human demand for fossil fuels and reducing climate-changing GHGs (Boehlert and Gill 2010; Hoegh-­ Guldberg et  al. 2019). Technologies capable of producing energy from the ocean are vast and expanding, with most taking advantage of wind, waves, currents, tides or thermal gradients, collectively referred to as offshore renewable energy developments, or ORED (Boehlert and Gill 2010). As these technologies expand, they will impact the ocean both above and below the water’s surface through the following six channels, discussed in depth in Boehlert and Gill (2010): 1. Physical presence: Stationary structures such as support pillars and cables will alter pelagic habitats and bottom communities. Structures not treated with anti-fouling

chemicals will create new settlement habitats, essentially forming artificial reefs and de facto ‘fish aggregation devices’. ORED structures may also create barriers to species migration above and below the water. Dynamic effects: Structures with moving parts (e.g. wind energy devices and below-water turbines) may be especially hazardous to migratory birds, cetaceans and fish. Oscillating structures, such as buoys and rotors, will modify water movement, turbulence and stratification, potentially altering the associated movements of marine species. Chemical effects: Anti-fouling and other chemicals used on ORED technologies can leach into the surrounding water. Constructing, servicing and decommissioning structures brings additional risk of chemical spills. Furthermore, the movement of deep water to the surface during ocean thermal energy conversion can change chemical conditions through the increased input of nutrients, heavy metals and carbon dioxide, which can also outgas to the atmosphere. Acoustic effects: Acoustic ORED impacts will be most severe during survey and construction phases, but noise from moving ORED structures may impact marine species during the operational phase as well. Electromagnetic field effects: The transmission of electricity from ORED structures to shore generates low-­ frequency electromagnetic fields in the surrounding water, which may change the behaviours of marine species that use natural electric and/or magnetic fields for a variety of behaviours. Electricity-transmitting cables may also increase the temperature of the surrounding water and sediment, but the effects of this are still unknown. Effects of the energy removal itself: Removing energy from the water can change local water movement (e.g. seasonal or tidal opening and closing of estuary systems), more distant current patterns, tidal ranges and thermal regimes. All of these changes may impact productivity patterns and species movement. Each of these impacts must be evaluated throughout the stages of development, and across spatial and temporal scales (i.e. local versus far-reaching, and short- versus long-term impacts). The cumulative impacts of multiple adjacent developments must also be understood (Boehlert and Gill 2010). In addition, both the feasibility and the potential impacts of marine renewable energy technologies may be altered by the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, increased storms and extreme events, and changes to wave and circulatory energy patterns. These eventualities will need to be considered, and operations will need to be designed for climate resilience if they are to be successful and sustainable.

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

4.3 Expanding Deep-Sea Mining to Meet Demand for Rare Earth Elements Rare earth elements (a group of 17 elements comprised of 15 lanthanides, plus yttrium and scandium) are critical to the development and operation of a variety of renewable energy technologies, including solar cells, wind turbines and electric vehicles (Dutta et  al. 2016), but current land-based supply streams may not meet growing demand (Dutta et al. 2016; Miller et  al. 2018a). The deep-sea floor, especially areas around hydrothermal vents, contains relatively vast quantities of rare earths that could help to meet this demand, and mining contracts for deep-sea resources including rare earths have been awarded to a number of countries and companies (Kato et  al. 2011; Miller et  al. 2018a). However, the costs associated with extracting rare earth elements are thus far prohibitive, and no commercial-scale mines are as yet operational (Miller et al. 2018a). In addition to the usual risks associated with mining and other extractive industries in the ocean (including the potential for the release of toxic elements, contamination from dredge spoils, increased noise, heat and light pollution, and loss of biodiversity), these deep-sea mining operations carry risks related to impacts to the fragile marine ecosystems and unique and endemic species communities found on the deep-­ocean floor, many of which have been recognised as vulnerable (Miller et al. 2018a; Van Dover et al. 2017). Furthermore, impacts may extend many kilometres away from mining sites and the long-term impacts will be much more significant than in shallow water because deep-sea habitats can take decades to millennia to recover (Miller et al. 2018a). Finally, deep-sea mining carries additional challenges, such as the potential for conflict with other marine uses and the legal and political complexities of operating under international waters in the open ocean (Miller et al. 2018a).

4.4 Geoengineering Solutions A variety of ocean-based geoengineering concepts have been suggested to help mitigate climate change including ‘cloud brightening’, by mechanical or biological means, to increase atmospheric albedo; fertilising patches of the ocean with limiting nutrients (iron, nitrogen or phosphorus) to enhance primary productivity and sequestration of carbon (see blue carbon discussion above); inducing upwelling to do the same; inducing downwelling to increase the sinking of CO2-­ rich waters; and ‘enhanced weathering’, wherein materials such as carbonate or silicate are added to the water to increase alkalinity, thereby stimulating removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (Allison and Bassett 2015; Vaughan and Lenton 2011). Together, these efforts could theoretically reduce global radiative forcing by an estimated ~4.2 W/m2,

39

with cloud brightening contributing the bulk of that reduction (Vaughan and Lenton 2011). While the costs of implementing any of these techniques are currently prohibitive, and the carbon-balance effects are highly uncertain (Allison and Bassett 2015; Vaughan and Lenton 2011), even if they prove cost-effective and sequester substantial amounts of carbon they may result in unwanted ocean impacts. For example, ocean fertilisation could lead to increased deoxygenation and eutrophication, and making adjustments to natural upwelling and downwelling patterns could alter primary productivity and change community structures and functions (Vaughan and Lenton 2011). Increasing cloud cover could generate unwanted weather patterns (Irvine et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2009) and address only global temperature changes without reducing other impacts, such as ocean acidification (Gattuso et al. 2015; Vaughan and Lenton 2011; Williamson and Turley 2012). Each of these impacts could have significant consequences for other sectors of the ocean economy, as discussed above. Finally, there may be important ethical implications a­ ssociated with many of these geoengineering options related to the uneven distribution of impacts (Allison and Bassett 2015; Jones et al. 2009; Vaughan and Lenton 2011). Thus, near-­term efforts should be focused on drastically reducing CO2 emissions while research into the risks and benefits of these geoengineering technologies continues.

5 Conclusions and Opportunities for Action The ocean is critically important to the global economy. Collectively, it is estimated that ocean-based industries and activities contribute hundreds of millions of jobs and approximately $2.5 trillion to the global economy each year, making it the world’s seventh-largest economy when compared with national GDPs (Hoegh-Guldberg 2015; IPCC 2019). In this paper, we reviewed the impact of climate change on the three key components of the ocean ecosystem economy—fisheries, marine aquaculture and coral reef tourism—and the opportunities for effective institutions and markets to reduce these impacts. Building on existing work, we developed three models to forecast the economic impacts of climate change and potential benefits of adaptation in each sector for every coastal country under diverse climate scenarios. For capture fisheries, we find that all countries would benefit from implementing climate-adaptive reforms and that many countries could maintain current profits and catches into the future with adaptation. For aquaculture, we show that production is under capacity in many countries and the negative effects of climate change could be more than offset by developing and expanding sustainable mariculture. For ocean tourism, we find that all countries will be negatively impacted, and both

40

local and global actions that reduce the magnitude of climate change effects would help lessen the economic impacts. Maintaining a robust ocean economy will depend on swift efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The recent IPCC (2019) report estimates that climate-induced declines in ocean health will cost the global economy $428 billion/year by 2050 and $1.98 trillion/year by 2100. The magnitude and inequity of these losses is highly sensitive to future greenhouse gas emissions across sectors of the ocean economy. The ability for climate-adaptive fisheries management to mitigate losses under climate change deteriorates under increasingly severe emissions scenarios. The ability for mariculture to be a viable substitute for declining capture fisheries is also diminished under increasingly severe climate futures. Finally, the magnitude of losses in marine and coastal tourism increases dramatically under increasingly severe emissions scenarios. In all cases, these impacts are especially pronounced in the tropical developing countries, which have contributed the least to growing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it will be the responsibility of the industrial nations to take a leadership role in curbing emissions and reducing the impacts of climate change on the ocean economy. Since climate change impacts differ by country and sector, possible solutions will be context-specific. By exploring the climate change impacts at the country level for fisheries, aquaculture and reef tourism as described in this report, countries will be able to assess what they stand to gain or lose due to climate change. Below, we outline solutions for each sector based on whether a country will experience gains, no change or losses.

5.1 Capture Fisheries An interactive web interface developed by the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara, summarises the impact of climate change on marine fisheries around the world and the opportunities for countries to mitigate these impacts through climate-adaptive fisheries management reforms (UCSB 2019). It illustrates how the health of fisheries and the catches and profits provided by them will change under four increasingly severe climate change scenarios (+0.3  °C, +0.9  °C, +1.2  °C and +2.3  °C increases in sea surface temperature by 2100) with and without climate-adaptive fisheries reform. This tool can be used to determine whether a country is likely to experience negative, positive or neutral impacts of climate change. 1. Lower-capacity countries (often tropical, developing countries experiencing negative impacts of climate change) should implement or strengthen their fisheries management (see Cochrane et al. 2011) to enhance resilience to the negative effects of climate change.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

2. Higher-capacity countries (often temperate, developed countries experiencing mixed impacts of climate change) should account for shifting productivity in fisheries stock assessments and management procedures (see Pinsky and Mantua 2014) to capitalise on the positive effects of climate change and mitigate the negative effects. 3. All countries will derive benefits from international cooperation that both ensures that management does not degrade as stocks shift distributions and results in fairness and equity in fisheries outcomes under climate change.

5.2 Aquaculture 1. In countries with underdeveloped mariculture potential (Fig. 2.2), the negative effects of climate change can be offset by both sustainably expanding current mariculture operations and investing in science and technologies that enhance mariculture efficiency and productivity amidst a changing climate. 2. In countries with fully developed mariculture potential (Fig. 2.2), mariculture production can be maintained by selectively breeding for fast growth or heat tolerance or by shifting portfolios of mariculture species to match the new thermal regime. 3. In all countries, studying the impact of large-scale mariculture on marine ecosystems will be essential to identifying and promoting best practices in sustainable mariculture. Making strategic investments and expanding mariculture operations can boost local food supply without interacting negatively with other ecosystem services.

5.3 Ocean Tourism Climate change will reduce the potential of ocean tourism to boost the local economies of countries with coral reefs. The magnitude of the impact will depend on the realised global emissions pathways, confounding effects of local stressors, dependency of the local economy to ocean tourism and type of ocean tourism. While on-reef tourism (e.g. snorkelling and diving) will be more vulnerable than reef-adjacent tourism (e.g. sunbathing, white sand), the latter will also likely be affected, although the magnitude of the impact is uncertain. Table  2.3 summarises the predicted changes in coral cover and reef tourism values given climate change as well as the current on-reef and reef-adjacent tourism values of each coastal country with coral reefs. 1. In countries with a high proportion of their local economy dependent on tourism, such as Maldives, Palau and St. Barthélemy (i.e. over 40%of their GDPs are from reef tourism), options include slowly diversifying to other

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

2.

3.

4.

5.

41

industries, such as mariculture, and creating opportunities for alternative forms of tourism, such as wreck diving and other novel activities, while at the same time increasing investments in the management of and improvements to reef ecosystems, fisheries and ocean tourism. In countries with high reef-adjacent values and where ocean tourism is important, it is still imperative to improve and maintain coral reef health to secure the continuous provision of many of the ecological processes and services that support reef-adjacent activities (e.g. white sand from corals, wave attenuation function of coral reefs). For countries with disproportionately high on-reef tourism values, investments in reef-adjacent tourism activities and ecotourism activities can both enhance the economic potential of coral reefs and motivate more investments in protecting reef health. (b) Coral reef tourism can be a viable industry in countries that are expected to experience losses in aquaculture and capture fisheries. Although climate change will hinder countries’ abilities to tap into the full potential of ocean tourism, that does not mean that coastal tourism cannot improve the local economy. Given that current ocean tourism activities impact future ocean tourism economic output and ecosystem health (feedback loops), all countries must aim to efficiently enhance ocean tourism gains by prioritising high-­ economic-­gain activities while reducing the ecological footprints of ocean tourism activities (i.e. by investing in ecotourism and clean and efficient energy).

Across each of the above sectors of the ocean economy, the recommendations to build socioecological resilience to climate change and ensure the continued, or improved, provision of valued functions and services can be captured in three high-level mandates: (a) Be forward looking: The future of the ocean economy is expected to drastically change given climate change, and the nature and magnitude of these changes can be highly variable. It will no longer be appropriate (or possible) to make predictions based on historical benchmarks or to assume that our usual metrics for measuring outcomes will remain stable. As the climate changes, each of the above-discussed ocean sectors will need to work to understand risks, anticipate changes and make decisions aimed at improving ecosystem health. In many cases, the risks and changes will become increasingly uncertain, which means that all management decisions need to factor in the likelihood of increasing surprises by being a bit more precautionary. For wild-capture fisheries, looking forward will entail things like scenario planning and management strategy evaluation, while

stock assessments, harvest controls, allocation systems and even marine protected areas will all need to be more flexible, adaptive and precautionary. Mariculture operations will need to invest in things like selective breeding, improvements to feed conversion ratios, and technologies that continue to reduce risks from increasingly frequent and stronger storms. Ocean tourism operations may need to engage in practices aimed at building ecosystem resilience and health and be efficient by catering to tourism activities that provide high economic returns and have smaller ecological footprints. The designs of spatial management systems should account for future shifts in species ranges and productivities to both facilitate the successful movement of ­species to other areas and enhance marine population resilience to environmental and social changes. Cooperate across boundaries: It will also be critical to expand the current boundaries of our management decisions to allow for effective systems-level problem identification and solution development. As suitable habitats shift and change, marine species will move across jurisdictional boundaries and regional, national and international cooperative agreements will be necessary to ensure that these species are well-managed, and that the benefits are fairly distributed during and after the transitions. For mariculture, it will be critical to incorporate other marine uses and sectors in the planning and implementation of operations. Whole-systems thinking would also benefit tourism by ensuring the durability of this sector into the future as well as taking advantage of tourism opportunities that emerge in new areas (i.e. for the case where new coral reefs may establish in subtropical areas). In addition, it will be critical to share lessons learned and tools applied across and between sectors and jurisdictions to ensure lower-capacity regions will not fall behind in the implementation of solutions. (c) Focus on equity: Finally, it will be profoundly important to examine the equity implications of all new and existing management decisions across these sectors, as climate change is likely to cause and exacerbate global inequities. Inequity reduces resilience, thereby likely worsening outcomes under all climate change scenarios. Furthermore, equity considerations should be an input to decision-making in terms of both the design and implementation of management reforms and the creation and execution of new international agreements. Equitable solutions are more likely to garner buy-in from impacted groups and will thus be more likely to be effectively implemented. Focusing on equity can also lead to the development of more effective solutions that target the underlying system dynamics and power differentials that are, in fact, the root drivers of climate change. These solutions should consider equity issues in

42

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

access and participation in the blue economy, including through the provision of no-cost skills development opportunities, and they must involve different world views and knowledge systems, integrating local and indigenous knowledge and avoiding poverty traps and the marginalisation of already vulnerable groups. Truly inclusive, representative, participatory decision-making processes are needed in all sectors to ensure procedural equity in all policy and management decisions. In addition, new solutions and interventions must seek to ensure distributional equity (i.e. equitable access to benefits and exposure to risks stemming from decisions) and to engender recognitional equity (i.e. recognition of and respect for differences within and between groups, and understanding of how these differences alter the perception and experience of impacts) if systems are to become equitably resilient to climate change. It is imperative that countries explore the synergistic impacts of climate change across all three economic sectors (fisheries, mariculture and ocean tourism) and identify whether they are vulnerable to universally negative impacts, have options to offset negative impacts in some sectors through adaptation or could benefit from potentially positive impacts in other sectors. Countries should also note the magnitude of climate change impacts to the three major components of their ocean ecosystem economies to best plan their investments for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. While the solutions we put forward above are targeted to individual economic sectors, the three marine ecosystem economies are connected ecologically and socioeconomically, and positive actions to one sector often act synergistically with other sectors, especially when the actions are aimed at maintaining and enhancing ecosystem health. Unregulated economic developments in fisheries, aquaculture and tourism have brought many unintended environmental and social consequences, including the degradation of non-use values and the provision of many other ecosystem services, both in developing and developed nations. While investments in these three sectors could improve national and local food and livelihood security amidst the challenges brought by anthropogenic climate change, sustaining the development and benefits they bring requires a development path that promotes and maintains a healthy ocean ecosystem. After all, the productivity and resilience of aquaculture, tourism and fisheries depend on clean water, intact habitats (e.g. mangroves and seagrass beds that serve as nursery grounds for commercial marine species) and diverse marine organisms, among others. Since this paper primarily focuses on ocean ecosystem sectors, the majority of the outlined recommendations and actions drive sustainable improvements in the ocean economy and, therefore, can provide positive

synergistic effects for the underlying natural resource and its nonmarket values. Faster development and greater economic values in these three sectors can be realised if trade-offs between use and non-use values, which vulnerable communities often directly depend on, are avoided. We expect that the variable directions of impacts of climate change across the three economic sectors for each country will draw new investments in some sectors while other sectors are expected to continually suffer. It is imperative that developments are well-planned and properly regulated to avoid unwanted environmental impacts, degradation of local cultures and livelihoods, and the inequitable distribution of benefits. For instance, including access to technical education and skills development will ensure that resources are available for people to transition from one form of livelihood to another, hence ensuring that the economic benefits of local developments accrue locally. There is also huge potential for local investments in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies that can improve local livelihoods, enhance local economic benefits and reduce the carbon footprints of human activities. Finally, we envision that our results will ultimately help guide new ocean investments and positive conservation actions by governments, nongovernmental organisations, development agencies, philanthropies and international communities. Acknowledgements The authors thank Jane Lubchenco, Merrick Burden and Kate Bonzon for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Blue Paper and Mark Spalding for reef tourism data. The paper’s technical reviewers, Manuel Barange, Sarah Cooley, Salif Diop, Silvia Patricia González Díaz and Boris Worm, as well as its arbiter, Andreas Merkl, all provided helpful technical comments. The authors also thank World Resources Institute for providing support as the Ocean Panel Secretariat. While our colleagues were very generous with their time and input, this report reflects the views of the authors alone. The authors thank Sarah DeLucia for copyediting and Jen Lockard for design.

About the Authors Co-authors Steven Gaines is the dean and a distinguished professor at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). Reniel Cabral is an assistant researcher at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). Christopher M. Free is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). Yimnang Golbuu is the CEO of the Palau International Coral Reef Center (Palau).

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

Contributing Authors Ragnar Arnason is a professor of economics at the University of Iceland (Iceland). Willow Battista is the manager of research, design, and engagement in the Fishery Solutions Center at the Environmental Defense Fund (USA). Darcy Bradley is a lead scientist at the Environmental Market Solutions Lab at the University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). William Cheung is a professor at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries at the University of British Columbia and the director of science for the Nippon Foundation-UBC Nereus Program (Canada). Katharina Fabricius is a senior principal research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (Australia). Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is a professor of marine science and director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (Australia). Marie Antonette Juinio-Meñez is a professor at the Marine Science Institute at the University of the Philippines (Philippines). Jorge García Molinos is an assistant professor at the Arctic Research Center at Hokkaido University (Japan). Elena Ojea is a senior researcher at the Future Oceans Lab, CIM- UVigo, at the University of Vigo (Spain). Erin O’Reilly is the projects and operations coordinator at the Environmental Market Solutions Lab at the University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). Carol Turley is a senior merit scientist at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK).

References Abate TG, Nielsen R, Tveterås R (2016) Stringency of environmental regulation and aquaculture growth: a cross- country analysis. Aquac Econ Manag 20(2):201–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.201 6.1156191 Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Soto D, Brummett RE (2017) Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture: a handbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Bank, Rome Allison EH, Bassett HR (2015) Climate change in the oceans: human impacts and responses. Science 350(6262):778–782. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aac8721 Allison EH, Perry AL, Badjeck MC, Adger WN, Brown K, Conway D, Halls AS et al (2009) Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish Fish 10(2):173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2008.00310.x Alongi DM, Murdiyarso D, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Hutahaean A, Crooks S, Lovelock CE et al (2016) Indonesia’s blue carbon: a globally significant and vulnerable sink for seagrass and mangrove carbon. Wetl Ecol Manag 24(1):3–13 Anthony K, Bay LK, Costanza R, Firn J, Gunn J, Harrison P, Heyward A et al (2017) New interventions are needed to save coral reefs. Nat Ecol Evol 1(10):1420

43 Aqorau T, Bell J, Kittinger JN (2018) Good governance for migratory species. Science 361(6408):1208–1209. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav2051 Arceo HO, Quibilan MC, Aliño PM, Lim G, Licuanan WY (2001) Coral bleaching in philippine reefs: coincident evidences with mesoscale thermal anomalies. Bull Mar Sci 69(2):16 Arlinghaus R, Abbott JK, Fenichel EP, Carpenter SR, Hunt LM, Alós J, Klefoth T et al (2019) Opinion: governing the recreational dimension of global fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(12):5209–5213. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902796116 Ash N, Scarbrough T (2019) Sailing on solar: could green ammonia decarbonise international shipping? Environmental Defense Fund, London Aumont O, Maury O, Lefort S, Bopp L (2018) Evaluating the potential impacts of the diurnal vertical migration by marine organisms on marine biogeochemistry. Global Biogeochem Cycles 32(11):1622– 1643. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005886 Bakun A (1990) Global climate change and intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. Science 247(4939):198–201. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.247.4939.198 Bakun A, Black BA, Bograd SJ, Garcia-Reyes M, Miller AJ, Rykaczewski RR, Sydeman WJ (2015) Anticipated effects of climate change on coastal upwelling ecosystems. Curr Clim Change Rep 1(2):85– 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-­015-­0008-­4 Barange M (2019) Avoiding misinterpretation of climate change projections of fish catches. ICES J Mar Sci 76(6):1390–2. https://doi. org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz061 Barange M, Merino G, Blanchard JL, Scholtens J, Harle J, Allison EH, Allen JI et al (2014) Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nat Clim Change 4(3):211 Barange M, Butenschön M, Yool A, Beaumont N, Fernandes JA, Martin AP, Allen J (2017) The cost of reducing the North Atlantic Ocean biological carbon pump. Front Mar Sci 3:290. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00290 Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge MCM, Cochrane KL, Funge-Smith S, Poulain F (eds) (2018) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Barton A, Hales B, Waldbusser GG, Langdon C, Feely RA (2012) The Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea Gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: implications for near-­ term ocean acidification effects. Limnol Oceanogr 57(3):698–710. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698 Béné C (2004) Poverty in small-scale fisheries: a review and some further thoughts. In: Neiland AE, Béné C (eds) Poverty and small-scale fisheries in West Africa. Springer, Dordrecht Béné C, Macfadyen G, Allison EH (2007) Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. No. 481. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Béné C, Hersoug B, Allison EH (2010) Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev Policy Rev 28(3):325–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­7679.2010.00486.x Blasiak R, Spijkers J, Tokunaga K, Pittman J, Yagi N, Österblom H (2017) Climate change and marine fisheries: least developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS One 12(6):e0179632. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179632 Boehlert G, Gill A (2010) Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development—a current synthesis. Oceanography 23(2):68–81. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2010.46 Bopp L, Resplandy L, Orr JC, Doney SC, Dunne JP, Gehlen M, Halloran P et al (2013) Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the

44 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 10:6225–6245. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-­10-­6225-­2013 Brady RX, Alexander MA, Lovenduski NS, Rykaczewski RR (2017) Emergent anthropogenic trends in california current upwelling. Geophys Res Lett 44(10):5044–5052. https://doi. org/10.1002/2017GL072945 Brander K (2010) Impacts of climate change on fisheries. J Mar Syst 79(3–4):389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.12.015 Brander LM, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ, Van Beukering PJH (2012) The economic impact of ocean acidification on coral reefs. Clim Change Econ 3(1):1250002 Breitburg D, Levin LA, Oschlies A, Grégoire M, Chavez FP, Conley DJ, Garçon V et  al (2018) Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 359(6371):eaam7240. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aam7240 Britten GL, Dowd M, Worm B (2016) Changing recruitment capacity in global fish stocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(1):134–139. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1504709112 Bruno JF, Petes LE, Harvell CD, Hettinger A (2003) Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of coral diseases. Ecol Lett 6(12):1056–1061 Bryndum-Buchholz A, Tittensor DP, Blanchard JL, Cheung WWL, Coll M, Galbraith ED, Jennings S et al (2019) Twenty-first-century climate change impacts on marine animal biomass and ecosystem structure across ocean basins. Glob Chang Biol 25(2):459–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14512 Burd A, Buchan A, Church MJ, Landry MR, McDonnell AMP, Passow U, Steinberg DK et al (2016) Towards a transformative understanding of the ocean’s biological pump: priorities for future research— report on the NSF Biology of the Biological Pump Workshop. Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Program, Woods Hole. https:// doi.org/10.1575/1912/8263 Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A (2011) Reefs at risk revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.wri.org/ publication/reefs-­risk-­revisited Cabral RB, Aliño PM (2011) Transition from common to private coasts: consequences of privatization of the coastal commons. Ocean Coast Manag 54(1):66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.023 Caesar L, Rahmstorf S, Robinson A, Feulner G, Saba V (2018) Observed fingerprint of a weakening atlantic ocean overturning circulation. Nature 556(7700):191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­ 018-­0006-­5 Cai W, Borlace S, Lengaigne M, Van Rensch P, Collins M, Vecchi G, Timmermann A et  al (2014) Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Nat Clim Change 4(2):111. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2100 Cai W, Santoso A, Wang G, Yeh S-W, An S-I, Cobb KM, Collins M et al (2015) ENSO and greenhouse warming. Nat Clim Change 5(9):849. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2743 Charles A (2012) People, oceans and scale: governance, livelihoods and climate change adaptation in marine social–ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(3):351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2012.05.011 Chen P-Y, Chen C-C, Chu LF, McCarl B (2015) Evaluating the economic damage of climate change on global coral reefs. Glob Environ Chang 30(January):12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.011 Cheng L, Trenberth KE, Fasullo J, Boyer T, Abraham J, Zhu J (2017) Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015. Sci Adv 3(3):e1601545. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601545 Cheung WWL, Lam V, Sarmiento JL, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2010) Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change: climate

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan change impacts on catch potential. Glob Chang Biol 16(1):24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2486.2009.01995.x Cheung WWL, Reygondeau G, Frölicher TL (2016) Large benefits to marine fisheries of meeting the 1.5°C global warming target. Science 354(6319):1591–1594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aag2331 Cinner JE, Daw T, McClanahan TR (2009) Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conserv Biol 23(1):124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-­1739.2008.01041.x Cinner JE, Adger WN, Allison EH, Barnes ML, Brown K, Cohen PJ, Gelcich S et al (2018) Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat Clim Change 8(2):117–123 Clavelle T, Lester SE, Gentry R, Froehlich HE (2019) Interactions and management for the future of marine aquaculture and capture fisheries. Fish Fish 20(2):368–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12351 Cline TJ, Schindler DE, Hilborn R (2017) Fisheries portfolio diversification and turnover buffer Alaskan fishing communities from abrupt resource and market changes. Nat Commun 8(January):14042. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14042 Cochrane KL, Andrew NL, Parma AM (2011) Primary fisheries management: a minimum requirement for provision of sustainable human benefits in small-scale fisheries: primary management of small-scale fisheries. Fish Fish 12(3):275–288. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2010.00392.x Cohen P, Allison EH, Andrew NL, Cinner JE, Evans LS, Fabinyi M, Garces LR et al (2019) Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Front Mar Sci 6:171 Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S et  al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26(May):152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 Costello C, Gaines SD, Lynham J (2008) Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321(5896):1678–1681. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1159478 Costello C, Lynham J, Lester SE, Gaines SD (2010) Economic incentives and global fisheries sustainability. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2(1):299– 318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103923 Costello C, Ovando D, Clavelle T, Strauss CK, Hilborn R, Melnychuk MC, Branch TA et  al (2016) Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(18):5125– 5129. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113 Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S et al (2019) The future of food from the sea. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Dabbadie L, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Beveridge MC, Bueno PB, Ross LG, Soto D (2018) Effects of climate change on aquaculture: drivers, impacts and policies. In: Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge MCM, Cochrane KL, Funge-Smith S, Poulain F (eds) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Dangendorf S, Marcos M, Wöppelmann G, Conrad CP, Frederikse T, Riva R (2017) Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(23):5946–5951. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1616007114 Daw TM, Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, Brown K, Stead SM, Graham NAJ, Maina J (2012) To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS One 7(2):e31460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031460 De Silva SS (2012) Aquaculture: a newly emergent food production sector—and perspectives of its impacts on biodiversity and conservation. Biodivers Conserv 21(12):3187–3220. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10531-­012-­0360-­9 Diana JS (2009) Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59(1):27–38

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

45

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16 Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R et  al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272 Doney SC, Ruckelshaus M, Duffy JE, Barry JP, Chan F, English CA, Galindo HM et al (2012) Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annu Rev 4:11–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­marine-­ 041911-­111611 Doney S, Rosenberg AA, Alexander M, Chavez F, Harvell CD, Hofmann G, Orbach M et  al (2014) Chap. 24: Oceans and marine resources. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. U.S.  Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp 557–578 Donner SD (2009) Coping with commitment: projected thermal stress on coral reefs under different future scenarios. PLoS One 4(6):e5712 Donner SD, Skirving WJ, Little CM, Oppenheimer M, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2005) Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate change. Glob Chang Biol 11(2):2251– 2265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2486.2005.01073.x Duarte CM (2017) Reviews and syntheses: hidden forests, the role of vegetated coastal habitats in the ocean carbon budget. Biogeosciences 14(2):301–310. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-­14-­301-­2017 Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marbà N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 3(11):961–968. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate1970 Dulvy NK, Rogers SI, Jennings S, Stelzenmüller V, Dye SR, Skjoldal HR (2008) Climate change and deepening of the north sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas. J Appl Ecol 45:1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2664.2008.01488.x Dutta T, Kim K-H, Uchimiya M, Kwon EE, Jeon B-H, Deep A, Yun S-T (2016) Global demand for rare earth resources and strategies for green mining. Environ Res 150(October):182–190. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.05.052 Eby LA, Crowder LB (2002) Hypoxia-based habitat compression in the neuse river estuary: context-dependent shifts in behavioral avoidance thresholds. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59(6):952–965. https://doi. org/10.1139/f02-­067 Edwards P, Zhang W, Belton B, Little DC (2019) Misunderstandings, myths and mantras in aquaculture: its contribution to world food supplies has been systematically over reported. Mar Policy 106(August):103547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103547 Fabbri E, Dinelli E (2014) Physiological responses of marine animals towards adaptation to climate changes. In: Goffredo S, Dubinsky Z (eds) The Mediterranean Sea: its history and present challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, pp  401–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­ 007-­6704-­1_23 Fabricius KE, Langdon C, Uthicke S, Humphrey C, Noonan S, De’ath G, Okazaki R et al (2011) Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations. Nat Clim Change 1(3):165 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: meeting the sustainable development goals. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.  FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en Fedele G, Donatti CI, Harvey CA, Hannah L, Hole DG (2019) Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-­ ecological systems. Environ Sci Policy 101(November):116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001 Fossheim M, Primicerio R, Johannesen E, Ingvaldsen RB, Aschan MM, Dolgov AV (2015) Recent warming leads to a rapid borealization

of fish communities in the Arctic. Nat Clim Change 5(7):673–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2647 Free CM, Thorson JT, Pinsky ML, Oken KL, Wiedenmann J, Jensen OP (2019a) Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363(6430):979–983. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aau1758 Free CM, Mangin T, García Molinos J, Ojea E, Costello C, Gaines SD (2019b) Realistic fisheries management reforms could mitigate the impacts of climate change in most countries. BioRxiv. https://doi. org/10.1101/804831 Friedrich T, Timmermann A, Abe-Ouchi A, Bates NR, Chikamoto MO, Church MJ, Dore JE et al (2012) Detecting regional anthropogenic trends in ocean acidification against natural variability. Nat Clim Change 2(3):167. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1372 Frieler K, Meinshausen M, Golly A, Mengel M, Lebek K, Donner SD, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2013) Limiting global warming to 2 C is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nat Clim Change 3(2):165 Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Rust MB, Grimm D, Halpern BS (2017) Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS One 12(1):e0169281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169281 Froehlich HE, Jacobsen NS, Essington TE, Clavelle T, Halpern BS (2018a) Avoiding the ecological limits of forage fish for fed aquaculture. Nat Sustain (June):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­ 018-­0077-­1 Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS (2018b) Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nat Ecol Evol 2(11):1745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-­018-­0669-­1 Fu W, Primeau F, Moore JK, Lindsay K, Randerson JT (2018) Reversal of increasing tropical ocean hypoxia trends with sustained climate warming. Global Biogeochem Cycles 32(4):551–564. https://doi. org/10.1002/2017GB005788 Gaichas SK, Seagraves RJ, Coakley JM, DePiper GS, Guida VG, Hare JA, Rago PJ et  al (2016) A framework for incorporating species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions into fishery management. Front Mar Sci 3:105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00105 Gaines SD, Costello C, Owashi B, Mangin T, Bone J, García Molinos J, Burden M et al (2018) Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change. Sci Adv 4(8):eaao1378. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378 Garai J (2014) The impacts of climate change on the livelihoods of coastal people in Bangladesh: a sociological study. In: Filho WL, Alves F, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM (eds) International perspectives on climate change: Latin America and beyond. Springer, Cham, pp 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­04489-­7_11 García Molinos J, Halpern BS, Schoeman DS, Brown CJ, Kiessling W, Moore PJ, Pandolfi JM et  al (2016) Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat Clim Change 6(1):83–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2769 Gattuso J-P, Magnan A, Billé R, Cheung WWL, Howes EL, Joos F, Allemand D et  al (2015) Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349(6243):aac4722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4722 Gattuso J-P, Magnan AK, Bopp L, Cheung WWL, Duarte CM, Hinkel J, Mcleod E et al (2018) Ocean solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front Mar Sci 5:337. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337 Gazeau F, Parker LM, Comeau S, Gattuso J-P, O’Connor WA, Martin S, Pörtner H-O et  al (2013) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine shelled molluscs. Mar Biol 160(8):2207–2245. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00227-­013-­2219-­3 Gentry RR, Froehlich HE, Grimm D, Kareiva P, Parke M, Rust M, Gaines SD et  al (2017) Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1(9):1317. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41559-­017-­0257-­9

46 Gentry RR, Ruff EO, Lester SE (2019) Temporal patterns of adoption of mariculture innovation globally. Nat Sustain 2(10):949–956. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-­019-­0395-­y Ghermandi A, Nunes PALD (2013) A global map of coastal recreation values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 86:1–15 Gjedrem T, Baranski M (2009) Selective breeding in aquaculture: an introduction. Springer, Dordrecht Gjedrem T, Robinson N, Rye M (2012) The importance of selective breeding in aquaculture to meet future demands for animal protein: a review. Aquaculture 350–53(June):117–129. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.008 Golden CD, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M et  al (2016) Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534(7607):317–320. https://doi. org/10.1038/534317a Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Jennings S, Polunin NVC, Robinson JAN, Bijoux JP, Daw TM (2007) Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries, and ecosystems. Conserv Biol 21(5):1291–1300 Green MA, Waldbusser GG, Hubazc L, Cathcart E, Hall J (2013) Carbonate mineral saturation state as the recruitment cue for settling bivalves in marine muds. Estuaries Coast 36(1):18–27. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12237-­012-­9549-­0 Guillotreau P, Campling L, Robinson J (2012) Vulnerability of small island fishery economies to climate and institutional changes. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(3):287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2012.06.003 Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334):386– 389. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09689 Hare JA, Morrison WE, Nelson MW, Stachura MM, Teeters EJ, Griffis RB, Alexander MA et al (2016) A vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to climate change on the Northeast U.S. continental shelf. PLoS One 11(2):e0146756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146756 Harper S, Grubb C, Stiles M, Sumaila UR (2017) Contributions by women to fisheries economies: insights from five maritime countries. Coast Manag 45(2):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0892075 3.2017.1278143 Harris KE, DeGrandpre MD, Hales B (2013) Aragonite saturation state dynamics in a coastal upwelling zone. Geophys Res Lett 40(11):2720–2725. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50460 Hartmann DL, Klein Tank AMG, Rusticucci M, Alexander LV, Brönnimann S, Abdul Rahman Charabi Y, Dentener FJ et  al (2013) Observations: atmosphere and surface. In: Climate change 2013 the physical science basis: working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 159–254 Hasan M (2017) Feeding global aquaculture growth. FAO aquaculture newsletter no. 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Havice E (2013) Rights-based management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna fishery: economic and environmental change under the vessel day scheme. Mar Policy 42(November):259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.003 Hazen EL, Scales KL, Maxwell SM, Briscoe DK, Welch H, Bograd SJ, Bailey H et al (2018) A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci Adv 4(5):eaar3001. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar3001 Henson SA, Beaulieu C, Ilyina T, John JG, Long M, Séférian R, Tjiputra J et al (2017) Rapid emergence of climate change in environmental drivers of marine ecosystems. Nat Commun 8:14682. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms14682 Hicks CC, Cohen PJ, Graham NAJ, Nash KL, Allison EH, D’Lima C, Mills DJ et al (2019) Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronu-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan trient deficiencies. Nature 574:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­ 019-­1592-­6 Hilborn R, Costello C (2018) The potential for blue growth in marine fish yield, profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Mar Policy 87(January):350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.003 Himes-Cornell A, Allen S, Auad G, Boatman M, Clay PM, Herrick S, Kotowicz D et  al (2013) Impacts of climate change on human uses of the ocean and ocean services. In: Griffis R, Howard J (eds) Oceans and marine resources in a changing climate: a technical input to the 2013 national climate assessment. NCA regional input reports. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, pp  64–118. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-­1-­ 61091-­480-­2_4 Hixon MA, Johnson DW, Sogard SM (2014) BOFFFFs: on the importance of conserving old-growth age structure in fishery populations. ICES J Mar Sci 71(8):2171–2185. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst200 Hobday AJ, Spillman CM, Eveson JP, Hartog JR (2016) Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Oceanogr 25(S1):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12083 Hoegh-Guldberg O (1999) Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar Freshw Res 50(8):839–866. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf99078 Hoegh-Guldberg O (2015) Reviving the ocean economy: the case for action. WWF International, Gland Hoegh-Guldberg O, Poloczanska ES, Skirving W, Dove S (2017) Coral reef ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front Mar Sci 4:158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00158 Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jacob D, Taylor M, Bindi M, Brown S, Camilloni I, Diedhiou A et al (2018) Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/ eprint/15518/ Hoegh-Guldberg O, Caldeira K, Chopin T, Gaines S, Haugan P, Hemer M, Howard J et al (2019) The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.oceanpanel.org/climate Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ, Stephens JS (1997) Changes in an assemblage of temperate reef fishes associated with a climate shift. Ecol Appl 7(4):1299–1310. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-­ 0761(1997)007[1299:CIAAOT]2.0.CO;2 Hollowed AB, Barange M, Beamish RJ, Brander K, Cochrane K, Drinkwater K, Foreman MGG et al (2013) Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 70(5):1023– 1037. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst081 Holsman K, Samhouri J, Cook G, Hazen E, Olsen E, Dillard M, Kasperski S et al (2017) An ecosystem-based approach to marine risk assessment. Ecosyst Health Sustain 3(1):e01256 Holsman KK, Hazen EL, Haynie A, Gourguet S, Hollowed A, Bograd SJ, Samhouri JF et al (2019) Towards climate resiliency in fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci 76:fsz031. https://doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fsz031 Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Folke C, Steneck RS, Wilson J (2005) New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 20(7):380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2005.03.022 Hughes TP, Kerry JT, Álvarez-Noriega M, Álvarez-Romero JG, Anderson KD, Baird AH, Babcock RC et al (2017) Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543(7645):373–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21707 Hughes TP, Anderson KD, Connolly SR, Heron SF, Kerry JT, Lough JM, Baird AH et  al (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the anthropocene. Science 359(6371):80–83

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy

47

Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ (2008) The nature of fisheries- and farming-­induced evolution. Mol Ecol 17(1):294–313. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-­294X.2007.03485.x IPCC (2018) In: Masson- Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A et  al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva IPCC (2019) In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska E, Mintenbeck K et al (eds) IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ Irvine PJ, Ridgwell A, Lunt DJ (2010) Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts. Geophys Res Lett 37(18). https:// doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044447 Irz X, Stevenson JR, Tanoy A, Villarante P, Morissens P (2007) The equity and poverty impacts of aquaculture: insights from the Philippines. Dev Policy Rev 25:495–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­7679.2007.00382.x Jackson A, Newton RW (2016) Project to model the use of fisheries by-­ products in the production of marine ingredients with special reference to omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. University of Stirling and The Marine Ingredients Organization Jacox MG, Edwards CA (2011) Effects of stratification and shelf slope on nutrient supply in coastal upwelling regions. J Geophys Res Oceans 116(C3):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006547 James RK, Silva R, van Tussenbroek BI, Escudero-Castillo M, Mariño-­ Tapia I, Dijkstra HA, van Westen RM et  al (2019) Maintaining tropical beaches with seagrass and algae: a promising alternative to engineering solutions. BioScience 69:136–142. https://doi. org/10.1093/biosci/biy154 Janssen K, Chavanne H, Berentsen P, Komen H (2016) Impact of selective breeding on European aquaculture. In: Aquaculture, international symposium on genetics in Aquaculture XII (ISGA XII), vol 472, pp 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.03.012. Jensen Ø, Dempster T, Thorstad EB, Uglem I, Fredheim A (2010) Escapes of fishes from Norwegian Sea-Cage Aquaculture: causes, consequences and prevention. Aquac Environ Interact 1(1):71–83. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00008 Jevrejeva S, Jackson LP, Grinsted A, Lincke D, Marzeion B (2018) Flood damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5°C and 2°C. Environ Res Lett 13(7). https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1748-­9326/aacc76 Jewett L, Romanou A (2017) Ocean acidification and other ocean changes. In: Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, Dokken DJ, Stewart BC, Maycock TK (eds) Climate science special report: fourth national climate assessment, vol I.  U.S.  Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp  364–392. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/13/ Jha M, Arnold JG, Gassman PW, Giorgi F, Gu RR (2006) Climate change sensitivity assessment on upper Mississippi River Basin stream flows using SWAT.  J Am Water Resour Assoc 42(4):997– 1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-­1688.2006.tb04510.x Jones A, Haywood J, Boucher O (2009) Climate impacts of geoengineering marine stratocumulus clouds. J Geophys Res Atmos 114(D10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450 Karim M, Castine S, Brooks A, Beare D, Beveridge M, Phillips M (2014) Asset or liability? Aquaculture in a natural disaster prone area. Ocean Coast Manag 96:188–197 Kasperski S, Holland DS (2013) Income diversification and risk for fishermen. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(6):2076–2081. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1212278110

Kato Y, Fujinaga K, Nakamura K, Takaya Y, Kitamura K, Ohta J, Toda R et  al (2011) Deep-sea mud in the Pacific Ocean as a potential resource for rare-earth elements. Nat Geosci 4:535–539. https://doi. org/10.1038/ngeo1185 Kirtman B, Power SB, Adedoyin AJ, Boer GJ, Bojariu R, Camilloni I, Doblas-Reyes F et al (2013) Near-term climate change: projections and predictability. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 953–1028 Kleisner KM, Fogarty MJ, McGee S, Hare JA, Moret S, Perretti CT, Saba VS (2017) Marine species distribution shifts on the US Northeast Continental Shelf under continued ocean warming. Prog Oceanogr 153:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2017.04.001 de Suarez JM, Cicin-Sain B, Wowk K, Payet R, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2014) Ensuring survival: oceans, climate and security. Ocean Coast Manag 90:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.08.007 Klinger DH, Levin SA, Watson JR (2017) The growth of finfish in global open-ocean aquaculture under climate change. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 284(1864):20170834. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0834 Klinger D, Naylor R (2012) Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annu Rev Env Resour 37(1):247– 276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­021111-­161531 Kopp RE, Horton RM, Little CM, Mitrovica JX, Oppen-Heimer M, Rasmussen DJ, Strauss BH, Tebaldi C (2014) Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earths Future 2(8):383–406. https://doi. org/10.1002/2014EF000239 Kroeker KJ, Kordas RL, Crim R, Hendriks IE, Ramajo L, Singh GS, Duarte CM, Gattuso J-P (2013) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Glob Chang Biol 19(6):1884–1896 Kubicek A, Breckling B, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Reuter H (2019) Climate change drives trait-shifts in coral reef communities. Sci Rep 9(1):3721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­019-­38962-­4 Kumagai NH, García Molinos J, Yamano H, Takao S, Fujii M, Yamanaka Y (2018) Ocean currents and herbivory drive macroalgae-to-coral community shift under climate warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(36):8990–8995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716826115 Kwok R (2018) Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018). Environ Res Lett 13(10):105005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/aae3ec Lafferty KD, Harvell CD, Conrad JM, Friedman CS, Kent ML, Kuris AM, Powell EN et al (2015) Infectious diseases affect marine fisheries and aquaculture economics. Ann Rev Mar Sci 7(1):471–496. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­marine-­010814-­015646 Lam VWY, Cheung WWL, Reygondeau G, Sumaila UR (2016) Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Sci Rep 6:32607. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32607 Lambert E, Hunter C, Pierce GJ, MacLeod CD (2010) Sustainable whale-watching tourism and climate change: towards a framework of resilience. J Sustain Tour 18(3):409–427 Lavery PS, Mateo M-Á, Serrano O, Rozaimi M (2013) Variability in the carbon storage of seagrass habitats and its implications for global estimates of blue carbon ecosystem service. PLoS One 8(9):e73748 Lenzen M, Sun Y-Y, Faturay F, Ting Y-P, Geschke A, Malik A (2018) The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nat Clim Change 8(6):522. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­018-­0141-­x Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, Airamé S et al (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33–46 Lester SE, Stevens JM, Gentry RR, Kappel CV, Bell TW, Costello CJ, Gaines SD et  al (2018) Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nat Commun 9(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-­018-­03249-­1

48 Levin LA (2002) Deep-ocean life where oxygen is scarce: oxygen-­ deprived zones are common and might become more so with climate change. here life hangs on, with some unusual adaptations. Am Sci 90(5):436–444 Li S, Yang Z, Nadolnyak D, Zhang Y, Luo Y (2014) Economic impacts of climate change: profitability of freshwater aquaculture in China. Aquacult Res 47(5):1537–1548. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12614 Lind CE, Ponzoni RW, Nguyen NH, Khaw HL (2012) Selective breeding in fish and conservation of genetic resources for aquaculture. Reprod Domest Anim 47(s4):255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1439-­0531.2012.02084.x Liu W, Xie S-P, Liu Z, Zhu J (2017) Overlooked possibility of a collapsed Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in warming climate. Sci Adv 3(1):e1601666. https://doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.1601666 Loo YY, Billa L, Singh A (2015) Effect of climate change on seasonal monsoon in Asia and its impact on the variability of monsoon rainfall in Southeast Asia. Geosci Front 6(6):817–823. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.02.009 Lotze HK, Tittensor DP, Bryndum-Buchholz A, Eddy TD, Cheung WWL, Galbraith ED, Barange M et al (2019) Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(26):12907–12912. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900194116 Lovelock CE, Atwood T, Baldock J, Duarte CM, Hickey S, Lavery PS, Masque P et al (2017) Assessing the risk of carbon dioxide emissions from blue carbon ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 15(5): 257–265 Matin N, Forrester J, Ensor J (2018) What is equitable resilience? World Dev 109:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.020 McClanahan T, Polunin N, Done T (2002) Ecological states and the resilience of coral reefs. Conserv Ecol 6(2):18. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-­00461-­060218 Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE et  al (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9(10):552–560 Mcleod E, Salm R, Green A, Almany J (2009) Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Front Ecol Environ 7(7):362–370 Meerow S, Pajouhesh P, Miller TR (2019) Social equity in urban resilience planning. Local Environ 24(9):793–808. https://doi.org/10.10 80/13549839.2019.1645103 Melnychuk MC, Peterson E, Elliott M, Hilborn R (2017) Fisheries management impacts on target species status. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(1):178–183. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609915114 Melnychuk MC, Essington TE, Branch TA, Heppell SS, Jensen OP, Link JS, Martell SJD et al (2011) Can catch share fisheries better track management targets? Fish Fish 13(3):267–290. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2011.00429.x Mikulewicz M (2019) Thwarting adaptation’s potential? A critique of resilience and climate-resilient development. Geoforum 104:267– 282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.010 Miller KA, Munro GR (2004) Climate and cooperation: a new perspective on the management of shared fish stocks. Mar Resour Econ 19(3):367–393 Miller KA, Thompson KF, Johnston P, Santillo D (2018a) An overview of seabed mining including the current state of development, environmental impacts, and knowledge gaps. Front Mar Sci 4:418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00418 Miller TJ, Jones CM, Hanson C, Heppell S, Jensen OP, Livingston P, Lorenzen K et al (2018b) Scientific considerations informing Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization. Fisheries 43(11):533–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fsh.10179

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Moore SS, Seavy NE, Gerhart M (2013) Scenario planning for climate change adaptation: a guidance for resource managers. Point Blue Conservation Science and the California Coastal Conservancy. http://www.prbo.org/refs/files/12263_Moore2013.pdf Moreno A, Amelung B (2009) Climate change and coastal & marine tourism: review and analysis. J Coast Res II:1140–1144 Moreno A, Revenga C (2014) The system of territorial use rights in fisheries in Chile. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington Nguyen KAT, Pongthanapanich T (2016) Aquaculture insurance in Viet Nam: experiences from the pilot programme. FAO fisheries and aquaculture circular no. 1133. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome NOAA (U.S.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2018) Status of stocks 2017: annual report to congress on the status of U.S. Fisheries. NOAA, Silver Spring, pp 1–7 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016) The ocean economy in 2030. OECD Publishing, Paris Ojea E, Pearlman I, Gaines SD, Lester SE (2017) Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. Ambio 46(4):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­016-­0850-­1 Oliva-Teles A, Enes P, Peres H (2015) Replacing fishmeal and fish oil in industrial aquafeeds for carnivorous fish. In: Feed and feeding practices in aquaculture. Porto University, Porto, pp  203–233. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­08-­100506-­4.00008-­8 Oschlies A, Brandt P, Stramma L, Schmidtko S (2018) Drivers and mechanisms of ocean deoxygenation. Nat Geosci 11(7):467. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41561-­018-­0152-­2 Parkinson CL (2019) A 40-Y record reveals gradual Antarctic Sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:14414. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1906556116 Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16 Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake TC, Chen I-C, Clark TD et  al (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355(6332):eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214 Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C et al (2012) Estimating global ‘blue carbon’ emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7(9):e43542 Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD (2005) Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308(5730):1912–1915. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111322 Pervez MS, Henebry GM (2015) Assessing the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change on the freshwater availability in the Brahmaputra River Basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 3:285–311. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2014.09.003 Pinsky ML, Worm B, Fogarty MJ, Sarmiento JL, Levin SA (2013) Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341(6151):1239– 1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239352 Pinsky ML, Reygondeau G, Caddell R, Palacios-Abrantes J, Spijkers J, Cheung WWL (2018) Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360(6394):1189–1191. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aat2360 Pinsky M, Mantua N (2014) Emerging adaptation approaches for climate-­ ready fisheries management. Oceanography 27(4):146– 159. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2014.93 Polasky S, Segerson K (2009) Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annu Rev Resour Econ 1(1):409–434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. resource.050708.144110 Poloczanska ES, Brown CJ, Sydeman WJ, Kiessling W, Schoeman DS, Moore PJ, Brander K et  al (2013) Global imprint of climate

2  The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy change on marine life. Nat Clim Change 3(10):919–925. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate1958 Poloczanska ES, Burrows MT, Brown CJ, García Molinos J, Halpern BS, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Kappel CV et  al (2016) Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front Mar Sci 3:62 Ponzoni RW, Nguyen NH, Khaw HL, Ninh NH (2008) Accounting for genotype by environment interaction in economic appraisal of genetic improvement programs in common carp Cyprinus carpio. Aquaculture 285(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.012 Pörtner H-O, Karl DM, Boyd PW, Cheung W, Lluch-Cota SE, Nojiri Y, Schmidt DN et al (2014) Ocean Systems. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. contribution of Working Group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 411–484 Price C, Black KD, Hargrave BT, Morris JA Jr (2015) Marine cage culture and the environment: effects on water quality and primary production. Aquac Environ Interact 6(2):151–174. https://doi. org/10.3354/aei00122 Price N, Muko S, Legendre L, Steneck R, van Oppen M, Albright R, Ang P Jr et  al (2019) Global biogeography of coral recruitment: tropical decline and subtropical increase. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 621(July):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12980 Punt AE, Butterworth DS, De Oliveira JAA, Haddon M (2016) Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish Fish 17(2):303– 334. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12104 Punt AE, A’mar T, Bond NA, Butterworth DS, de Moor CL, De Oliveira JAA, Haltuch MA et al (2014) Fisheries management under climate and environmental uncertainty: control rules and performance simulation. ICES J Mar Sci 71(8):2208–2220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fst057 Ren L, Arkin P, Smith TM, Shen SSP (2013) Global precipitation trends in 1900–2005 from a reconstruction and coupled model simulations. J Geophys Res Atmos 118(4):1679–1689. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jgrd.50212 Richards DR, Friess DA (2016) Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(2):344–349 Richards LJ, Maguire J-J (1998) Recent international agreements and the precautionary approach: new directions for fisheries management science. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55(6):1545–1552. https://doi. org/10.1139/f98-­043 Roberts CM, O’Leary BC, McCauley DJ, Cury PM, Duarte CM, Lubchenco J, Pauly D et  al (2017) Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(24):6167–6175 Roman J, McCarthy JJ (2010) The whale pump: marine mammals enhance primary productivity in a coastal basin. PLoS One 5(10):e13255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 Rosa R, Marques A, Nunes ML (2014) Mediterranean aquaculture in a changing climate. In: The Mediterranean Sea, pp 605–616. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­6704-­1_37 Rosa R, Seibel BA (2008) Synergistic effects of climate-related variables suggest future physiological impairment in a top oceanic predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(52):20776–20780. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0806886105 Rowley AF, Cross ME, Culloty SC, Lynch SA, Mackenzie CL, Morgan E, O’Riordan RM et  al (2014) The potential impact of climate change on the infectious diseases of commercially important shellfish populations in the Irish Sea—a review. ICES J Mar Sci 71(4):741–759. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst234 Ruiz-Ramírez JD, Euán-Ávila JI, Rivera-Monroy VH (2019) Vulnerability of coastal resort cities to mean sea level rise in the Mexican Caribbean. Coast Manag 47(1):23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0892 0753.2019.1525260

49 Rykaczewski RR, Dunne JP, Sydeman WJ, García-Reyes M, Black BA, Bograd SJ (2015) Poleward displacement of coastal upwelling-­ favorable winds in the ocean’s eastern boundary currents through the 21st century. Geophys Res Lett 42(15):6424–6431. https://doi. org/10.1002/2015GL064694 Sae-Lim P, Kause A, Mulder HA, Olesen I (2017) Breeding and genetics symposium: climate change and selective breeding in aquaculture. J Anim Sci 95(4):1801–1812. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1066 Sae-Lim P, Mulder H, Gjerde B, Koskinen H, Lillehammer M, Kause A (2015) Genetics of growth reaction norms in farmed rainbow trout. PLoS One 10(8):e0135133 Sainz J, Di Lorenzo E, Bell TW, Gaines S, Miller R, Lenihan H (2019) Spatial planning of marine aquaculture under climate decadal variability: a case study for mussel farms in California. Front Mar Sci 6:253 Schatz VJ, Proelss A, Liu N (2019) The 2018 agreement to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: a critical analysis. Int J Mar Coast Law 34(2):195–244. https://doi. org/10.1163/15718085-­23342015 Scott D, Gössling S, Hall CM (2012) International tourism and climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 3(3):213–232. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.165 Sea Grant California; Sea Grant, University of Georgia; Virginia Coastal Policy Center, William & Mary Law School; Sea Grant Law Center; The University of Mississippi School of Law; Marine Affairs Institute; Roger Williams University School of Law; et al (2019) Overcoming impediments to shellfish aquaculture through legal research and outreach: case studies. Funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, p 118 Serdy A (2016) The new entrants problem in International Fisheries Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511736148 Serrano O, Kelleway JJ, Lovelock C, Lavery PS (2019) Chapter 28: Conservation of blue carbon ecosystems for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In: Perillo GME, Wolanski E, Cahoon DR, Hopkinson CS (eds) Coastal wetlands. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 965–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­444-­63893-­9.00028-­9 Siderius C, Biemans H, Wiltshire A, Rao S, Franssen WHP, Kumar P, Gosain AK et al (2013) Snowmelt contributions to discharge of the Ganges. Sci Total Environ 468:S93–S101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2013.05.084 Siegel KJ, Cabral Reniel B, McHenry J, Ojea E, Owashi B, Lester SE (2019) Sovereign states in the Caribbean have lower social-­ ecological vulnerability to coral bleaching than overseas territories. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 286(1897):20182365. https://doi. org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2365 Silbiger NJ, Nelson CE, Remple K, Sevilla JK, Quinlan ZA, Putnam HM, Fox MD et al (2018) Nutrient pollution disrupts key ecosystem functions on coral reefs. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 285(1880):20172718 Smale DA, Wernberg T, Oliver ECJ, Thomsen M, Harvey BP, Straub SC, Burrows MT et al (2019) Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat Clim Change 9(4):306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­019-­0412-­1 Sokolow S (2009) Effects of a changing climate on the dynamics of coral infectious disease: a review of the evidence. Dis Aquat Organ 87(1–2):5–18 Soto D, Ross LG, Handisyde N, Bueno PB, Beveridge MC, Dabbadie L, Aguilar-Manjarrez J et  al (2018) Climate change and aquaculture: vulnerability and adaptation options. In: Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge MCM, Cochrane KL, Funge-Smith S, Poulain F (eds) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Spalding M, Burke L, Wood SA, Ashpole J, Hutchison J, zu Ermgassen P (2017) Mapping the global value and distribution of coral reef tourism. Mar Policy 82(August):104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2017.05.014

50 Speers AE, Besedin EY, Palardy JE, Moore C (2016) Impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: an integrated ecological–economic model. Ecol Econ 128:33–43 Spijkers J, Singh G, Blasiak R, Morrison TH, Le Billon P, Österblom H (2019) Global patterns of fisheries conflict: forty years of data. Glob Environ Chang 57:101921 Spijkers J, Boonstra WJ (2017) Environmental change and social conflict: the Northeast Atlantic Mackerel sispute. Reg Environ Change 17(6):1835–1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-­017-­1150-­4 Stramma L, Schmidtko S, Levin LA, Johnson GC (2010) Ocean oxygen minima expansions and their biological impacts. Deep-Sea Res I Oceanogr Res Pap 57(4):587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dsr.2010.01.005 Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Pauly D, Herrick S (2011) Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nat Clim Change 1(9):449 Sydeman WJ, García-Reyes M, Schoeman DS, Rykaczewski RR, Thompson SA, Black BA, Bograd SJ (2014) Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems. Science 345(6192):77–80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251635 Tacon A, Hasan M, Metian M (2011) Demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(4):485–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-­D-­11-­00094.1 Thornalley DJR, Oppo DW, Ortega P, Robson JI, Brierley CM, Davis R, Hall IR et  al (2018) Anomalously weak labrador sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years. Nature 556(7700):227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­018-­0007-­4 Toimil A, Díaz-Simal P, Losada IJ, Camus P (2018) Estimating the risk of loss of beach recreation value under climate change. Tour Manag 68:387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.024 Tommasi D, Stock CA, Pegion K, Vecchi GA, Methot RD, Alexander MA, Checkley DM (2017) Improved management of small pelagic fisheries through seasonal climate prediction. Ecol Appl 27(2):378– 388. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1458 UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara) (2019) Interactive web interface developed by the Sustainable Fisheries Group. https://sfg-­­ ucsb.shinyapps.io/fishcast2/ UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights, 2016 edition. World Tourism Organization, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284418145 Van Dover CL, Ardron JA, Escobar E, Gianni M, Gjerde KM, Jaeckel A, Jones DOB et al (2017) Biodiversity loss from sea mining. Nat Geosci 10:464–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2983 van Oppen MJH, Gates RD, Blackall LL, Cantin N, Chakravarti LJ, Chan WY, Cormick C et al (2017) Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob Chang Biol 23(9):3437–3448

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC et  al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-­011-­0148-­z Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim Change 109(3):745–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-­011-­0027-­7 Verges A, Steinberg PD, Hay ME, Poore AGB, Campbell AH, Ballesteros E, Heck KL et al (2014) The tropicalization of temperate marine ecosystems: climate-mediated changes in herbivory and community phase shifts. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281(1789):20140846. https:// doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0846 Visser ME (2016) Phenology: interactions of climate change and species. Nature 535(7611):236. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18905 Walther G-R, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TJC, Fromentin J-M et al (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416(6879):389 Wang D, Gouhier TC, Menge BA, Ganguly AR (2015) Intensification and spatial homogenization of coastal upwelling under climate change. Nature 518(7539):390. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14235 Wang G, Cai W, Gan B, Wu L, Santoso A, Lin X, Chen Z et al (2017) Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5°C warming stabilization. Nat Clim Change 7(8):568. https://doi. org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3351 Wardle AR (2017) Farming the oceans: opportunities and regulatory challenges for U.S. Marine Aquaculture development, 39. Reason Foundation, Los Angeles Watanabe A, Nakamura T (2019) Carbon dynamics in coral reefs. In: Kuwae T, Hori M (eds) Blue carbon in shallow coastal ecosystems: carbon dynamics, policy, and implementation. Springer, Singapore, pp 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1295-­3_10 Weatherdon LV, Magnan AK, Rogers AD, Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL (2016) Observed and projected impacts of climate change on marine fisheries, aquaculture, coastal tourism, and human health: an update. Front Mar Sci 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00048 Wiedenmann J, D’Angelo C, Smith EG, Hunt AN, Legiret F-E, Postle AD, Achterberg EP (2013) Nutrient enrichment can increase the susceptibility of reef corals to bleaching. Nat Clim Change 3(2):160 Williamson P, Turley C (2012) Ocean acidification in a geoengineering context. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 370(1974): 4317–4342 Xinhua Y, Pongthanapanich T, Zongli Z, Xiaojun J, Junchao M (2017) Fishery and aquaculture insurance in China. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture circular no. 1139. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Yang H, Lohmann G, Wei W, Dima M, Ionita M, Liu J (2016) Intensification and poleward shift of subtropical western boundary currents in a warming climate. J Geophys Res Oceans 121(7):4928–4945. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011513

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

3

What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?

Abbreviations APEI Area of Particular Environmental Interest BBNJ biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction BECCS bioenergy with carbon capture and storage CAGR compound annual growth rate CCS carbon capture and storage CCZ Clarion-Clipperton Zone CDR carbon dioxide removal EEZ exclusive economic zone FAIR findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable GW gigawatt (109 watt) GWh gigawatt-hours IEA International Energy Agency IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency ISA International Seabed Authority ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea LCOE levelised cost of electricity LDAC Long Distance Fleet Advisory Council LED low energy demand LTC Legal and Technical Commission, International Seabed Authority MPA Marine Protected Area Mtoe million tonnes of oil equivalent MW megawatt (106 watt) MWh megawatt-hours OTEC ocean thermal energy conversion PV photovoltaic REE rare earth element REMP Regional Environmental Management Plan

REY SDG

rare earths and yttrium Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations) SDLO Sustainable Development Licence to Operate TIMES The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System model generator TW terawatt (1012 watt) TWh terawatt-hours UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VME vulnerable marine ecosystem

Highlights • This paper analyses the underlying tension between the need for rapid decarbonisation, including that required for scaling up ocean-based renewable energy, and the resource and environmental implications related to that metal demand, with particular attention on current proposals to mine the deep seabed. • Building a sustainable global energy system is intimately linked to both scaling up renewable energy and finding a way to source and use rare minerals in a more sustainable way. Questions remain as to whether deep-seabed mining should be heralded as the key to a transition to a sustainable energy sector, based on whether it can be accomplished in a way that appropriately ensures a healthy and resilient ocean. • Rapid transformation of our energy systems is required if we are to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and Originally published in: Haugan, P.M., L.A.  Levin, D.  Amon, M.  Hemer, H.  Lily and limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5  °C, or F.G. Nielsen. 2020. What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and even 2  °C, above pre-industrial levels. In addition to Deep Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future? Washington, DC: World expanding land-based renewable energy, the ocean offers Resources Institute. Available online at www.oceanpanel.org/blue-­ significant potential for supporting this transition. papers/ocean-­energy-­and-­mineral-­sources Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind However, new technologies must be implemented in a permission.

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_3

51

52

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

sustainable way in order to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine other aspects of ocean health. Ocean-based renewable energy sources include offshore wind (near-surface as well as high-altitude), floating solar, marine biomass and ocean energy, which encompasses tidal range, tidal stream, wave, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), current and salinity gradient. Offshore wind (near-surface, i.e. based on bottom- fixed or floating support structures) is presently more developed than other marine renewable energy and has reached cost parity with fossil sources of electricity. The trend for newer multi-megawatt wind turbine generators is to use direct-drive systems with permanent magnet generators. Since most other ocean-based renewable energy technologies are still in early phases of development with little deployment, few studies have been completed on what materials will be needed to scale up the use of these technologies. If these technologies have similar metal requirements to modern wind turbines, which is likely, implementation will rapidly increase the demand for many metals, such as lithium, cobalt, copper, silver, zinc, nickel and manganese, and rare earth elements (REEs). The demand for specific metals to serve the global energy transition is highly dependent on their cost. Often, alternatives to specific metals can be found. The industry is continually developing solutions that can use cheaper and more abundant resources avoiding specific costly metals. Selected metals and minerals are increasingly difficult to find in large quantities or high grades on land, but are present in higher concentrations in some parts of the deep seabed. As such, the deep seabed resource potential has attracted interest in mining for copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold, lithium, REEs and phosphorites. The potential to mine the deep seabed raises various environmental, legal and governance challenges, as well as possible conflicts with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Greater knowledge of the potential environmental impacts and measures to mitigate them to levels acceptable to the global community will be crucial. Full analysis of the perceived positive and negative impacts is required before there can be confidence that engaging in industrial-scale deep-seabed mining would achieve a global net benefit.

1 Introduction Scenarios for sustainable transformation of the global economy to near zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development rely strongly on renewable energy.

Offshore wind shows potential to become a globally significant supplier of electricity in these scenarios. Floating solar energy and direct ocean energy sources, such as wave, tidal and ocean thermal energy, may also contribute significantly in a range of locations, but require more policy support and understanding of potential environmental impacts in order to become significant in the transition to a sustainable global energy system. The expanding use of batteries to electrify the transport sector is leading to increasing demand for a range of rare minerals. Renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, along with electronic products and cell phones, also use these various minerals. One potential new source of minerals is the deep seabed. But the mining of these minerals raises potentially serious environmental, legal, social and rights-based challenges, as well as potential conflicts with UN Sustainable Development Goals 12, 13 and 14. This Blue Paper focuses on the extent to which a selected subset of ocean resources, ocean-based renewable energy and deep-seabed minerals can contribute to sustainable development. Options for harvesting ocean-based renewable energy and the needs for ocean-based minerals are reviewed with a focus on scenarios where anthropogenic global warming in the twenty-first century is limited to 1.5–2  °C  – in other words, where decarbonisation of the global economy has to happen fast. The deep-seabed minerals case is discussed in some detail in order to spell out the steps that would be required if deep-seabed mining were to be developed, and to weigh up the benefits, risks and alternatives. The introductory section briefly explains the basic characteristics of ocean-based renewable energy, discusses the expected demands for minerals from ocean-based renewable energy and global energy system transformation, and ends with an introduction to deep-seabed mining. In Sect. 2, 1.5 °C scenarios, both with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS) and negative emissions in the later part of the century, are described. In Sect. 3, ocean-based renewable energy options, their technological and cost status, and projections for future development are reviewed. In Sect. 4, deep-seabed minerals and the motivations for mining them are addressed. Section 5 focuses on sustainability, including the environmental impacts of ocean-based renewable energy and deepseabed mining. Section 6 deals with governance issues, before moving into the opportunities for action in Sect. 7.

1.1 What is Ocean-Based Renewable Energy? Ocean-based renewable energy sources (often called marine renewable energy) include offshore wind (near-surface as well as high-altitude), floating solar, marine biomass and

3  What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?

ocean energy, which encompasses tidal range, tidal stream, wave, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), current and salinity gradient. All of these are considered in this paper except marine biomass. Harvesting of naturally growing marine biomass, as well as industrial production, is ongoing in several locations, mostly motivated by demands for food, feed or pharmaceuticals. The by-products of such production may be combusted for energy purposes, and thereby reduce the need for other energy sources. However, based on current knowledge, the global long-term significance as an energy source is believed to be limited. Offshore wind (near-surface, i.e. based on bottom-fixed or floating support structures) is presently much more developed than the others and has reached cost parity with fossil sources of electricity in recent contracts. Offshore wind is therefore dealt with separately in Sect. 3.1. Of the others, technology for exploiting tidal range is well developed in some locations, tidal stream is developing rapidly now, and wave energy has a long history of research but no clear technology winner. OTEC, which has potential in the tropics, requires significant investment in order to capitalise on the economy of scale. Salinity gradient, which has potential where fresh water meets saline seawater, has only seen experimental-scale testing. Ocean currents, exploiting the energy contained in large-scale thermohaline ocean circulation, has considerable potential, but has challenges relating to proximity to demand, in combination with the early stage of technology. Floating solar has so far been mostly developed in fresh water for reservoirs and dams but has clear potential for ocean scale-up. High-altitude wind can be scaled up offshore once key technology has been validated, presumably first onshore. These energy sources are further described in Sect. 3.2.

1.2 Renewable Energy and the Demand for Metals Key elements of a low-carbon emissions future are the accelerated use of wind power, solar energy and the electrification of the energy sector, including use of electric vehicles. Construction of offshore wind turbines requires significant amounts of conventional materials, in particular steel. However, rare earth elements (REEs) are also needed, in particular in the construction of the direct-drive permanent magnet generators that are currently preferred. For offshore wind, it is the use of REEs in the generators that appears to be the biggest potential challenge when it comes to supply of minerals. Wilburn (2011) states that each megawatt (MW) of installed capacity needs 42 kilograms (kg) of neodymium and 3000 kg of copper. Stegen (2015) provides an overview of REEs and permanent magnets in connection with renewable energies. Stegen

53

notes that present wind turbines using direct-drive permanent magnet generators are favoured over conventional heavy gearboxes since the latter require more steel and concrete. The reduced weight of permanent magnet generators and increased reliability and efficiency is particularly attractive offshore. Permanent magnets typically use neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium and terbium. For turbines above 10  MW, which are now beginning to be applied offshore, superconducting generators may be preferred over permanent magnet generators, again because of costs and weight. However, greater deployment of superconductors will increase demand for yttrium, another element typically considered together with REEs (included in REEs or expressed as REY, rare earths and yttrium). Pavel et  al. (2017) discuss substitution strategies for REEs in wind turbines, noting the variety of designs that are being considered and the potential for material efficiency. They do not consider the deep seabed as a source, but still conclude that the wind industry is well prepared for potential shortages in REEs in both the short and medium term. For the longer term, superconductors are being considered. A considerable amount of REEs, including yttrium at high concentration in seafloor mud, was recently documented in the Japanese exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Takaya et al. 2018). Goodenough et al. (2018) note that very little mineralprocessing research on REEs took place outside of China during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, but this research has been accelerating in recent years after China introduced export restrictions. It remains a challenge to develop the value chain from mining through processing and separation to end-uses. Goodenough et al. (2018) also note that, within 10  years, new technological developments are likely to drive substantial changes in both processing of, and demand for, REEs. Moving to the further requirements from the energy sector as a whole, a recent IPCC report indicates that 70–85 percent of all electricity must be from renewable sources by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (IPCC 2018). Implementation of these renewable technologies will rapidly increase demand for many metals, including lithium, cobalt, copper, silver, zinc, nickel and manganese, and REEs and others (Arrobas et al. 2017; Sovacool et  al. 2020). The projected metal demand varies greatly for the different energy sources under scenarios involving different amounts of renewable energy at different rates over the next 30  years (Arrobas et  al. 2017; Dominish et al. 2019). For example, the demand for metals, such as aluminium, cobalt, nickel, lithium, iron and lead, coming from solar and wind will be twice as high under a 2  °C warming scenario than under a 4  °C scenario, but the demand from batteries would be more than 10 times higher. Offshore wind energy generation requires more

54

metals than onshore wind due to the use of magnets; differing solar technologies use different amounts of silver, zinc and indium; and for cars, fully electric, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cells differ in their demands for lithium, lead and platinum (Arrobas et al. 2017). There is general ­agreement that electric car batteries will be the greatest source of increased metal demand. Deetman et al. (2018) study scenarios for copper, tantalum, neodymium, cobalt and lithium demand up to 2050 and find that in a stringent climate policy scenario (1.5–2 °C), the demand from cars rises more rapidly than that from appliances and energy technologies. In particular, this applies to cobalt and lithium. Boubault and Maizi (2019) extend the well-known TIMES energy system model tool for electricity generation to metal need is expected to diminish as the industry transitions to even larger turbines with superconductors. The energy sector as a whole has a wider set of mineral needs but also larger flexibility to switch between alternative technological solutions. Trends and demands for the coming decade can be estimated, but it is very difficult to deduce a minimal set of required metals to enable energy system transition to a 1.5–2 °C global temperature rise requirements for the power sector using a life cycle approach. Cost-optimal deployments of different electricity generation sources in a 2 °C scenario to 2100 provide corresponding metal needs. In comparison with the baseline scenario, cobalt and aluminium are among those that increase the most. Limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5  °C using 100 percent renewable energy is projected to increase demand in 2050 to more than four times the existing reserves for cobalt, almost three times the reserves for lithium, and slightly more than the existing reserves for nickel (Dominish et al. 2019). Cobalt and nickel, whose demand could exceed current production rates by 2030, are driving the rapidly rising interest in mineral mining on the deep seafloor. Cobalt in particular has highly concentrated production and reserves (especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and thus poses the greatest supply risk; cobalt contamination also causes severe health impacts for miners and surrounding communities (Dominish et al. 2019). Attempts to compare various modelling studies of energy systems and metal needs (Boubault and Maizi 2019) are complicated by the different choices made in terms of scenarios, assumptions and the degree of resolution in the metals covered by each model. In conclusion, there are large uncertainties about metal needs over time horizons of longer than a decade. A hot topic for offshore wind is REEs for permanent magnets. However, this across the timeframe of 2050 to 2100. Integrated energy system models that include metal needs in a life cycle approach (Hertwich et al. 2015) are useful tools but rely on bottom-up estimates of costs of energy sources and energy conversion processes. The search

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

for alternative technologies is intense, driven by actual costs as well as projections of future costs. The increase in metal mining needed to address climate change (and the transition to renewable energy) is drawing increasing attention (Arrobas et  al. 2017) and has led to a proposal that nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement identify critical minerals for energy security options and identify sourcing challenges (Sovacool et al. 2020). Population growth and rising consumption associated with an increased standard of living globally creates additional increased demand for metals, independent of climate change (Graedel et al. 2015; Ali et al. 2017).

1.3 Minerals on the Deep Seafloor Metals and minerals of interest on the deep seafloor include primarily copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold, lithium, REEs and phosphorites (see Sect. 4). Many of the metals are found in polymetallic nodules on abyssal plains (covering 38 million square kilometres (km2) at water depths of 3000– 6500 metres (m)), on cobalt-rich crusts which occur on seamounts (covering over 1.7 million km2 at 800–2500 m), and in polymetallic sulphides near mid-ocean ridges and in back-­ arc basins (covering 3.2 million km2) (Fig. 3.1) (Levin et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2018; Hein and Koschinsky 2014; Petersen et al. 2016). Phosphorites, of interest for fertiliser, occur as modern deposits or fossil beds along productive continental margins (slopes) (Baturin 1982). These resources occur both within and beyond national jurisdictions (Fig. 3.1), with the exception of phosphorites, which are targeted only within EEZs. However, while 42 percent of areas with massive sulphides and 54 percent of areas with cobalt-rich crusts fall within EEZs, only 19 percent of known polymetallic nodules are within EEZs. More information on their formation and distribution is provided in Fig.  3.1 and by Petersen et  al. (2016) and Jones et al. (2017). Mining of the deep seabed (below 200  m) has not yet taken place. Extraction of minerals from the seafloor is planned to involve either modified dredging (for nodules) or cutting (for massive sulphides and crusts), and transport of the material as a slurry in a riser or basket system to a surface support vessel (Fig. 3.2). The mineral-bearing material will be processed on board a ship (cleaning and dewatering— with the waste water and sediment being returned to the ocean) and transferred to a barge for transport to shore where it will be further processed to extract the target metals (Collins et al. 2013; Brown 2018) (Fig. 3.2). Relative to mining on land, there is less overburden to remove and no permanent mining infrastructure required for deep-seabed mining (Lodge and Verlaan 2018). However, there is likely to be solid waste material left after metal extraction, and disposal mechanisms for this

3  What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?

Fig. 3.1  Distribution of Polymetallic Nodules, Polymetallic Sulphides and Cobalt-Rich Crust Resources in the Deep Sea. (Note: The white area around Antarctica is not an exclusive economic zone but rather

55

governed by an international commission. Source: Miller et al. 2018; Hein et al. 2013)

Fig. 3.2  Schematic Illustrating Deep-Seabed Mining for the Three Resources. (Source: Modified from Fleming et al. 2019)

56

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 3.3  International Exploration Contracts from the ISA. (Note: Countries with international exploration contracts from the ISA are shown in blue, the number of contracts per country (as of 2019 is

depicted in the legend), and the general location of contracts in the Area is shown schematically for different resources. Source: Authors)

waste could be comparable with those used for terrestrial mine tailings, some of which are introduced into the deep ocean via pipe (Ramirez-Llodra et al. 2015; Vare et al. 2018). The current governance structure under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS; UN 1982) gives the International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulatory responsibility for both the minerals on the seafloor in international waters (the Area) and the protection of the marine environment from the effects of mining in the Area. The minerals of the Area are designated as “the common heritage of [hu]mankind” (UN 1982). Since 2001, 30 exploration contracts for deep-seabed minerals in the Area have been approved. These were granted initially for 15 years each, and those contracts which have expired have been renewed for a 5-year extension. Seventeen of the ISA contracts are for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) and two are for nodules elsewhere; others are for crusts and seafloor massive sulphides, and occur on West Pacific Seamounts (in the Prime Crust Zone), the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest Indian Ridges, the Rio Grande Rise off Brazil,1 and in the Central Indian Ocean (Fig. 3.3). The exploration contract areas are granted to individual states, consortia of

states, state-owned enterprises or companies working with states. At the time of writing this paper, the contracts cover more than 1.3 million km2 (or 500,000 sq. miles), equivalent to about 0.3 percent of the abyssal seabed (Petersen et  al. 2016). No contracts for mineral exploitation in the Area exist. Regulations for the exploitation of seabed minerals and for associated environmental management are currently under development by the ISA. Roughly 70 percent of the 154 coastal states have significant deep ocean within their EEZs; many of these contain mineral resources. Licences for deep-seabed mineral exploitation within national jurisdictions have been granted by Papua New Guinea (to Nautilus Minerals) and by Sudan/ Saudi Arabia (Diamond Fields International) (Miller et al. 2018). Additionally, New Zealand, the Kingdom of Tonga, Japan, Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have permitted research to assess the mining viability or issued exploration permits for national seafloor polymetallic sulphides, although some of them have lapsed. Exploration for polymetallic nodules in the Cook Islands (Cook Islands News 2018), cobalt crusts and polymetallic nodules in Brazil (Marques and Araújo 2019), and phosphorites in Namibia and South Africa (NMP n.d.; Levin et  al. 2016) are also under consideration. Sand is another resource mined in the ocean. Demand for sand, used in building and transportation, has increased

Brazil has more recently indicated that the site in question falls within national jurisdiction (not the ISA’s jurisdiction), according to an extended continental shelf claim, lodged by Brazil subsequent to the award of their ISA contract. 1 

3  What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?

23-fold from 1900 to 2010, and is now seen as a scarce resource, the extraction of which can cause environmental degradation, health risks and social disruption (Torres et al. 2017). Sand occurs in shallow marine waters, is not closely tied to energy industries and is not a mineral per se, so will not be considered further here.

57

A recent special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2018) describes two main pathways to a 1.5 °C global average temperature rise by 2100. In the first pathway, global warming stabilises and stays at or below 1.5  °C.  The second pathway sees some overshoot around mid-century before returning to a 1.5 °C rise. Scenarios with long and large overshoot typically rely heavily on technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Such negative emission scenarios are treated in Sect. 2.2, but it should be noted that related technologies have not yet been deployed at scale and it remains to be seen if they will be applicable and cost-competitive. For example, Reid et  al. (2019) raise a series of issues with bioenergy and argue against a path dependency and lock-in that would be implicated by substituting bioenergy for fossil fuel in scenarios involving bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Scenarios that do stay continuously below a rise of 1.5  °C typically require more rapid and larger deployment of renewable

energy, as well as stronger energy efficiency and demand-­ side measures. Such scenarios are characterised by electrification of the global energy system and the stabilisation in or even reduction of global final energy use, despite delivering modern and sufficient energy to a growing world population (IPCC 2018). They are therefore low energy demand (LED) scenarios compared with fossil-based business-as-usual scenarios even if they deliver the same energy services. IPCC LED scenarios (IPCC 2018) typically see a reduction in final energy use of 15 percent in 2030 and 30 percent in 2050, compared with 2010. Renewables deliver approximately 60 percent of electricity in 2030 and 80 percent in 2050. This translates to an increase of more than 400 percent in non-biomass renewables from 2010 to 2030 and more than 800 percent from 2010 to 2050 (IPCC 2018). IPCC LED scenarios (IPCC 2018) with no overshoot show 10–15 percent reduction in the global use of biomass renewables for energy, and employ a limited amount of afforestation but use no other carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. Jacobson and colleagues in a series of publications (most recently Jacobson et al. 2017, 2018, 2019) construct scenarios requiring 100 percent of global energy to come from wind, water (including ocean energy, hydropower and geothermal) and solar energy by 2050 (Fig. 3.4). Jacobson et  al. (2017) provide detailed specifications of their modelled contributions from different energy sources and grid components, such as batteries, heat and cold storage and heat pumps. Jacobson et  al. (2018) confirm that the energy systems modelled provide stable energy services, despite relying heavily on variable wind and solar. While the scenarios by Jacobson et  al. (2017, 2018) have previously

Fig. 3.4  Development of Wind, Solar and Other Energy Sources in a Low Energy Demand Transition to 100 Percent Wind, Water and Solar. 143-Country all-sector end-use power demand and supply (Thousand

GW). (Note: An earlier study (Jacobson et al. 2017) gave less drastic reductions in final energy use to 11.8 TW in 2050, of which 13.6% or 1.6 TW was offshore wind. Source: Jacobson et al. 2019)

2 Transition to a Sustainable Global Energy System—1.5 °C Scenarios 2.1 Characteristics of 1.5 °C Scenarios

58

been considered extreme and have been criticised (Clack et al. 2017), other recent studies, notably Grubler et al. (2018) with a different modelling approach, achieve even larger reduction in global final energy demand in 2050, based on improved service efficiencies and demand-side transformation. Beneficial effects on other UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include better health via reduced pollution (SDG 3), reduced bioenergy and larger forest areas (SDG 15) and reduced ocean acidification (SDG 14). Environmental impacts are discussed in Sect. 5. Grubler et al. (2018) allow for some bioenergy, fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Their requirements for solar and wind energy are therefore lower than those of Jacobson et al. (2017, 2018, 2019), even though they deal with all countries and regions of the world. Solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy are particularly implicated in use of certain minerals (Sect. 1.2). The installed capacities (i.e. nameplate capacities or full-load outputs) of solar PV and wind in 2050 from Jacobson et al. (2018) of approximately 30 and 17 terawatts (TW), respectively, are assumed to be upper bounds on the possible demands for installed solar PV and wind in a sustainable energy future. This includes onshore and offshore installations. The installed offshore wind capacity is estimated at about 4 TW.  Note that these installed capacities are 2.5 to 6 times larger than the average utilised capacities in Fig. 3.4, reflecting a varying capacity factor (ratio between the energy delivered over a time period and the energy that would have been delivered if the turbine was running at maximum, i.e. installed capacity) due to variable winds and sun. In comparison, Teske et  al. (2015), in their Advanced Energy [R] evolution scenario (ADV ER) arrive at approximately 9 TW installed capacity for solar PV and 8 TW installed capacity for wind in 2050. Teske et al. (2016) claim that this scenario is ambitious and may not guarantee to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 °C, but may be the maximum transformation that is realistically achievable. IEA (2019a) presents two scenarios, a stated policy scenario (SPS) and a sustainable development scenario (SDS). In the two cases, the global installed capacity of offshore wind in 2040 is estimated to be 340 and 560 gigawatts (GW), respectively. With a significant improvement in the capacity factors over the coming 20 years, the annual energy contribution from offshore wind in 2040 is estimated to be 1400 and 2350 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year for the two scenarios respectively.

2.2 Negative Emissions and Carbon Capture and Storage As mentioned in Sect. 2.1, many of the scenarios in the IPCC report (IPCC 2018) rely on negative emissions in the later part of the present century in order to repair the overshoot and get back to a global temperature rise of less than

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

1.5 °C. Overshoot would imply potentially damaging impacts on the ocean and its ecosystems. Geoengineering through solar radiation management would, if successful, limit global warming, but to avoid ocean acidification atmospheric CO2 needs to be limited too. Several CDR technologies which would capture CO2 from the air have been proposed. However, IPCC (2018) states, with high confidence, that: “CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints.” Afforestation and BECCS are the options most widely studied. BECCS consists of harvesting biological material, burning it for energy purposes in an energy plant (power or combined heat and power) and adding facilities for CCS. A few BECCS pilot plants exist (IPCC 2018). More research experience is available on CCS from fossil fuel power plants and some from transport and storage of CO2 for other purposes or from other sources (IPCC 2005). Storage of CO2 is taking place also in the subseabed, notably for more than two decades on the Norwegian continental shelf (Furre et  al. 2017). While CCS research and application has been promoted in several countries over the past decades, questions still remain on the practicality and cost-competitiveness. In Europe, developments in new renewable energy, notably wind for production of electricity, mean that it is steadily becoming cheaper and is already cost- competitive with fossil fuel without CCS. With CCS, there is the added investment in capture facility, transport and storage, and the related energy penalty (increase in energy and fuel use for running the CCS process) which tends to sit around 20–25 percent (IPCC 2005). Research and development continues, however. Active projects in Norway are directed at CO2 from other industries like cement and incineration of waste. There are also studies on the separation of CO2 from natural gas and on delivering hydrogen for energy purposes. Related efforts may lead to an increase in the interest in storing CO2 offshore in the subseabed and development of technology that could be transferred to BECCS. However, the energy penalty (use of more biological material to provide energy to run the process) and investments in facilities cannot be avoided. In view of the diminishing costs of electricity based on renewables, competition on cost appears to be difficult. Furthermore, the carbon capture process is never 100 percent effective so some CO2 release has to be accepted. In a sustainable energy future with very tight restrictions on CO2 emissions, it appears that non-biomass renewables—wind, water, solar and in some locations geothermal—have to replace the lion’s share of the energy services presently served by fossil fuel. Overshoot in itself may lead to irreversible damage to the climate system. No CDR technologies have yet been scaled up. Costs and environmental implications are uncertain. The modelling approaches used in scenario calculations assume

3  What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?

learning curves and discount rates that tend to favour shifting of costs to the distant future. Ethical and hard science aspects of these questions are interlinked and hotly debated in the popular media as well as scientific forums (Anderson and Peters 2016). It appears that relying on negative emission technologies in the future is optimistic and could be deemed irresponsible. In the context of this report, the 1.5  °C scenarios discussed in Sect. 2.1. are those considered to be representative of a sustainable future.

3 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy The status and costs of the various technologies—in other words, their technical and economic potential—are addressed in this section, while the environmental impacts and wider sustainability issues are discussed in Sect. 5. Since offshore wind is considerably further advanced in its implementation than the other technologies, offshore wind is treated separately.

3.1 Offshore Wind 3.1.1 Technical Potential When considering the available wind energy resources across the global ocean, a geophysical potential may be estimated from knowledge of the global wind field. This global potential remains theoretical, however, and of little practical interest. For example, it is considered unrealistic to deploy wind turbines in the Southern Ocean, not only because of the difficult operating conditions, but also because of the distance to users of the electricity. The cost and even the energy expenditure associated with the manufacturing and laying of electric cables, the deployment of floating turbines at great ocean depths and the loss in transmission would prohibit any such project. A more interesting consideration is the technical potential (Fig.  3.5). The technical potential takes into account technical limitations and excludes inaccessible resources. What these technical limitations are will depend on technology developments and trends. Assessments therefore vary depending on the assumptions made. Bosch et al. (2018) estimate the global and regional offshore wind power potential. They consider three different

59

water depth ranges (0–40  m, 40–60  m and 60–1000  m) within the EEZ of each country. Various exclusion zones are accounted for. They find that the worldwide technical potential for power production from offshore wind amounts to about 330,000 TWh/year as compared with the world’s electric energy production in 2018 of about 26,700  TWh/year (IEA 2018) and the modelled offshore wind contribution in 2050  in Fig.  3.4 which corresponds to 9000  TWh/year. Bosch et al. (2018) also review resource estimates made by others. The global total estimates range from 157,000 TWh/ year to 631,000 TWh/year, depending upon the assumptions made. A similar study performed by Eurek et  al. (2017) estimated the global potential for offshore wind deployment while including various exclusion zones related to water depth, distance to shore, protected areas and sea ice. They ended up with an estimated potential of 315,000 TWh/year using a capacity factor of 0.285. IEA (2019b) has also made estimates on the technical potential for offshore wind, using somewhat different criteria for exclusion zones. The results are summarised in Table 3.1. The total global technical resources are found to be about 420,000 TWh/year. The above estimates for the global potential for offshore wind are 6 to 23 times the present global electricity consumption. Most of the estimates also exceed the presTable 3.1  Offshore Wind Potential (TWh/year)

North America Central and South America Europe Africa Middle East Eurasia Asia Pacific WORLD

Shallow water Deeper water (depth (depth 10,000 years) it takes to reverse this change through the dissolution of carbonates and other processes (IPCC 2013). Direct injection into the deep ocean is likely to be comparable to the cost of injecting CO2 into the seabed. However, there is real concern about using the ocean waters as a waste disposal site for CO2 from human industrial processes. Furthermore, storage of CO2 freely dissolved in the deep ocean eventually exchanges with the atmosphere, so the isolation of CO2 is not permanent. Therefore, it is far from certain that global political systems will encourage and credit deep-sea CO2 injection. A reasonable estimate on the lower bound of conceivable deployment rate in a highly aggressive mitigation strategy would therefore range from zero to the rate estimated for seabed disposal. Carbonate Dissolution Most of the ocean acidification caused by adding CO2 in the ocean will ultimately be neutralised over the longer term by the dissolution (and slower accumulation) of carbonate minerals on the seafloor, and from rock weathering products delivered to the ocean by rivers. Carbonate minerals will not dissolve in the surface ocean due to high levels of carbonate saturation (i.e., concentrations that are so high that they promote precipitation not dissolution). This fact led to the idea of using power plant flue gases to dissolve carbonate minerals, which would allow CO2 to be stored in the ocean with little adverse impact on ocean pH or mineral saturation states in the ocean (Rau and Caldeira 1999; Caldeira and Rau 2000). About 2.5 tonnes of carbonate minerals would need to be dissolved, however, for each tonne of CO2 stored in this way. This would require a huge and unprecedented mining infrastructure and would entail massive materials-handling costs and logistics. The costs have been estimated to be lower than for injection of relatively pure CO2 streams for cases in which the power plant is coastally located with access to carbonate mineral resources, because this approach does not require costly separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases and subsequent pressurisation (Rau and Caldeira 1999). However, since such facilities have never been built, cost estimates must be regarded as speculative. Regardless, such approaches would likely be cost-competitive only in  locations where both carbonate minerals and CO2 could be delivered to the ocean at low cost, which

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

is likely to be the case for less than 10% of total power plant CO2 emissions. Environmental concerns include the effects of a large scale-up of carbonate mineral mining and possible impacts on the marine environment of contaminants or incompletely dissolved particles. Rau and Caldeira (1999) estimated that perhaps 10% of electricity production might be located suitably near carbonate minerals to make carbonate dissolution a costeffective approach to carbon storage. However, there are environmental concerns about processing large amounts of seawater through carbonate reactors and using the ocean as a waste disposal site. A plausible range for this approach might therefore be from 0 to 10% of the magnitude estimated for all of carbon capture and storage (IPCC 2018). Alkalinity Addition The acidity caused by CO2 in the ocean, and the propensity of CO2 to de-gas from the ocean to the atmosphere, can be reduced or eliminated by the addition of alkaline (also known as basic) minerals (Renforth and Henderson 2017). Addition of these minerals to the ocean (Kheshgi 1995) could result in the ocean absorbing additional CO2 from the atmosphere (González and Ilyina 2016). Over 2.5 tonnes of rock would need to be mined and crushed to a fine powder (to overcome slow dissolution kinetics) for each tonne of CO2 stored in the ocean in this manner. As with carbonate dissolution, this option raises concerns related to huge expansion of mining infrastructure (silicate rock mining might need to expand by three orders of magnitude) (González and Ilyina 2016). Further, many of the proposed silicate source rocks contain substantial amounts of heavy metals (Hartmann et  al. 2013) and thus raise concerns about introduction of heavy metals into the marine environment. Because silicate rocks are abundant in Earth’s crust, there is no practical physical constraint, but if applied at scale, such ocean CO2 storage would represent “an unprecedented ocean biogeochemistry perturbation with unknown ecological consequences” (González and Ilyina 2016). Renforth and Henderson (2017) estimate the potential for very ambitious rates of deployment: A 50 MtCO2/year initial investment (roughly equivalent to the emissions of 10 of the largest cement plants in operation), followed by ramping up this capacity by about 7%/year, could achieve mitigation of 0.1 GtCO2/year by 2020. If the same initial investment were ramped up by about 10%/year, mitigation could reach 1 GtCO2/year. These might be considered plausible upper bounds. The lower bound must be considered zero, because it is not clear that the international community will accept adding large amounts of dissolved and/or particulate matter to the ocean as a climate mitigation strategy. Ocean Fertilisation Ocean fertilisation has been proposed as a means of transferring carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean. The

661

basic idea is to add inorganic nutrients to the near-surface ocean, thereby stimulating biological production of organic matter. Some of this organic matter would sink to the deeper ocean, where it would be metabolised and dissolved in the deeper ocean waters. Some additional CO2 would be absorbed from the atmosphere to replace the carbon that was removed by this additional biological activity. Some researchers have advocated fertilising the ocean with major nutrients that are often limiting, such as phosphate or nitrogen (Harrison 2017). Because of the large amounts of nutrients involved, however, most of the focus has been on environments in which the major nutrients are abundant, but other minor nutrients such as iron limit marine productivity (Williamson et al. 2012). The efficacy of ocean fertilisation is reduced by shallow oxidation of sinking organic matter with the relatively rapid return of carbon to the surface ocean. This phenomenon has also attracted concern regarding the increased respiration rates stimulated by the additional organic carbon falling into the deep ocean, leading to decreased oxygen at depth and an increased risk of dead zones (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2014). Further, fertilisation with micronutrients utilises major nutrients that might otherwise have supported productivity elsewhere; some local increase in productivity may come at the expense of decreased productivity elsewhere at a later time. The geophysical potential of ocean iron fertilisation has been estimated to be in the range of 0.25–0.75 GtCO2e/year averaged over a 100-year period (Williamson et al. 2012). Small-scale experiments to date suggest that adding iron dramatically changes the composition of the phytoplankton, which in turn triggers changes in zooplankton, fishes, and other higher trophic species. Many of these consequences are little understood. Concerns regarding effectiveness, permanence, verification, and unintended consequences, combined with concerns about disposing of CO2 in deeper ocean waters, mean that the lower bound on potential must be regarded as zero. The geophysical potential of ocean fertilisation is estimated to be about 1.8 GtCO2e/year. Plausibly, 10% of this geophysical potential could be achieved by 2030 and about half by 2050. While the geophysical potential of ocean-based storage of captured CO2 is large, the technical and economic mitigation potential is likely to be constrained by the technical challenges of making carbon capture and storage economically viable. Some of these technologies are likely to be technically feasible and cost-effective. Given the importance of reducing the amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean, understanding the full set of the impact of these solutions on ecosystems, such as the deep sea, is critical. Source: Authors

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

662

8 Wider Impacts of Ocean-based Actions This section presents analysis of the wider impacts (both positive and negative) of each of the five ocean-based intervention areas on the long-term Sustainable Development Dimensions and 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Increased efforts to reduce GHG emissions will affect multiple dimensions of long-term sustainable development, well-being, and governance in the form of cobenefits and trade-offs (IPCC 2018). Many interventions are likely to affect countries’ ability to achieve targets established within the framework of the UN 2030 Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs). Taking these wider impacts into account can help provide a more informed and holistic picture of pursuing ocean-based climate solutions. The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C scenarios integrated some of these wider impacts into its assessment of mitigation options; however, the ocean received relatively little attention. We address this major knowledge gap by focusing on four dimensions where wider impacts may be expected: the environment, the economy, society, and governance. These dimensions, their associated impact categories, and relevant UN SDGs are mapped in Table 17.15.

8.1 Methodology Wider impacts are evaluated with a weighted scoring method and an associated assessment of confidence levels. Our method is based on a similar approach adopted in

Chap. 5 of the IPCC 1.5 °C Special Report (Roy et  al. 2018). Based on a review of the existing literature and expert judgment (Box 17.9), the performance of each ocean-based mitigation option was assessed within each of the wider-impact dimensions (Table  17.15). The impact was described, scored, and weighted based on the following factors: • Direction of impact: The positive and/or negative direction of the impact of the mitigation option on the wider-­ impact dimensions and SDG goals was recorded. If a mitigation option was identified as having both a positive and negative impact, both were recorded. The net direction of impact was determined by the sum of the positive and negative impact scores. • Linkage score: The strength of the relationship between the mitigation option and the indicator was scored. Scores range from +3 (indivisible) to −3 (cancelling), with a “zero” score indicating ‘consistent’, but with neither a positive nor negative impact (Nilsson et al. 2016). A zero score also indicates that no relevant literature was found during this review. • Confidence in assessment: The confidence assessment was developed to reflect the robustness of the linkage scores. Confidence levels ranging from high to low were determined based on the level of evidence (number of studies and other articles) and level of agreement on the evidence presented in the literature. For each linkage score, an assessment of confidence was assigned, where increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (Mastrandrea et al. 2010).

Table 17.15  Wider impact dimensions explored in the report Wider-impact dimensions Environment Economy Society Governance

Associated impact categories Impact on marine and terrestrial biodiversity, water quality, land use, and adaptability of ecosystems and human settlements to climate change Impact on employment, household incomes, profits and/or revenues of firms, innovation, supply of clean energy, and economic growth Impact on human health outcomes, poverty reduction and food security targets, regional income inequality, quality of education, and gender equity Impact on national and local institutions, participation in global governance, global partnership for sustainable development, and capacity building

List of sustainable development goals reviewed:

Source: Authors

Links with near-term sustainable development goal targets and indicators SDGs 6, 12, 14, 15 SDGs 7, 8, 9, 11 SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 SDG 16 and 17

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

Box 17.10. Literature Review Method and Types of Evidence Analysed

A two-step procedure was followed as part of a review of the literature on wider impact analysis. First, the databases Scopus and Google Scholar, and the search engine Google were used in a literature search using various combinations of keywords and short search strings such as “Ocean energy” AND “sustainability,” “Ocean” AND “CCS,” AND “sustainability.” Second, the findings from the literature review were recorded and scored. Additional evidence was included based on feedback obtained through the expert review process. The types of evidence and number of studies are summarised in the table below. Please refer to Annex for further information on the scores and confidence assessments. Types of literature Case study Experimental Project-based Quantitative analysis

Review paper

Summary paper

Website

Report

Qualitative

Total number

Description Case studies specific to countries or region Results based on experiments Results reported based on project-level impacts Studies that have employed econometric, graphical, or statistical tools to find the impact of any intervention. This includes meta-analysis, scenario analysis, spatial analysis, and other modelling assessments Studies that exclusively mention “review” in their objective or methods This includes commentary, newspaper articles, discussion papers, policy briefs, and newsletters from international organisations Relevant information (such as examples of ongoing restoration programmes) provided on web pages owned and curated by international organisations Policy and analysis reports from international organisations, such as OECD, ETC, IRENA, FAO, IEA Academic papers and reports that present qualitative discussion of the impact of policies and international agreements

Number 10 11 2 46

16

14

5

31

4

139

Source: Authors Note: OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ETC Energy Transmissions Commission, IRENA International Renewal Energy Agency, FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, IEA International Energy Agency

663

8.2 General Findings of the Wider-Impacts Analysis All mitigation options demonstrated both positive and negative impacts, with varying strengths, across the four wider-­ impact dimensions (Fig. 17.12). The headline messages can be broadly summarized as follows: • All ocean-based mitigation options generate many cobenefits. Overall, cobenefits outweigh trade-offs and risks. However, these risks and trade-offs cannot be ignored, and concerted action to address negative impacts will help enhance net positive outcomes. • Of the five ocean intervention areas, protecting and restoring coastal and marine ecosystems, fisheries and aquaculture, and ocean-based energy have a positive impact on the largest number of sustainable development dimensions. When looking at individual mitigation options, protection and restoration of vegetated coastal habitats (mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses) and offshore renewable energy positively impact the largest number of sustainable development dimensions. • Mitigation options were observed to have the strongest links with the social and economic dimensions, implying that implementing these options in a sustainable manner would result in benefits in terms of higher employment in ocean-based industries, gains from technology spillover, increase in revenues and profits to firms, improvement in livelihoods of local communities, better human health outcomes, contribution towards global food security targets, and potential to ensure greater gender parity as ocean-based industries expand. • Protection and restoration of mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses has the highest number of and most strongly positive impacts on all the environmental dimensions assessed, indicating that there is potential to achieve many environmental cobenefits, including increased biodiversity-­related services, coastal resilience, and climate change adaptation benefits. • Trade-offs and risks are varied. Mitigation options aimed at recovering ocean biomass can negatively impact poverty reduction and employment targets and can limit progress on food security targets in the short term. Lack of community-level engagement on blue carbon restoration work can lead to negative outcomes for small-scale fishers who play a strategic role in providing jobs, supplying nutritional needs, and maintaining economic sustainability. • Environmental risks include impacts on coastal ecosystems or marine species from unassessed growth in ocean-­ based activities. Shifting diets, fisheries, and aquaculture

664

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 17.12  Linkage scores of ocean-based interventions and selected mitigation options across the wider impact dimensions. (Source: Authors. Notes: Wider-impact dimensions cover various sustainable development dimension as well as 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The figure shows the relative strength of the relationship between a selected set of ocean-based mitigation options and the SDGs. For each mitigation option, the positive linkage score with a particular SDG (depicted with solid bars) is shown in the right-hand column and negative linkage score (depicted by shaded bars) in the left-hand col-

umn. Scores range from +3 (indivisible) to −3 (cancelling) (Nilsson et al. 2016). A zero score (no bar and no colour) means no impact was found in this review of the literature. Each colour represents a particular wider impact dimension: Red bars for economy (SDG 7, 8, 9, 11); blue bars for environment (SDG6, SDG12, SDG14, SDG15); yellow bars for society (SDG1, SDG2, SDG3, SDG4, SDG5, SDG10) and green bars for Governance (SDG 16, SDG 17). Further information on the linkage scores and the associated confidence levels are provided in the Annex)

have a negative impact on the largest number of sustainable development dimensions. • Some of these risks and trade-offs can be adequately addressed via stakeholder engagement, inclusive management policies, monitoring, and effective marine planning. Others will require further research on their implications and in some instances will call for significant action on the part of decision-makers and policy implementers to ensure that negative impacts are reduced. • All ocean-based mitigation options will need strong national institutions; engagement by business, industry, and communities; and international cooperation to ensure their effective implementation.

8.3 Detailed Findings of the Wider-Impact Analysis 8.3.1 Ocean-Based Renewable Energy Effective Marine Spatial Planning, in Combination with Emerging Ocean Energy Technologies, will Be Effective in Mitigating Biodiversity Loss from Ocean Energy Technologies and Reinforcing Biodiversity Cobenefits (High Confidence) Offshore wind structures have positive and long-term effects on marine species because they provide new habitat in the form of artificial reefs and because fishing, mainly trawling, tend to be restricted in their vicinity (IRENA 2018a; Dinh

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

and McKeogh 2018). In contrast to offshore oil and gas installations, there is little risk of pollution, and no need for the development of new sites in response to long-term exhaustion of the resource (Spalding and de Fontabert 2007). Risks of developing ocean-based energy include biological invasions, noise and disturbance vibrations to marine species, collisions between birds and wind turbine rotors, and the presence of electromagnetic fields that can disrupt marine life and benthic habitats (MERiFIC 2012; IRENA 2017; Langhamer 2012). However, studies have shown that most perceptions of environmental impacts from ocean-based renewable devices arise from uncertainty or lack of definitive data about the real impacts (Copping et al. 2016). While it is important to acknowledge all the impacts on the marine environment as ocean-based renewable industry develops, some of the perceived risks are likely to be small and can be avoided or mitigated (Copping et  al. 2016). In the case of risks like collision with seabirds and impacts on migratory cetaceans, marine spatial planning appears to be appropriate mechanism to reduce risks to manageable levels (Best and Halpin 2019). Ocean-Based Renewables will have a Positive Impact on Reducing Water Use Compared to Fossil Fuel– Based Technologies (Medium Confidence) Offshore wind uses no water directly, and there should be an overall reduction in freshwater use compared to generating power from fossil fuels (Macknick et  al. 2011). There is potential to develop ocean energy technologies for a range of purposes, including desalination for drinking water (OES 2011). Replacing Fossil Fuels with Ocean-Based Renewable Energy Contributes to Positive Health Outcomes (Medium Confidence) The health benefits of moving to ocean-based renewable energy for power generation would be significant, particularly for regions that rely more heavily on coal and oil to generate electricity. Offshore wind in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States could produce health and climate benefits estimated at between US $54 and US $120 per MWh of generation, with the largest simulated facility (3000 MW off the coast of New Jersey) producing approximately US $690 million in benefits (Buonocore et al. 2016). Expansion of Ocean-Based Renewable Energy has the Potential to Promote Gender Equity (Low Confidence) A survey by IRENA revealed that women represent a higher proportion of full-time employees in the renewable energy industry, compared to their representation in the global oil and gas industry (IRENA 2019a, b, c, d). However, their participation is still low in science, technology, engineering, and

665

mathematics (STEM) jobs compared to administrative jobs. Greater participation of women would allow the sector to unleash female talent while ensuring equitable distribution of socioeconomic opportunities (IRENA 2019a, b, c, d). Expansion of Ocean-Based Renewable Energy Leads to Job Creation and Economic Growth (High Confidence) Estimates predict direct full-time employment in offshore wind will be around 435,000 globally by 2030 (OECD 2016). Analysis by Ocean Energy Systems shows that deployment of other forms of ocean energy (tidal range, wave power, and ocean thermal energy) can provide significant benefits in terms of new jobs and additional investments (OES 2017). Ocean-based renewable energy has the potential to provide employment to coastal communities and will benefit workers transitioning from declining offshore fossil fuel industries (Poulsen and Lema 2017; IRENA 2018a, b; Scottish Enterprise n.d.). However, the net global impacts of ocean-based energy on jobs are uncertain. Opportunities for Innovation Are Expected to Emerge with Expansion of Clean Ocean Energy, Promoting Scientific Research and Resulting in Upgraded Technological Capabilities (High Confidence) The ocean-based energy industry has experienced rapid growth in installed capacity, ongoing improvements in costs and performance, and increased technological sophistication (IRENA 2018a, b). Innovations in clean ocean energy include the potential to be integrated into and codeveloped with algae-growing facilities and aquaculture farms, and the ­ability to provide emission-free and drought-resistant drinking water to larger municipalities along the coast (OES 2015; Dirks et  al. 2018; Buck et  al. 2018). These technologies simultaneously help reduce GHG emissions and increase energy security and diversity (Dinh and McKeogh 2019). Further, there is a trend towards locating offshore energy production to support the expansion of offshore aquaculture production. A number of projects worldwide have started to invest in technologies and system design needed to enable species farming in high-energy environments (Buck et  al. 2018).

8.3.2 Ocean-Based Transport Reducing Emissions from Shipping Vessels will Help Mitigate Ocean Acidification (Medium Confidence) Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal “hotspots” of ocean acidification in ocean areas close to busy shipping lanes. Hotspots have negative effects on local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood species (Hassellöv et al. 2013).

666

Cleaner Marine Shipping Fuels will Reinforce Positive Human Health Outcomes (High Confidence) Reduced sulphur content of fuel oil used by ships will have beneficial impacts on human health, particularly the health of people living in port cities and coastal communities. Cleaner marine fuels are estimated to reduce premature mortality and morbidity by 34% and 54%, respectively. This represents a roughly 2.6% global reduction in cardiovascular and lung cancer deaths caused by small particulate matter (PM2.5) and a roughly 3.6% global reduction in incidence of childhood asthma (Sofiev et al. 2018).

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

vertically over time and thereby reduce the impacts of sea level rise and flooding (Duarte et  al. 2013). Communities with more extensive mangrove forests experience significantly lower losses from exposure to cyclones than communities without mangroves (Hochard et  al. 2019). Increased abundance of marine species is expected to enhance the productivity of surrounding areas, which can help buffer against climate impacts and increase their resilience (Gattuso et al. 2018).

Vegetated Coastal Habitats Offer High Biodiversity Benefits to Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems, Including Fisheries (Very High Confidence) Mitigation Options to Reduce Emissions Vegetated coastal habitats are used by a remarkable number from Shipping Can Encourage Innovation of marine and terrestrial animals (Li et al. 2018; Rog et al. and Upgrade the Technological Capabilities 2017), including species important for fisheries (Carrasquila of the Sector (High Confidence) Rapid development in power train technology will enable Henao and Juanes 2017). Dense vegetated habitats buffer international maritime transport to use alternative and less-­ acidification as primary production creates high net pH polluting fuels, such as hydrogen. The design of ships is (Kapsenberg and Cyronak 2019; Hendriks et  al. 2014; being improved to enable them to move more quickly Krause-Jensen et  al. 2016; Wahl et  al. 2018). Dense manthrough water, while using less fuel. A complex array of groves trap and stabilise sediments that buffer the effects of internet-of-things sensors is being developed that will allow floodwaters and tidal movements, and are coming to be reccollection of data around tidal streams, wind strength, and ognised as valuable natural systems that can play an imporvisibility. This information can be used to reduce vessel tant role in wastewater treatment systems (Ouyang and Guo waiting time, enable optimisation of routes, and support the 2016). concept of autonomous ships. Integration of Social and Gender Considerations into Restoration Policy for Vegetated Coastal Habitats Reducing Emissions from Shipping Could Potentially Can Promote Gender Equity and Educational Have a Marginal Impact on the Price Opportunities (Medium Confidence) of Internationally Traded Commodities (Medium Local educational institutions and programmes spread Confidence) While there could be efficiency and energy savings from bet- awareness in communities about the ecological importance ter design of ships and route optimisation, the cost to the of mangrove forests and encourage community members to shipping industry of switching to alternative fuels will be get involved in mangrove restoration efforts. Integrating high (ETC Mission Possible 2018; Kizielewiczm 2016; social and gender considerations into restoration practice Sislian and Jaegler 2016). This could result in significant promotes effectiveness of restoration work (Broekhoven increases in voyage and freight costs. However, at least one 2015; de la Torre-Castro 2019). Also, increasing women parstudy finds that these costs will have a marginal impact on ticipation in decision-making and valuing the traditional and the final product price of internationally traded commodities reproductive work of women in households will be important to ensure better governance and policy reform (Gissi et al. (ETC Mission Possible 2018). 2018; de la Torre-Castro 2019).

8.3.3 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Vegetated Coastal and Habitats (Blue Carbon Ecosystems) Contribute to Climate Change Adaptation by Increasing Coastal Resilience and Reducing the Impact of Sea Level Rise (Very High Confidence) Mitigation Options that Help Recovery of Ocean Biomass Can Also Result in Climate Change Adaptation Benefits (High Confidence) Vegetated coastal habitats reduce coastal flooding by slowing water flow rates and absorbing storm surges. They accrete

Restoring and Protecting Vegetated Coastal Habitats has the Potential to Create Jobs, Promote Economic Growth, and Enhance Research: Involvement of Small-Scale Fishers and Local Stakeholders Throughout the Decision-Making Process Is Crucial to Ensure Delivery of Net Positive Social Outcomes (High Confidence) Blue carbon projects require development of good practice methods and monitoring (Needelman et al. 2018). Manuals have been developed that support project developers through

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

the various phases of carbon project implementation, including feasibility and site selection, documentation, registration, implementation, and carbon asset management (Emmer et al. 2014). Job creation could follow successful restoration of coastal ecosystems; however, delivering jobs and other positive social outcomes are dependent on the participation of the affected communities throughout the policy development and implementation stages. Pushing forward blue carbon projects without social safeguards to consider demands from local small-scale fishers and other stakeholders who are heavily dependent on coastal resources for economic sustainability can have unintended negative consequences on societal well-being (Barbesgaard 2018; Bennett 2018; Friess et al. 2019a, b). Seaweed Farming has Low Levels of Environmental Risks Identified for Small-Scale Cultivation Projects (High Confidence) Seaweed farming may deliver a range of services and benefits and has the associated great advantage of not requiring arable land and irrigation (Duarte et al. 2017). The seaweed farming also offers climate change adaptation benefits (Duarte et al. 2017; Froehlich et al. 2019). However, while small-scale cultivation projects are considered low risk, expansion of the industry will require a more complete understanding of the scale-dependent changes to balance environmental risks and benefits (Campbell et  al. 2019). Risks include spreading disease, changing population genetics, and altering the wider local physiochemical environment (Campbell et  al. 2019). If not appropriately located, seaweed farms could also affect seagrass beds, and thereby disturb important flows of ecological goods and services (Eklöf et  al. 2005). Spatial planning, ongoing monitoring, and proper management are key to mitigating these impacts. Seaweed Production Can Lead to Job Creation, Economic Growth, and Enhanced Research (Medium Confidence): It Has a Potential Role in Providing Affordable Energy (Low Confidence) The seaweed cultivation industry currently accounts for around 51% of total mariculture production and was valued at US $11.7 billion in 2016 (FAO 2018; Chopin 2018b). The rapidly expanding business is providing many jobs, predominantly in developing and emerging economies (Cottier-Cook et al. 2016). Seaweed biomass has potential as a source of various biofuels although it is evident that there are significant technological hurdles to be overcome before seaweed biofuel is viable in either energy or economic terms (Milledge et al. 2014).

667

Seaweed Farming and Restoring Wetlands Strengthen Capacity to Meet Food Security Targets (Medium Confidence): Healthy Mangroves Positively Impact Health Outcomes for Coastal Communities Through Provision of Food and Medicine to Local Residents (Medium Confidence) Expansion of seaweed farming in several continents is contributing to global food security, supporting rural livelihoods, and alleviating poverty (Cottier-Cook et al. 2016). Healthy mangroves are important to human societies, providing a variety of ecological services that are critical to human livelihoods and food security, such as providing nursery grounds for important species, improving fisheries production, and filtering and detoxifing water (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2018). Mangroves are a direct source of food and traditional medicine for local inhabitants (Bandaranayake 1998). Mitigation Options to Rebuild Ocean Biomass Can Contribute to Poverty Reduction (Low Confidence) Marine protected areas have contributed to poverty reduction by improving fish catch, creating new jobs in tourism, strengthening local governance, benefitting human health, and enhancing women’s opportunities (Leisher et al. 2007). Marine protected areas require monitoring and continuing study that will contribute to our ecological understanding of the ocean and promote scientific innovation (Nippon Foundation 2017). Mitigation Options to Rebuild Ocean Biomass Can Also Negatively Impact Poverty Reduction and Employment Targets, and Can Limit Progress on Food Security Targets (Low Confidence) Marine protection can have negative relationships with ending poverty and reducing inequalities (Singh et al. 2018). For example, ending overfishing and harmful fishing subsidies can conflict with targets related to youth employment if fleet capacity is reduced (Singh et al. 2018). These trade-offs may be avoided through stakeholder consultation and implementation. Conflicts may be temporary and, in the long term, potential increases in marine productivity could increase jobs and resources for people. Evidence shows that declines in fish catch pose risks of nutritional deficiency, especially in developing countries (Golden et  al. 2016), and reforms to fishery management could dramatically improve overall fish abundance (compared to BAU) while increasing food security and profits (Costello et al. 2016). However, designating marine protected areas may restrict coastal people’s access to local marine resources, which could limit progress on SDG targets associated with ending hunger (Singh et al. 2018).

668

8.3.4 Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Dietary Shifts Aquaculture Can Present Numerous Societal and Environmental Challenges: Unplanned Aquaculture Expansion in Some Regions Has Negatively Impacted Other Coastal and Terrestrial Ecosystems (High Confidence) Aquaculture is associated with multiple environmental impacts, such as eutrophication and spread of invasive species. Unplanned growth in shrimp aquaculture has led to the loss of mangrove ecosystems (Valiela et al. 2001; Richards and Friess 2017), which has in turn led to large CO2 emissions (Murdiyarso et  al. 2015), salinisation, erosion, and reduced coastal resilience (Hochard et al. 2019). Integration of mangroves into aquaculture landscapes may restore some ecosystem services (Hochard et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2019). Improvement in Feed Conversion Ratio and Use of Plant-Based Ingredients in Aquaculture Feed Rather Than Animal By-Products to Meet The Demand of the Rapidly Growing Marine Aquaculture Sector Can Potentially Reduce Water Use (Medium Confidence) Given the global supply of fishmeal may be near biological limits (Costello et al. 2012), ensuring that feed for a rapidly growing aquaculture sector comes from terrestrial crops or seaweeds rather than animal by-products would have a positive impact on water use. Reduction in feed conversion ratio in aquaculture production also reduces upstream water use. However, increased inclusion of terrestrial plant-based ingredients may lead to competition for land and water, causing social and environmental conflicts, which may in turn affect the resilience of the global food system (Pahlow et al. 2015; Pelletier et al. 2018; Troell et al. 2014; Blanchard et al. 2017; Malcorps et  al. 2019). Many traditional crop-based substitutes are themselves carbon-intensive to produce; they can also adversely affect fish or crustacean growth and health, especially for farmed predator species. Consequently, there have been significant efforts in recent decades to identify new, highly nutritious, and, ideally, low-impact feed sources. Reducing High Levels of Meat Consumption Among Some Populations and Substituting by Balanced Ocean-Based Protein Has Positive Human Health Benefits: The Overall Impact Depends on Whether Ocean-Based Protein Is Sourced from Sustainable Production Sources or From Indiscriminate Expansion of Aquaculture That Could Negatively Impact Coastal Ecosystems (High Confidence) High consumption of saturated fats, present in a red meat– based diet, has been linked to cardiovascular disease and

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

c­ ertain forms of cancer. Consuming ocean-based proteins, in moderate quantities, ensures a higher intake of bioactive compounds as well as micronutrients, fibre, and omega-3 fatty acids, all of which have well-documented health benefits (Tilman and Clark 2014; González Fischer and Garnett 2016; Simões-Wüst and Dagnelie 2019; Blas et  al. 2019; Hollander et  al. 2018; Oita et  al. 2018). A significant shift from red meat among today’s high consumers would dramatically reduce the land and water demands of livestock production (especially cows and sheep) (Poore and Nemecek 2018; Nijdam et al. 2012) and would also reduce the carbon emissions associated with land clearance for pasture (Searchinger et al. 2019). Mitigation Options Related to Increasing Ocean-­Based Protein in Diets and Reducing Emissions in Fisheries and Aquaculture Would Result in Job Creation and Savings for Households, and Encourage Technological Innovation (High Confidence) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that employment in industrial-­scale marine aquaculture will be 3.2 million in 2030, an increase of 1.1 million from 2010 levels. As fuel is a particularly high cost for fishers in developing countries (Lam et al. 2011), structural changes to fisheries that reduce fuel consumption will be economically beneficial. Innovations in developing fish meal substitutes and improving feed efficiency will be crucial to support a rapidly growing aquaculture sector.

8.3.5 Storing Carbon in the Seabed There Are Large Uncertainties Regarding the Environmental Implications of Carbon Storage Options in the Ocean (High Confidence) The discussion below does not capture the impacts of carbonate dissolution, alkalinity addition, or ocean fertilisation, which has not been quantified in this report due to the high degree of risk and relatively unknown impacts at this stage. It only considers the impacts of seabed carbon storage. For further information on the broader set of options and why they are not viable at this time, please refer to the Sect. 7. The injection of CO2 into submarine geological structures could potentially result in leakages of CO2 back into the marine environment (Rastelli et  al. 2016), affecting the health and function of marine organisms (Queirós et  al. 2014). However, there is uncertainty about the gravity of the impacts of CO2 leakage, especially at the species community level (Adams and Caldeira 2008). Recent evidence indicates that leakage can be reduced if storage sites are well chosen,

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

and well managed and monitored (van der Zwaan and Gerlagh 2016). However, understanding the full range of impacts on ecosystems associated with these solutions is of critical importance. Scientific understanding must be advanced if these technologies are to be used safely and without unintended consequences.

669

and the desired pathway that would hold global warming to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels. Ocean-based interventions could close up to 21% of the emissions gap by 2050. If the world pursues the less ambitious target of 2.0 °C, ocean-­ based interventions could close 25% of the emissions gap by 2050. Many of the mitigation options presented in this report Offshore Investments in Seabed Storage Can Lead can be implemented now with technologies that are already to Job Creation, Economic Growth, and Innovation available. To realise these benefits, however, will require sig(Low Confidence) nificant steps over the coming years—especially with respect Potential benefits in terms of direct job creation, as well as to clear policy signals from governments, as well as a greatly job retention in harder-to-abate sectors (e.g., heavy indus- increased and targeted investment in research and tries and fossil fuel based sectors) by allowing them to func- development. tion with appropriate CCS infrastructure investment/ The options outlined in this report are important not only development. A study estimated that carbon capture and to support efforts to decarbonise the global economy in line storage investments in UK would lead to the creation or with the goals of the Paris Agreement. They also offer an retention of 225,600 jobs and a cumulative £54 billion in array of valuable cobenefits in terms of enhanced human gross value added (GVA) by 2060 (East Coast UK Carbon health and well-being. In this regard, they contribute to Capture and Storage Investment Study 2017). improving the resilience of coastal communities and infraEvidence indicates a strong need for policy innovation to structure, expanding jobs and economic opportunities, kick-start carbon capture and storage infrastructure invest- enhancing biodiversity, and strengthening food security. ment (Goldthorpe and Ahmed 2017). Many of these wider benefits are synergistic with and will The purpose of the analysis of the wider impacts of ocean-­ support the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development based interventions is to provide insight into the cobenefits Goals by 2030. However, risks of negative wider impacts as well as risks and trade-offs associated with specific miti- cannot be ignored and require detailed attention in policy gation actions. The approach used here aims to help policy- development, and project planning and implementation. This makers evaluate the climate benefits in the context of multiple must be the responsibility of all involved stakeholders—govcobenefits and trade-offs that arise from implementing vari- ernments, the private sector, researchers, project managers, ous ocean-based mitigation options. It is our hope that this and local communities. report will enable discussion of the corrective measures that When considering the political implications of this might be needed to alleviate unintended consequences of report, the message is clear. Bold political leadership and actions and avoid unnecessary risks and trade-offs. The anal- clear policy signals will be required to capitalise on the full ysis does not attempt a cost-benefit assessment of the mitiga- potential of the solutions explored in this report, coupled tion options, which should be a key step in the implementation with strong national institutions and international cooperaof any ocean-based mitigation option. tion to ensure their effective implementation. Table 17.16 outlines the policy and research actions that must be established over the next 10 years if we are to make significant 9 Conclusion progress in closing the emissions gap and avoid a climate crisis. This report establishes the potentially significant role of the Ultimately, the ocean, its coastal regions, and the ecoocean in limiting global temperature rise, in line with the nomic activities they support should be a source of inspiragoals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Analyses tion and hope in the fight against climate change. With the in this report reveal that ocean-based mitigation options can backdrop of a growing climate catastrophe, the timing of this make a significant contribution to narrowing the emissions report is critical, and there could not be a more compelling gap that lies between a pathway based on “Current Policy” case for urgent action.

670

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 17.16  Short- and medium-term policy, research, and technology priorities necessary to deliver on mitigation potential of ocean-based areas of intervention Ocean-based energy Policy Short-term • Undertake marine spatial planning priorities • Develop national targets to increase the share of (2020–2023) renewable energy in the national energy mix • Provide a stable economic and regulatory framework to stimulate investments in required infrastructure for an accelerated deployment of ocean-based energy systems Medium-­ • Develop strategic national roadmaps for term zero-carbon economy in 2050 priorities • Develop appropriate legislation and regulation (2023–2025)

Research • Understand the impacts (positive and negative) of both fixed and floating offshore wind installations on marine biodiversity • Undertake a detailed mapping of global renewable energy resources and technical potential • Understand the potential benefits of co-location with other ocean-­based industries (e.g., desalination plants and aquaculture) • Explore the potential for installing large scale floating solar installations at sea (under wave conditions) • Quantify the potential of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)

Ocean-based transport Short-term • Redesign the energy efficiency design index • Identify and rectify of market and priorities (EEDI) formula to avoid vessels being nonmarket barriers and failures to (2020–2023) suboptimised for the test only, to ensure that enable larger uptake of more instead vessels are being optimised for energy-efficient technologies and minimised fuel consumption in real operation at cooperation patterns sea • Ensure continuous research on ship • Adopt policy measures to go beyond Ship Energy design, including hull forms and Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) to propulsion, with a focus on incentivise the maximisation of operational reducing energy usage per freight efficiency of new and existing ships unit transported • Adopt policies that can reduce the broader GHG • Increase focus on utilisation of emissions of shipping instead of CO2 only, wind, waves, ocean currents, and including well-to-tank emissions (WTW) of ship sun to reduce use of externally fuels provided energy, i.e., both the carbon and non-carbon-based fuels carried on board Medium-­ • Develop policy to enable the business case for • Develop cost-effective production term the adoption of low and zero carbon fuels by of low- and zero-carbon fuels, both priorities shipping (e.g. a carbon price) from renewables and from carbon (2023–2025) • Commit to the timetable for shipping’s transition based in combination with carbon to low- and zero-carbon fuels capture and storage (CCS) • Develop national incentives for decarbonising • Develop cost-efficient hybrid domestic transportation setups on seagoing vessels to utilise • Commit to decarbonisation of national energy the best of combustion, fuel cells, systems faster or as fast as the transition in the and batteries to reduce fuel international fleet consumption and local pollution • Ensure safe storage and handling on ships and at the ship-shore interface of hydrogen/ammonia • Ensure safe and efficient use of hydrogen and ammonia in internal combustion engines and fuel cells

Technology • Advance storage capacity and design • Improve performance, reliability, and survivability, while reducing costs

• Advance technology that can move technologies into deeper water sites (e.g., development of floating offshore wind technologies) to open access to larger areas of energy resources

• Develop the necessary high efficiency hull forms and propulsion methods • Develop and implement hybrid power systems, including combustion engines, fuel cells, and batteries technologies • Develop and implement wind assistance technologies • Develop more advanced weather routing systems to better utilise wind, waves, ocean currents, and tides to reduce the use of both carbon and non-carbon fuel carried on board • Advance technologies for producing hydrogen, both from renewables and carbon-based fuels • Invest in technologies to store hydrogen (including cryogenic storage of liquid hydrogen, or carriers able to store at highenergy density) • Invest in fuel cells for conversion of future fuels into on-board electricity, and internal combustion engines designed to operate on hydrogen/ammonia

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

671

Table 17.16 (continued) Ocean-based energy Policy Coastal and marine ecosystems Short-term • Enhance protection measures for mangroves, priorities seagrass, salt marsh, and seaweed beds to prevent (2020–2023) any further losses due to human activities • Provide incentives for restoration of “blue carbon” ecosystems, through payments for ecosystem service schemes, such as carbon and nutrient trading credits • Include quantified nature-based solutions within nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and other relevant climate policies for mitigation and adaptation • Protect coral reefs as important and integrated coastal defence systems for ensuring the protection of coastal blue carbon ecosystems

Medium-­ • Enhance and adopt carbon accounting term methodologies for mangroves, seagrasses and priorities salt marsh within national GHG inventories (2023–2025) (IPCC 2013) • Improve methods for monitoring mitigation benefits to enable accounting within national GHG inventories, and biennial transparency reports (BTRs) Fisheries, aquaculture, and dietary shifts Short-term • Eliminate harmful fisheries subsidies (SDG14.6) priorities • Strengthen international tools to eliminate IUU (2020–2023) fishing (SDG14.5) • Avoid the transport of fish by air • Reduce discards • Reduce and eliminate hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in refrigerants • Create incentives for shifting diets towards low-carbon protein (e.g., fish) and other food (e.g., seaweed) diets • Create incentives to improve fishery management • Create incentives for lower trophic- level aquaculture • Devise sustainable finance mechanisms for small-scale fishery transitions to sustainable fishing Medium-­ • Create incentives to switch from high-carbon term land-based sources of protein to low-carbon priorities ocean-based sources (2023–2025 • Improve fisheries management to focus on optimising biomass per harvest Seabed carbon storage Short-term • Invest in pilot projects to further explore priorities potential environmental impacts (2020–2023) • Incentivise public/private partnerships

Research

Technology

• Undertake national-level mapping of blue carbon ecosystems • Address biophysical, social, and economic impediments to ecosystem restoration to develop restoration priorities, enhance incentives for restoration, and increase levels of success • Improve the IPCC guidance for seagrasses and other wetland ecosystems • Develop legal mechanisms for long-term preservation of blue carbon, especially in a changing climate • Understand the impacts of climate change on rates of carbon capture and storage, or the potential for restoration • Undertake global-scale map of seaweed ecosystems • Develop IPCC-approved methodological guidance for seaweed ecosystems • Develop methods to fingerprint seaweed carbon beyond the habitat

• Advance biorefining techniques, allowing sequential extraction of seaweed products

• Develop disaggregated global data sets for GHG emissions from wild catch fisheries and marine aquaculture • Impacts of scaling marine aquaculture and associated sustainability considerations (e.g., low carbon and climate resilient, environmentally safe) • Enhance understanding of how climate change and ocean acidification will impact aquaculture and fisheries

• Extend surveillance technologies for tracking fishing in the ocean and along coastal areas

• Explore potential impact of a carbon tax on red meat and other carbon intensive foods

• Develop and bring to scale high-technology digital aquaculture

• Develop and pilot offshore and multiuse sites, including seaweed aquaculture, in the open ocean

• Map global geophysical potential • Few major technical advances • Understand the impacts of are required as seabed storage is long-lasting containment of CO2 in already deployed at industrial a deep seafloor environment scale (continued)

672

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 17.16 (continued) Ocean-based energy Policy Research Medium-­ • Develop national strategies and targets • Understand the impacts of term • Develop regulatory frameworks to ensure long-term storage on marine priorities environmental impact assessments and associated ecosystems (2023–2025) precautions are put in place • Explore the integrity of long-term storage technologies (leakage)

Technology • Scale up technologies in ways that are economically feasible

Source: Authors Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people for their review, feedback, and inputs: Adelino Canario, Angela Martin, Adrien Vincent, Beth Fulton, Craig Hansen David Mouillot, David Waskow, Diane Gilpin, Dorothee Herr, Emily Landis, Emily Pidgeon, George Leonard, Gregory Taff, Helen Ding, Ines Aguiar Branco, James Mulligan, Jane Lubchenco, Johannes Friedrich, Johannes Pagenkopf, Juan Carlos, Kelly Levin, Kevern Chochrane, Kristian Teleki, Lisa Schindler Murray, Manuel Barange, Matthew Elliott, Mark Spalding, Michael MacLeod, Narcisa Bandarra, Rashid Sumaila, Tim Scarbrough, Timothy Fitzgerald and Trisha Atwood. While our colleagues were very generous with their time and input, this report reflects the views of the authors alone. Thank you also to Bill Dugan, Carni Klirs, Emily Matthews, Margie Peters-Fawcett, Romain Warnault and Shazia Amin for providing administrative, editing, and design support.

About the Authors Convening Lead Author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Professor and Director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland Contact: [email protected]

Expert Authors Ken Caldeira Climate Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution and Professor, Department of Earth System Sciences Stanford University Contact: [email protected] Thierry Chopin Professor of Marine Biology, Seaweed and Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Brunswick Contact: [email protected] Steve Gaines Dean and Distinguished Professor, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University California, Santa Barbara Contact: [email protected] Peter Haugen

Programme Director, Institute of Marine Research Contact: [email protected] Mark Hemer Principal Research Scientist, Ocean and Atmosphere Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Contact: [email protected] Jennifer Howard Marine Climate Change Director, Conservation International Contact: [email protected] Manaswita Konar Lead Ocean Economist, World Resources Institute and High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy Secretariat Contact: [email protected] Dorte Krause-Jensen Senior Scientist, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University Contact: [email protected] Catherine Lovelock Professor, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland Contact: [email protected] Elizabeth Lindstad Chief Scientist, SINTEF Ocean Contact: [email protected] Mark Michelin Director, California Environmental Associates Contact: [email protected] Finn Gunnar Nielsen Professor, Head Bergen Offshore Wind Centre (BOW) Contact: [email protected] Eliza Northrop Senior Associate, World Resources Institute and High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy Secretariat Contact: [email protected] Robert W. R. Parker Killam Postdoctoral Fellow, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University Contact: [email protected] Joyashree Roy Professor of Economics, Jadavpur University Contact: [email protected]

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action

Tristan Smith Reader in Energy and Shipping, Bartlett School Environment, Energy & Resources, Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL Energy Institute Contact: [email protected] Shreya Some Senior Research Fellow, Jadavpur University Contact: [email protected] Peter Tyedmers Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University Contact: [email protected]

References Abroms LC, Maiboch EW (2008) The effectiveness of mass communication to change public behavior. Annu Rev Public Health 29:219–234 Adams EE, Caldeira K (2008) Ocean storage of CO2. Elements 4(5):319–324. https://people.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/migrated/ ocea213/readings/15_GeoEngineer/C_sequestration/adams_2008_ Elements_CALDERIA_Ocean_CO2_Storeage.pdf Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. In: ESA Working paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome Allison EH, Ratner BD, Åsgård B, Willmann R, Pomeroy R, Kurien J (2012) Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish Fish 13(1):14–29 Alvarez-Silva OA, Osorio AF, Winter C (2016) Practical global salinity gradient energy potential. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:1387–1395 Arias-Ortiz A, Serrano O, Masqué P, Lavery PS, Mueller U, Kendrick GA, Jamaludin MR et al (2018) A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world’s largest seagrass carbon stocks. Nat Clim Chang 8:338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­018-­0096-­y Arnason R, Kelleher K, Willmann R (2009) The sunken billions: the economic justification for fisheries reform. Joint publication of the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington Arnason R, Kobayashi M, de Fontaubert C (2017) The Sunken billions revisited: progress and challenges in global marine fisheries. The World Bank, Washington Atwood TB, Connolly RM, Ritchie EG, Lovelock CE, Heithaus MR, Hays GC, Fourquerean JW et al (2015) Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems. Nat Clim Chang 5(12):1038 Atwood TB, Connolly RM, Almahasheer H, Carnell PE, Duarte CM, Lewis CJE, Irigoien X et al (2017) Global patterns in mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat Clim Chang 7(7):523 Bahar H (2019) TCEP: ocean power. [Online]. https://www.Iea.org. Accessed 10 September Bandaranayake WM (1998) Traditional and medicinal uses of mangroves. Mangrove Salt Marshes 2(3):133–148 Barbesgaard M (2018) Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? J Peasant Stud 45(1):130–149 Barner AK, Lubchenco J, Costello C, Gaines SD, Leland A, Jenks B, Murawski S et al (2015) Solutions for recovering and sustaining the bounty of the ocean: combining fishery reforms, rights-based fisheries management, and marine reserves. Oceanography 28:252–263 Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on earth. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(25):6506–6511. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

673

Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ et al (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074 Bell M, Deyes K, Fitzpatrick N, Wilson C, Chase A, Lewis C, Bates G (2019) Reducing the maritime sector’s contribution to climate change and air pollution: economic opportunities from low and zero emission shipping. Department for Transport, London Bennett NJ (2018) Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable oceans. Mar Policy 97:139–146 Best BD, Halpin PN (2019) Minimizing wildlife impacts for offshore wind energy development: winning tradeoffs for seabirds in space and cetaceans in time. PLoS ONE 14(5):e0215722. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215722 Blanchard JL, Watson RA, Fulton EA, Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Bryndum-­ Buchholz A, Büchner M et  al (2017) Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1240–1249 Blas A, Garrido A, Unver O, Willaarts B (2019) A comparison of the Mediterranean diet and current food consumption patterns in Spain from a nutritional and water perspective. Sci Total Environ 664:1020–1029. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/30769304 Bosch J, Staffell I, Hawkes AD (2018) Temporally explicit and spatially resolved global offshore wind energy potentials. Energy 163:766– 781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.153 Bouman E, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-­ the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping: a review. Transp Res D 52:408–421 Bridgham SD, Patrick Megonigal J, Keller JK, Bliss NB, Trettin C (2006) The carbon balance of north American wetlands. Wetlands 26(4):889–916 Broekhoven S (2015) Quality and safety aspects of mealworms as human food Buck BH, Troell MF, Krause G, Angel D, Grote B, Chopin T (2018) State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Front Mar Sci 5(165):1–21 Buhaug Ø, Corbett JJ, Endresen Ø, Eyring V, Faber J, Hanayama S, Lee DS et al (2009) Second IMO GHG Study 2009. International Maritime Organization, London. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/ Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/ SecondIMOGHGStudy2009.pdf Bunting P, Lucas R, Rosenqvist A, Rebelo L-M, Hilarides L, Thomas N, Hardy A et al (2018) The global mangrove watch—a new 2010 baseline of mangrove extent. Remote Sens 10:1669. https://doi. org/10.3390/rs10101669 Buonocore JJ, Luckow P, Fisher J, Kempton W, Levy JI (2016) Health and climate benefits of offshore wind facilities in the mid-­ Atlantic United States. Environ Res Lett 11(7):19. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-­9326/11/7/074019/meta Caldeira K, Rau GH (2000) Accelerating carbonate dissolution to sequester carbon dioxide in the ocean: geochemical implications. Geophys Res Lett 27:225–228 Campbell I, Macleod A, Sahlmann C, Neves L, Funderud J, Overland M, Hughes AD et al (2019) The environmental risks associated with the development of seaweed farming in Europe—prioritizing key knowledge gaps. Front Mar Sci 6:107 Carrasquila Henao M, Juanes F (2017) Mangroves enhance local fisheries catches: a global meta-analysis. Fish Fish 18:79–93. https://doi. org/10.1111/faf.12168 Cascajo R, Garcia E, Quiles E, Correcher A, Morant F (2019) Integration of marine wave energy converters into seaports: a case study in the Port of Valencia. Energies 12:787. https://doi. org/10.3390/en12050787 Chopin T (2015) Marine aquaculture in Canada: well-established monocultures of finfish and shellfish and an emerging integrated multi-­

674 trophic aquaculture (IMTA) approach including seaweeds, other invertebrates, and microbial communities. Fisheries 40(1):28–31 Chopin T (2017) Seaweed aquaculture–from the global, mostly Asian, picture to the opportunities and constraints of the Canadian scene. Bull Aquac Assoc Can 1:3–8 Chopin T (2018a) Seaweeds: a multi-purposed bioresource well-­ suited for integrated sequential biorefinery (ISBR) processing. Int Aquafeed 21(11):14–15 Chopin T (2018b) Seaweeds: the world’s largest mariculture crop. Int Aquafeed 21(8):14–15 Climate Action Tracker (2018). Some progress since Paris, but not enough, as governments amble Copping A, Sather N, Hanna L, Whiting J, Zydlewski G, Staines G, Gill A et  al (2016) Annex IV 2016 state of the science report: environmental effects of marine renewable energy development around the world. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/ state-­of-­the-­science-­2016 Costello C, Ovando D, Hilborn R, Gaines SD, Deschenes O, Lester SE (2012) Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338(6106):517–520 Costello C, Ovando D, Clavelle T, Strauss CK, Hilborn R, Melnychuk MC, Branch TA et  al (2016) Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(18):5125–5129 Cottier-Cook EJ, Nagabhatla N, Badis Y, Campbell ML, Thierry C, Dai W, Fang J et  al (2016) Safeguarding the future of the global seaweed aquaculture industry. United Nations University (INWEH) and Scottish Association for Marine Science Policy Brief, Tokyo. https://blogs.unb.ca/newsroom/_media/images/2016/09/2482893c8 3ca06153f5dc3a627a59d6bcottier-­cook-­briefing-­1.pdf Couture V, Faber B, Gu Y, Liu L (2018) E-Commerce integration and economic development: evidence from China. NBER Working Paper 24384. de la Torre-Castro M (2019) Inclusive management through gender consideration in small-scale fisheries: the why and the how. Front Mar Sci 6:156 de los Santos CB, Krause-Jensen D, Alcoverro T, Marbà N, Duarte CM, van Katwijk MM, Pérez M et  al (2019) Recent trend reversal for declining European seagrass meadows. Nat Commun 10:3356 Dinh VN, McKeogh E (2018) Offshore wind energy: technology opportunities and challenges. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Adv Offshore Eng 18:3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­2306-­5_31 Dinh VN, McKeogh E (2019) Offshore wind energy: technology opportunities and challenges. In: Randolph M, Doan D, Tang A, Bui M, Dinh V (eds) Proceedings of the 1st Vietnam symposium on advances in offshore engineering: energy an geotechnics (lecture notes in civil engineering 18). Springer, Singapore. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­2306-­5_1 Dirks WG, Kappen JMJ, Scheltens RD, Winkes J, Wochner MS (2018) Sustainable offshore wind energy: faster and larger at lower cost and less environmental impact. Proc Annu Offshore Technol Conf 5:3246–3265. www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-­s2.0-­­ 85050551938&partnerID=40&md5=cfdc0566b3dbf0d735a6742ae e2d128b Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Carruthers TJ (2008) The charisma of coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbalance. Estuar Coasts 31(2):233–238 Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marbà N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3(11):961 Duarte CM, Wu J, Xiao X, Bruhn A, Krause-Jensen D (2017) Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100 Dutreuil S, Bopp L, Tagliabue A (2009) Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability. Biogeosciences 6:901–912. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-­9326/10/3/034016

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan East Coast UK Carbon Capture and Storage Investment Study (2017) Clean air—clean industry—clean growth: how carbon capture will boost the UK economy. http://www.ccsassociation.org/news-­a nd-­e vents/reports-­a nd-­p ublications/ clean-­air-­clean-­industry-­clean-­growth/ Eklöf JS, de la Torre Castro M, Adelsköld L, Jiddawi NS, Kautsky N (2005) Differences in macrofaunal and seagrass assemblages in seagrass beds with and without seaweed farms. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 63(3):385–396 Elder RW, Shults RA, Sleet DA, Nichols JL, Thompson RS, Rajab W (2004) Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes. A systematic review. Am J Prev Med 27:57–65 Emmer I, Needelman B, Emmett-Mattox S, Crooks S, Megonigal P, Myers D, Oreska M et al (2014) Methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration. VM0033. Verified Carbon Standard Energy and Utility Skills Ltd. 2017. Skills and labour requirements of the UK offshore wind industry: 2018 to 2032. Solihull, UK. https:// aurawindenergy.com/uploads/publications/Aura-­EU-­Skills-­UK-­ Offshore-­Wind-­Skills-­Study-­Full-­Report-­October-­2018.pdf Esteves LS, Williams JJ (2017) Managed realignment in Europe: a synthesis of methods, achievements and challenges. In: Bilkovic DM, Mitchell MM, Toft JD, La Peyre MK (eds) Living shorelines: the science and management of nature-based coastal protection. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 157–180 ETC Mission Possible (2018) Mission possible: reaching net-zero carbon emissions from harder-to-abate subsectors by mid-century. ETC, Mission Possible. http://www.energy-­transitions.org/sites/ default/files/ETC_MissionPossible_FullReport.pdf European Commission (2018) In-depth analysis in support of the commission communication (2018) 773: a clean planet for all—a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. European Commission, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/ com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf Evans L, Cherrett N, Pemsl D (2011) Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-­ analysis. J Environ Manag 92(8):1938–1949 Faber J, t’Hoen M, Vergeer R, Calleya J (2016) Historical trends in ship design efficiency. CE Delft, Delft FAO (2013) The state of food and agriculture 2012: investing in agriculture for a better future. FAO, Rome, p 165. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/017/i3028e/i3028e.pdf; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ i3300e/i3300e.pdf FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018: meeting the sustainable development goals. FAO, Rome Farmery A, Gardner C, Green BS, Jennings S (2014) Managing fisheries for environmental performance: the effects of marine resource decision-­making on the footprint of seafood. J Clean Prod 64:368–376 Filbee-Dexter K, Wernberg T, Norderhaug KM, Ramirez-Llodra E, Pedersen MF (2018) Movement of pulsed resource subsidies from kelp forests to deep fjords. Oecologia 187(1):291–304 Friess DA, Rogers K, Lovelock CE, Krauss KW, Hamilton SE, Lee SY, Lucas R et  al (2019a) The state of the world’s mangrove forests: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44:89 Friess DA, Lovelock CE, Aung T, Mukherjee N, Huxham M, Sasmito S (2019b) SDG14 ‘life below water. In: Sustainable development goals: their impacts on forests and people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Froehlich HE, Afflerbach JC, Frazier M, Halpern BS (2019) Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041 Gattuso J-P, Magnan AK, Bopp L, Cheung WWL, Duarte CM, Hinkel J, Mcleod E et al (2018) Ocean solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front Mar Sci 5:337. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action Global Carbon Budget (2018) Earth Syst. Sci. 10:2141–2194. https:// doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 GEA (2012) Toward a sustainable future. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A et al (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock— a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome GESAMP (2019) High level review of a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques. Rep Stud 98:144. http://www.gesamp. org/publications/high-­level-­review-­of-­a-­wide-­range-­of-­proposed-­ marine-­geoengineering-­techniques Gissi E, Portman ME, Hornidge AK (2018) Un-Gendering the ocean: why women matter in ocean governance for sustainability. Mar Policy 94:215–219 Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2017) Healthy diets for all: a key to meeting the SDGS. Policy Brief No. 10. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London. https://glopan.org/sites/default/files/ SDGPolicyBrief.pdf Golden CD, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M et  al (2016) Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320. https://doi. org/10.1038/534317a Goldthorpe W, Ahmed S (2017) Policy innovation for offshore CO2 transport and storage deployment. Energy Procedia 114:7540–7549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1886 González CG (2011) Climate change, food security, and agrobiodiversity: toward a just, resilient, and sustainable food system. Fordham Environ Law Rev 22:493 González Fischer CG, Garnett T (2016) Plates, pyramids, planet. In: Developments in national healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. FAO, Oxford. http://www.fao. org/3/a-­i5640e.pdf González M, Ilyina T (2016) Impacts of artificial ocean alkalinization on the carbon cycle and climate in earth system simulations: impacts of CO2 stablilization via AOA. Geophys Res Lett 43:068576 González AD, Frostell B, Carlsson-Kanyama A (2011) Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy 36:562–570 Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, Schlesinger WH (2017) Nature climate solutions. PNAS 114(44):11645–11650 Grubler A, Wilson C, Bento N, Boza-Kiss B, Krey V, McCollum DL, Rao ND et  al (2018) A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 degrees C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat Energy 3:515–527. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41560-­018-­0172-­6 Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U (2011) Global food losses and food waste. Save Food at Interpack, Düsseldorf GWEC (2017) Global wind report 2017. A snapshot of the top wind markets in 2017. In: Offshore wind. https://gwec.net/wp-­content/ uploads/2018/04/offshore.pdf Hallstrom E, Bergman K, Mifflin K, Parker R, Tyedmers P, Troell M, Ziegler F (2019) Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. J Clean Prod 230:402–411 Harrison DP (2017) Global negative emissions capacity of ocean macronutrient fertilization. Environ Res Lett 12:23 Hartmann J, West AJ, Renforth P, Köhler P, De La Rocha CL, Wolf-­ Gladrow DA, Dürr HH et  al (2013) Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric CO2, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification. Rev Geophys 51:113– 149. https://doi.org/10.1002/rog.20004

675

Hassellöv I-M, Turner DR, Lauer A, Corbett JJ (2013) Shipping contributes to ocean acidification. Geophys Res Lett 40:2731–2736. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50521 Havlık P, Valin H, Herrero M, Obersteiner M, Schmid E, Rufino MC, Mosnier A et al (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:3709–3714 Hendriks IE, Olsen YS, Ramajo L, Basso L, Steckbauer A, Moore TS, Howard J et  al (2014) Photosynthetic activity buffers ocean ­acidification in seagrass meadows. Biogeosciences 11:333. https:// doi.org/10.5194/bg-­11-­333-­2014 Henriksson PJG, Pelletier NL, Troell M, Tyedmers PH (2012) Life cycle assessment and its application to aquaculture production systems. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology. Springer, New York Herr D, Landis E (2016) Coastal blue carbon ecosystems. Opportunities for nationally determined contributions. In: Policy brief. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland Herr D, von Unger M, Laffoley D, McGivern A (2017) Pathways for implementation of blue carbon initiatives. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27(S1):116–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ aqc.2793 Hochard JP, Hamilton S, Barbier EB (2019) Mangroves shelter coastal economic activity from cyclones. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(25):12232–12237 Hoegh-Guldberg O, Cai R, Poloczanska ES, Brewer PG, Sundby S, Hilmi K et al (2014) The ocean. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability part a: global and sectoral aspects contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 655–731 Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jacob D, Taylor M, Bindi M, Brown S, Camilloni I, Diedhiou A et al (2018) Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Masson-Delmotte et  al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C.  World Meteorological Organization, Geneva Hollander A, De Jonge R, Biesbroek S, Hoekstra J, Zijp MC (2018) Exploring solutions for healthy, safe, and sustainable fatty acids (EPA and DHA) consumption in the Netherlands. Sustain Sci 14(2):303–313. https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/6325482 House RJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, de Luque MS (2006) A failure of scholarship: response to George Graen’s critique of globe. Acad Manag Perspect 20:102–114 IEA (2010) Energy technology perspectives 2010. Scenarios and strategies to 2050. IEA, Paris IEA (2017) Energy technology perspectives 2017: catalysing energy technology transformations. International Energy Agency, Paris. www.iea.org/etp2017 IEA (2018) Offshore energy outlook. World energy outlook series. International Energy Agency, Paris IEA (2019) Global energy and CO2 status report (GECO): the latest trends in energy and emissions in 2018. www.iea.org/geco/ electricity IMO (2011) Amendments to the annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. (Inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex VI). Resolution MEPC 203 (62) (Adopted on 15 July, 2011). http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/ Marine-­Environment-­Protection-­Committee-­(MEPC)/Documents/ MEPC.203(62).pdf IPCC 2005 - Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos and Leo Meyer (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 431. Available from Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU ENGLAND

676 IPCC (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp 431 IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kanagawa IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A et  al (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.ipcc. ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva. www.ipcc.com IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva IPCC (2019) An IPCC special report on the ocean and cyrosphere in a changing climate (SROCC). www.ipcc.com IRENA (2014a) Ocean thermal energy conversion: technology brief. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/ Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf IRENA (2014b) Tidal energy: technology brief. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/tidal_energy_v4_ web.pdf IRENA (2014c) Wave energy: technology brief. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/wave-­­energy_ v4_web.pdf IRENA (2017) Electricity storage and renewables: costs and markets to 2030. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi IRENA (2018a) Offshore wind investment, policies and job creation: review of key findings for G7 ministerial meetings. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/ Publication/2018/Sep/IRENA_offshore_wind_note_G7_2018.pdf ?la=en&hash=B186614D923AB1F0A07D7285612C4B037057 A0C0 IRENA (2018b) Renewable energy benefits leveraging local capacity for offshore wind. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/ May/IRENA_Leveraging_for_Offshore_Wind_2018.pdf IRENA (2019a) Global energy transformation. A roadmap to 2050. 2019 edition. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. www.irena.org/publications/2019/Apr/ Global-­energy-­transformation-­A-­roadmap-­to-­2050-­2019Edition IRENA (2019b) Renewable energy: a gender perspective. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. https://irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/ Publication/2019/Jan/IRENA_Gender_perspective_2019.pdf IRENA (2019c) Renewable capacity statistics 2019. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. https://www.irena.org/-­/ media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Mar/IRENA_RE_ Capacity_Statistics_2019.pdf IRENA (2019d) Renewable power generation costs in 2018. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. h t t p s : / / w w w. i r e n a . o r g / -­/ m e d i a / F i l e s / I R E NA / A g e n c y / Publication/2019/May/IRENA_Renewable-­Power-­Generations-­ Costs-­in-­2018.pdf James R, Ros MC (2015) Floating offshore wind: market and technology review. The Carbon Trusts, UK, June. https://www.carbontrust. com/media/670664/floating-­offshore-­wind-­market-­technology-­ review.pdf Kapsenberg L, Cyronak T (2019) Ocean acidification refugia in variable environments. Glob Chang Biol 2019:1–14. https://doi. org/10.1111/gcb.14730

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Keller DA, Gittman RK, Brodeur MC, Kenworthy MD, Ridge JT, Yeager LA, Rodriguez AB, Fodrie FJ (2019) Salt marsh shoreline geomorphology influences the success of restored oyster reefs and use by associated fauna. Restor Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.12992 Khaled R, Priour D, Billard JY (2013) Cable length optimization for trawl fuel consumption reduction. Ocean Eng 58:167–179 Kheshgi HS (1995) Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy 20(9):915–922. https://doi. org/10.1016/0360-­5442(95)00035-­F Kizielewiczm J (2016) Environmental governance for sustainable cruise tourism development by territorial authorities and cruise ship-­owners. In: International conference on management, leadership and governance, pp.  193–201. https://pbn.nauka.gov.pl/ sedno-­webapp/works/749267 Krause-Jensen D, Duarte CM (2016) Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nat Geosci 9(10):737 Krause-Jensen D, Marbà N, Sanz-Martin M, Hendriks IE, Thyrring J, Carstensen J, Sejr MK et al (2016) Long photoperiods sustain high pH in arctic kelp forests. Sci Adv 2(12):e1501938 Krause-Jensen D, Lavery P, Serrano O, Marbà N, Masque P, Duarte CM (2018) Sequestration of macroalgal carbon: the elephant in the blue carbon room. Biol Lett 14:20180236. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2018.0236 Krewitt W, Nienhaus K, Kleßmann C, Capone C, Stricker E, Graus W, Hoogwijk M et al (2009) Role and potential of renewable energy and energy efficiency for global energy supply. Climate Change 18:336 Kris-Etherton PM, Harris WS, Appel LJ (2002) Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 106:2747–2757 Kroeker K, Kordas R, Crim R, Hendriks I, Ramajo L, Singh G, Duarte C et al (2013) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Glob Chang Biol 19:12179. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12179 Krumhansl KA, Okamoto DK, Rassweiler A, Novak M, Bolton JJ, Cavanaugh KC, Connell SD et  al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(48):13785–13790 Kuwae T, Hori M (2019) The future of blue carbon: addressing global environmental issues. In: Blue carbon in shallow coastal ecosystems. Springer, Singapore, pp 347–373 Kwiatkowski L, Ricke KL, Caldeira K (2015) Atmospheric consequences of disruption of the ocean thermocline. Environ Res Lett 10:034016 Lam VWY, Sumaila UR, Dyck A, Pauly D, Watson R (2011) Construction and first applications of a global cost of fishing database. ICES J Mar Sci 68(9):1996–2004. https://doi.org/10.1093/ icesjms/fsr121 Langhamer O (2012) Artificial reef effect in relation to offshore renewable energy conversion: state of the art. Sci World J 2012:386713. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/386713 Lapointe BE, West LE, Sutton TT, Chuanmin H (2014) Ryther Revisited: Nutrient excretions by fishes enhance productivity of pelagic sargassum in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 458:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jembe.2014.05.002 Latorre R (2001) Reducing fishing vessel fuel consumption and NOx emissions. Ocean Eng 28(6):723–733 Lavery TJ, Roudnew B, Gill P, Seymour J, Seuront L, Johnson G, Mitchell JG et  al (2010) Iron defecation by sperm whales stimulates carbon export in the southern ocean. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277(1699):3527–3531 Lee SY, Hamilton S, Barbier EB, Primavera J, Lewis RR (2019) Better restoration policies are needed to conserve mangrove ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol 3(6):870

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action Lehahn Y, Ingle KN, Golberg A (2016) Global potential of offshore and shallow waters macroalgal biorefineries to provide for food, chemicals and energy: feasibility and sustainability. Algal Res 17(2016):150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. algal.2016.03.031 Leisher C, van Beukering P, Scher LM (2007) Nature’s investment bank: how marine protected areas contribute to poverty reduction, Arlington.: The Nature Conservancy (TNC). www.nature.org/ media/science/mpa_report.pdf Lester SE, McDonald G, Clemence M, Dougherty DT, Szuwalski CS (2017) Impacts of TURFs and marine reserves on fisheries and conservation goals: theory, empirical evidence, and modeling. Bull Mar Sci 93(1):173–198 Levin K, Fransen F, Ge M (2018) Five things you need to know about the UN emissions gap report. World Resources Institute, Washington Lewis A, Estefen S, Huckerby J, Musial W, Pontes T, Torres-Martinez J (2011) Ocean energy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T et al (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Li X, Bellerby R, Craft C, Widney E, Sarah. (2018) Coastal wetland loss, consequences, and challenges for restoration. Anthropocene Coasts 2018:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-­2017-­0001 Lindstad HE, Bø TI (2018) Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements. Transp Res D 63:276–290 Lindstad HE, Eskeland GS (2018) Marine design XIII.  In: Kujala P, Lu L (eds) Reducing GHG emissions in shipping—measures and options. CRC Press, London, pp 923–930 Lindstad HE, Jullumstrø E, Sandaas I (2013) Reduction in cost and emissions with new bulk ships designs enabled by the Panama canal expansion. Energy Policy 59:341–349 Lindstad HE, Verbeek R, Blok M, van Zyl S, Hübscher A, Kramer H, Purwanto J et  al (2015) GHG emission reduction potential of EU-related maritime transport and on its impacts. European Commission, Brussels Lindstad HE, Eskeland GS, Rialland A (2017b) Batteries in offshore support vessels—pollution, climate impact and economics. Transp Res D 50:409–417 Lindstad HE, Borgen H, Eskeland GS, Paalson C, Psaraftis H, Turan O (2019) The need to amend IMO’s EEDI to include a threshold for performance in waves (realistic sea conditions) to achieve the desired GHG reductions. Sustain For 11:3668. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11133668 Love DC, Uhl MS, Genello L (2015) Energy and water use of a small-­ scale raft aquaponics system in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. Aquac Eng 68:19–27 Lovelock CEIC, Feller R, Reef RW, Ruess. (2015) Variable effects of nutrient enrichment on soil respiration in mangrove forests. Plant Soil 379:135–148 Lovelock CE, Atwood T, Baldock J, Duarte CM, Hickey S, Lavery PS, Masque P et  al (2017) Assessing the risk of CO2 emissions from blue carbon ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 15(5):257–265 LR and UMAS (2019) Zero-emission vessels transition pathways Lubchenco J, Cerny-Chipman EB, Reimer JN, Levin SA (2016) The right incentives enable ocean sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(51):14507–14514 Luo M, Zhu W, Huang J, Liu Y, Duan X, Wu J, Tong C (2019) Anaerobic organic carbon mineralization in tidal wetlands along a low-level salinity gradient of a subtropical estuary: rates, pathways, and controls. Geoderma 337:1245–1257 Machado L, Magnusson M, Paul NA, Kinley R, de Nys R, Tomkins N (2016) Dose-response effects of Asparagopsis taxiformis and Oedogonium Sp. on in  vitro fermentation and methane production. J Appl Phycol 28:1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10811-­015-­0639-­9

677

Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC (2011) A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. March. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf Malcorps W, Kok B, van Land M, Fritz M, van Doren D, Servin K, van der Heijden P et  al (2019) The sustainability conundrum of fishmeal substitution by plant ingredients in shrimp feeds. Sustain For 11(4):1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041212 Marbà N, Krause-Jensen D, Masqué P, Duarte CM (2018) Expanding greenland seagrass meadows contribute new sediment carbon sinks. Sci Rep 8:14024 Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H et al (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties, Geneva. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) McDermott C, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Pol 21:63–72 McGrath KP, Pelletier NL, Tyedmers P (2015) Life cycle assessment of a novel closed-containment salmon aquaculture technology. Environ Sci Technol 49:5628–5636 Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE et  al (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9(10):552–560 Mcowen CJ, Weatherdon LV, Van Bochove JW, Sullivan E, Blyth S, Zockler C, Stanwell-Smith D et  al (2017) A global map of saltmarshes. Biodivers Data J 5:e11764 MERiFIC (2012) Documentary summary of the environmental impact of renewable marine energy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/ files/publications/3-­2-­1_Documentary_summary_EN-­MERiFIC-­ web.pdf Milledge JJ, Smith B, Dyer PW, Harvey P (2014) Macroalgae-derived biofuel: a review of methods of energy extraction from seaweed biomass. Energies 7:7194–7222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en7117194 Mørk G, Barstow S, Kabuthand A, Pontes MT (2010) Assessing the global wave energy potential. OMAE2010–20473. In: Proceedings of OMAE2010 29th international conference on ocean, offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, Shanghai, China, June 6–11 Murdiyarso D, Purbopuspito J, Kauffman JB, Warren MW, Sasmito SD, Donato DC, Manuri S et al (2015) The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nat Clim Chang 5(12):1089 Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MC, Clay J, Folke C et al (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405(6790):1017–1024 Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M, Farrell AP, Forster I, Gatlin DM, Goldburg RJ, Hua K, Nichols PD (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15103–15110 Needelman BA, Emmer IM, Emmett-Mattox S, Crooks S, Megonigal JP, Myers D, Oreska MPJ et al (2018) The science and policy of the verified carbon standard methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration. Estuar Coasts 41(8):2159–2171 Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, Valdés L, De Young C, Fonseca L, Grimsditch G (2009) Blue carbon. A rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal 78 Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H (2012) The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37(6):760–770 Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature 534:320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a O’Neill SP, Angeloudis A, Robins PE, Walkington I, Ward SL, Masters I, Lewis MJ et al (2018) Tidal range energy resource and optimization—past perspectives and future challenges. Renew Energy 127:763–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.007

678 OECD (2016) The ocean economy in 2030. OECD Publishing, Paris. www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/economics/the-­ocean-­economy-­­in-­ 2030_9789264251724-­en; https://read.oecd-­ilibrary.org/economics/ the-­ocean-­economy-­in-­2030_9789264251724-­en#page34 OES (2011) Annual report 2011. Implementing agreement on ocean energy systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OES-­Annual-­Report-­2011.pdf OES (2015) International levelised cost of energy for ocean energy technologies. Ocean energy systems (OES) of IEA 2015. https:// www.ocean-­energy-­systems.org/documents/65931-­cost-­of-­energy-­ for-­ocean-­energy-­technologies-­may-­2015-­final.pdf/ OES (2017) An international vision for ocean energy. h t t p : / / w w w. o c e a n e n e rg y s y s t e m s . o rg / n ew s / oes-­vision-­for-­international-­deployment-­of-­ocean-­energy/ Oita A, Nagano I, Matsuda H (2018) Food nitrogen footprint reductions related to a balanced Japanese diet. Ambio 47(3):319–326. www. researchgate.net/publication/319720090_Food_nitrogen_footprint_ reductions_related_to_a_balanced_Japanese_diet OpenEI (2019). https://openei.org/apps/LCA/ Ørsted (2019) Making green energy affordable. Whitepaper. Ørsted, Gentofte. https://orsted.com/en/Explore/ Making-­green-­energy-­affordable Ortega A, Geraldi NR, Alam I, Kamau AA, Acinas SG, Logares R, Gasol JM et  al (2019) Important contribution of macroalgae to oceanic carbon sequestration. Nat Geosci 12:748–754. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41561-­019-­0421-­8 Oschlies A, Pahlow M, Yool A, Matear RJ (2010) 2010 climate engineering by artificial ocean upwelling: channelling the Sorcerer’s apprentice. Geophys Res Lett 37:L04701. https://doi. org/10.1029/2009GL041961 Ouyang X, Guo F (2016) Paradigms of mangroves in treatment of anthropogenic wastewater pollution. Sci Total Environ 544:971–979 Pahlow M, van Oelb PR, Mekonnena MM, Hoekstraa AY (2015) Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Sci Total Environ 536:847–857. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0048969715304666 Palmer A, Keith D, Doctor R (2007) Ocean storage of CO2: pipelines, risers and seabed containment. In: The 26th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering Parente J, Fonseca P, Henriques V, Campos A (2008) Strategies for improving fuel efficiency in the Portuguese trawl fishery. Fish Res 93(1–2):117–124 Parker RWR (2018) Implications of high animal by-product feed inputs in life cycle assessments of farmed Atlantic salmon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(5):982–994 Parker RWR, Gardner C, Green BS, Hartmann K, Watson RA (2017) Drivers of fuel use in rock lobster fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 74(6):1681–1689 Parker RWR, Blanchard JL, Gardner C, Green BS, Hartmann K, Tyedmers PH, Watson RA (2018) Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nat Clim Chang 8:333–337. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41558-­018-­0117-­x Pascoe S, Coglan L, Punt AE, Dichmont CM (2012) Impacts of vessel capacity reduction programmes on efficiency in fisheries: the case of Australia’s multispecies northern prawn fishery. J Agric Econ 63(2):425–443 Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2007) Feeding farmed salmon: is organic better? Aquaculture 272:399–416 Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2010) Life cycle assessment of frozen tilapia fillets from indonesian lake and pond-based intensive aquaculture systems. J Ind Ecol 14(3):467–481 Pelletier N, Tyedmers P, Sonesson U, Scholz A, Ziegler F, Flysjo A, Kruse S et  al (2009) Not all salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems. Environ Sci Technol 43(23):8730–8736

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Pelletier N, Klinger DH, Sims NA, Yoshioka JR, Kittinger JN (2018) Nutritional attributes, substitutability, scalability, and environmental intensity of an illustrative subset of current and future protein sources for aquaculture feeds: joint consideration of potential synergies and trade-offs. Environ Sci Technol 52(10):5532–5544 Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C et al (2012) Estimating global ‘blue carbon’ emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 7(9):e43542 Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:987–992 Pörtner HO, Karl DM, Boyd PW, Cheung WL, Lluch-Cota SE, Nojiri Y, Schmidt DN et al (2014) Ocean systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 411–484 Poulsen T, Lema R (2017) Is the supply chain ready for the green transformation? The case of offshore wind logistics. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73:758–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2017.01.181 Project Drawdown (2019) Solutions|drawdown. Drawdown. https:// www.drawdown.org/solutions. Accessed 10 September Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA (2013) Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: a taxonomy and survey. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 26:331–351 Queirós AM, Norling K, Amaro T, Nuñes J, Cummings DH, Yakushev EA, Sørensen K et al (2014) Potential impact of CCS leakage on marine communities. ECO2 deliverable, D4.1. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth Queirós AM, Stephens N, Widdicombe S, Tait K, McCoy SJ, Ingels J, Rühl S et  al (2019) Connected macroalgal-sediment systems: blue carbon and foodwebs in the deep coastal ocean. Ecol Monogr 2019:e01366 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (2018) Scaling up wetland conservation, wise use and restoration to achieve the sustainable development goals: wetlands and the SDGs. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/wetlands_sdgs_e.pdf Rana KJ, Siriwardena S, Hasan MR (2009) Impact of rising feed ingredient prices on aquafeeds and aquaculture production. In: FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper 541. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome Rastelli E, Corinaldesi C, Dell’Anno A, Amaro T, Greco S, Lo Martire M, Carugati L et al (2016) CO2 leakage from CO2 capture and storage (CCS) systems affects organic matter cycling in surface marine sediments. Mar Environ Res 122:158–168 Rau GH, Caldeira K (1999) Enhanced carbonate dissolution: a means of sequestering waste CO2 as ocean bicarbonate. Energy Convers Manag 40:1803–1813 Rehmatulla N (2014) Market failures and barriers affecting energy efficient operations in shipping. PhD Thesis Renforth P, Henderson G (2017) Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration. Rev Geophys 55(3):636–674. https://doi. org/10.1002/2016rg000533 Richards DR, Friess DA (2016) Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(2):344–349 Richards DR, Friess DA (2017) Characterizing coastal ecosystem service trade-offs with future urban development in a tropical city. Environ Manag 60:961–973 Robb DHF, MacLeod M, Hasan MR, Soto D (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from aquaculture: a life cycle assessment of three Asian systems. In: FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper No. 609. FAO, Rome Rog SM, Clarke RH, Cook CN (2017) More than marine: revealing the critical importance of mangrove ecosystems for terrestrial vertebrates. Divers Distrib 23(2):221–230

17  The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action Roy J, Tschakert P, Waisman H, Abdul Halim S, Antwi-Agyei P, Dasgupta P, Hayward B et al (2018) Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A et al (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva Sadhukhan J, Gadkari S, Martinez-Hernandez E, Ng KS, Shemfe M, Torres-Garcia E, Lynch J (2019) Novel macroalgae (seaweed) biorefinery systems for integrated chemical, protein, salt, nutrient and mineral extractions and environmental protection by green synthesis and life cycle sustainability assessments. Green Chem 21(10):2635–2655 Sarker PK, Kapuscinski AR, Bae AY, Donaldson E, Sitek AJ, Fitzgerald DS, Edelson OF (2018) Towards sustainable aquafeeds: evaluating substitution of fishmeal with lipid-extracted microalgal co-­ product (Nannochloropsis oculata) in diets of juvenile Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). PLoS ONE 13(7):e0201315 Saunders M, Leon J, Phinn S, Callaghan D, O’Brien K, Roelfsema C, Lovelock C et al (2013) Coastal retreat and improved water quality mitigate losses of seagrass from sea level rise. Glob Chang Biol 19:12218. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12218 Schmitz OJ, Wilmers CC, Leroux SJ, Doughty CE, Atwood TB, Galetti M, Davies AB et al (2018) Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science 362:6419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aar3213 Schuerch M, Spencer T, Temmerman S, Kirwan ML, Wolff C, Lincke D et  al (2018) Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561:231–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-­018-­0476-­5 Scott J, Smith T, Rehmatulla N, Milligan B (2017) The promise and limits of private standards in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. J Environ Law 29:2 Scottish Enterprise (n.d.) Oil and gas ‘seize the opportunity’ guides: offshore wind. Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow. www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/media/1116/sesdi-­oil-­and-­gas-­div-­guide-­offshore-­ wind.pdf Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J (2019) Creating a sustainable food future: a menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. In: Chapter 7: avoid competition from bioenergy for food crops and land. World Resources Institute, Washington. https://wrr-­food.wri.org Shindo Y, Lund PC, Fujioka Y, Koriyama H (1993) Kinetics of formation of CO2 hydrate. Energy Convers Manag 34:1073–1079 SI Ocean (2013) Ocean energy: cost of energy and cost reduction opportunities. SI Ocean Project Simões-Wüst AP, Dagnelie PC (2019) To be or not to be for humankind: organic diets revisited for a sustainable development. Sustainable Earth 2(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-­019-­0008-­7 Sims REH, Schock RN, Adegbululgbe A, Fenhann J, Konstantinaviciute I, Moomaw W, Nimir HB et al (2007) Energy supply. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 251–322 Singh GG, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Swartz W, Cheung W, Guy JA, Kenny TA, McOwen CJ et al (2018) A rapid assessment of co-­ benefits and trade-offs among sustainable development goals. Mar Policy 93:223–231 Sislian L, Jaegler A (2016) A green ocean carrier network design problem: empirical study on Egyptian Port of Alexandria. Sixth International Conference, Information Systems Logistics and Supply Chain (ILS). Bordeaux, France, June 1–4. http://ils2016conference.com/wp-­content/uploads/2015/03/ILS2016_TB03_3.pdf Skjermo J, Rebours C, Chapman A (2014) A new Norwegian bioeconomy based on cultivation and processing of seaweeds: opportunities and R&D needs. SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Trondheim

679

Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, Haberl H et al (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Smith T, Raucci C, Haji Hosseinloo S, Rojon I, Calleya J, Suárez de la Fuente S, Wu P, Palmer K (2016) CO2 emissions from international shipping. possible reduction targets and their associated pathways. University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS), London Snyder LB, Hamilton MA, Mitchell EW, Kiwanuka-Tondo J, Fleming-­ Milici F, Proctor D (2004) A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. J Health Commun 9(S1):71–96 SOFIA (2018) Meeting the sustainable development goals. SOFIA, Rome Sofiev M, Winebrake JJ, Johansson L, Carr EW, Prank M, Soares J, Vira J et al (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. J Chem Kinet 27(11):1089–1095 Spalding MJ, de Fontabert C (2007) Conflict resolution for addressing climate change with ocean-altering projects. Environmental Law Reporter. https://www.oceanfdn.org/sites/default/files/37_10740_0. pdf Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, de Vries W et al (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562(7728):519 Statton J, Cambridge ML, Dixon KW, Kendrick GA (2013) Aquaculture of Posidonia australis seedlings for seagrass restoration pro­ grams: effect of sediment type and organic enrichment on growth. Restoration ecology 21(2):250–259 Sumaila UR, Cheung SW, Dyck A, Gueye K, Huang L, Lam V, Pauly D et al (2012) Benefits of rebuilding global marine fisheries outweigh costs. PLoS ONE 7(7):e40542 Sumaila UR, Tai TC, Lam V, Cheung W, Bailey M, Cisneros-­ Montemayor AM, Chen OL et al (2019) Benefits of the Paris agreement to ocean life, economies, and people. Sci Adv 5(2):3855. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau3855 Sundby S, Drinkwater KF, Kjesbu OS (2016) The North-Atlantic Spring-­ Bloom system—where the changing climate meets the winter dark. Front Mar Sci 3:28. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2016.00028 Tacon AGJ, Metian M (2008) Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285:146–158 Tallard G, Key N (2012) Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies. Clim Chang 12:387–414 Teske A, Durbin A, Ziervogel K, Cox C, Arnosti C (2011a) Microbial community composition and function in permanently cold seawater and sediments from an arctic fjord of Svalbard. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:2008–2018 Teske S, Pregger T, Simon S, Naegler T, Graus W, Lins C (2011b) Energ Effic 4:409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-­010-­9098-­y Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528):518 Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D et  al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 1:281–284 Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(50):20260–20264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108 Troell M, Naylor RL, Metian M, Beveridge M, Tyedmers PH, Folke C, Arrow KJ et al (2014) Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13257–13263 Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N, Smith P (2013) The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ Res Lett 8:015009 UNEP (2018) Emissions gap report 2018

680 UNFCCC (2015) Decision 1/CP.21 adoption of the Paris agreement. Paris. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/ cop21/eng/10a01.pdf Unsworth RKF, Nordlund LM, Cullen-Unsworth LC (2018) Seagrass meadows support global fisheries production. Conserv Lett 12:e12566. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12566 USDE (2019) 1 powering the blue economy: exploring opportunities for marine renewable energy in maritime markets. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington. https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/ downloads/powering-­blue-­economy-­report Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51(10):807–815 van der Zwaan B, Gerlagh R (2016) Offshore CCS and ocean acidification: a global long-term probabilistic cost-benefit analysis of climate change mitigation. Clim Chang 137(1–2):157–170. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10584-­016-­1674-­5 Wahl M, Schneider Covachã S, Saderne V, Hiebenthal C, Müller JD, Pansch C, Sawall Y (2018) Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations. Limnol Oceanogr 63(1):3–21 Waite RM, Beveridge R, Brummett S, Castine N, Chaiyawannakarn S, Kaushik RM et al (2014) Improving productivity and environmental performance of aquaculture. In: Installment 5 of creating a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ et  al (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:12377–12381 Wernberg T, Krumhansl K, Filbee-Dexter K, Pedersen MF (2019) Status and trends for the world’s kelp forests. In: World seas: an environmental evaluation. Academic Press, New  York, pp 57–78 Willauer HD, Dimascio F, Hardy DR, Williams FW (2014) Feasibility of CO2 extraction from seawater and simultaneous hydrogen gas generation using a novel and robust electrolytic cation exchange

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan module based on continuous electrodeionization. Technol Ind Eng Chem Res 53(31):12192–12200 Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springman M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T et al (2019) Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393(10170):447–492 Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E et al (2012) Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13:132 Wilson KL, Skinner MA, Lotze HK (2019) Projected 21st-century distribution of canopy-forming seaweeds in the Northwest Atlantic with climate change. Divers Distrib 25:582–602 Wirsenius S, Azar C, Berndes G (2010) How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agric Syst 103:621–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.005 World Bank (2016) Seaweed aquaculture for food security, income generation and environmental health. July. https://doi. org/10.1596/24919 World Bank (2018) Where sun meets water: floating solar market report. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/ where-­sun-­meets-­water Yan J (ed) (2015) Handbook of clean energy systems, vol 5. Wiley, Hoboken Zhang J, Fang J, Wang W, Du M, Gao Y, Zhang M (2012) Growth and loss of mariculture kelp Saccharina japonica in Sungo Bay, China. J Appl Phycol 24:1209–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10811-­011-­9762-­4 Ziegler F, Hornborg S (2014) Stock size matters more than vessel size: the fuel efficiency of Swedish Demersal Trawl fisheries 2002–2010. Mar Policy 44:72–81 Ziegler F, Hornborg S, Green BS, Eigaard OR, Farmery AK, Hammar L, Hartmann K et  al (2016) Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using life cycle assessment. Fish Fish 17:1073–1093

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

18

Abbreviations

1 Executive Summary

BAU Business-as-usual B-C Benefit-cost CH4 Methane CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent FCR Feed conversion ratio FOLU Food and Land Use Coalition GDP Gross domestic product GHG Greenhouse gas Gt Gigatonne GW Gigawatt IEA International Energy Agency IMO International Maritime Organization LCOE Levelised cost of electricity mmt Million metric tonnes Mt. Megatonne MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hour N2O Nitrous oxide NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PV Photovoltaic R&D Research and development ROI Return on investment SCC Social cost of carbon SDG Sustainable Development Goal TWh Terawatt hour WACC Weighted average of capital costs

The ocean and its resources provide key ecosystem services and benefits that are crucial for human well-being and the prosperity of the global economy, but these services are at risk. The ocean’s wide range of ecosystem services (including food, energy, recreational/ cultural services and trading/transport routes) is vital for the well-being of society. However, climate change, overfishing, pollution and a loss of biodiversity and coastal ecosystems are eroding the ability of the ocean to sustain livelihoods and prosperity. Taking action to protect these ocean-based ecosystems and ensuring the environmental sustainability of ocean-­ based activities will produce health, environmental and ecological, and economic and social benefits to people and the planet. A key question for policymakers and funding agencies is how these benefits compare with the costs. This analysis aims to answer the question by building on several existing analyses and reports, including The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019) and The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, it demonstrates that ocean-based investments yield benefits to society in the long term, and these benefits substantially outweigh the costs. This analysis is the first attempt to estimate the global net benefit and the B-C ratio over a 30-year time horizon (2020–2050) from implementing sustainable ocean-based interventions. It indicates the scale of benefits compared to the costs by focusing on four ocean-based policy interventions: conserving and restoring mangrove habitats, scaling up offshore wind production, decarbonising the international shipping sector and increasing the production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins (to ensure a healthy, balanced human diet by 2050). These interventions would contribute to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and move countries towards their Sustainable Development Goals and targets (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).

Originally published in: Konar, M., Ding, H. 2020. A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at https://oceanpanel.org/ publication/a-sustainable-ocean-economy-for-2050-approximating-itsbenefits-and-costs/. Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission. Published under license from the “World Research Institute”.

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_18

681

682

For each intervention area, the impact to reach a sustainable transformation pathway by 2050 is measured relative to a business-as-usual scenario. A B-C ratio is developed by dividing the present value of benefits in 2050 by the present value of costs. The categories of benefits assessed include health (such as a reduction in mortality and morbidity), environmental and ecological (such as benefits from higher biodiversity, reduced water usage and land-based conflicts, and coastal protection) and economic and social (such as increased business revenues, household income, jobs and food security). The categories of costs include costs to business (such as capital investments and increases in operational costs), costs to government (such as costs of regulations, research and development [R&D] expenditures, enforcement and monitoring costs) and costs to households (such as opportunity costs of forgone activities). The benefit and cost estimates are partial estimates; impacts are monetarily quantified where possible and are qualitatively described when quantifiable data are absent. Taking action to protect these ocean-based ecosystems and ensuring the environmental sustainability of ocean-based activities will produce health, environmental and ecological, and economic and social benefits to people and the planet

2 Key Findings The overall rate of return on investment (ROI) can be very high, with sustainable ocean-based investments yielding benefits at least five times greater than the costs. When assessing individual interventions, the average economic B-C ratio range between 3-to-1 and 12-to-1, and in some cases even higher. The B-C ratios were similar to key health interventions in developed and developing countries.1 Specifically, investing $2.0–3.7 trillion globally across the four areas from 2020 to 2050 would generate $8.2–22.8 trillion in net benefits (average $15.5 trillion), implying a rate of ROI of 400–615%. The B-C ratios vary across sectors and interventions (Table 18.1; Fig. 18.1) as follows:

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Table 18.1  Summary of benefit-cost ratios for the four action areas in 2050 Action Conserve and restore mangrovesa Decarbonise international shippingb Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins Scale up offshore energy productionc

For example, the B-C ratio for double measles immunisation in Canada is estimated to be 2-to-1 to 4-to-1; for influenza vaccination in Italy, it is estimated at 4-to-1 to 12-to-1; for the meningitis prevention program in the Philippines, it is 8.4-to-1; and for the universal Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccination (starting at 2 months) in the United States, it is 3.4-to-1 to 5.4-to-1 (Bärnighausen et  al. 2011; Colombo et  al. 2006; Limcangco et  al. 2001; Pelletier et  al. 1998; Zhou et  al. 2002). 1 

12:1

Notes: a  The ratio presented is the combined ratio for mangrove conservation and restoration. When assessing specific interventions, the benefit-cost ratio for conservation is estimated to be 88-to-1 and for restoration is 2-to-1 b  The benefit-cost ratio estimated for decarbonising international shipping ranges from 2:1 to 5:1 c  The benefit-cost ratio estimated for scaling up of global offshore wind production ranges from 2:1 to 17:1 Source: Authors’ calculations

the difference in the B-C ratios: the higher cost of mangrove restoration (due to seeding and replanting), low survival rates following restoration and the lag in accrual of benefits from restoration. The total value of net benefits for mangrove restoration over 30 years ($97–150 billion) is higher than for conservation ($48–96 billion) because we assume the area of mangroves restored is 10 times that of the area conserved.2 • Every $1 invested in scaling up global offshore wind production generates a benefit estimated at $2–17, depending on the cost of offshore energy production and transmission and the types of generation that would be displaced.3 The value of the ROI will increase as the costs for offshore wind energy generation fall because of improvement in technologies and actions to reduce integration costs. • Every $1 invested in decarbonising international shipping and reducing emissions to net zero is estimated to generate a return of $2–5. The analysis assumed the significant capital expenditure to switch to zero-carbon The conservation scenario assumes stopping the additional loss of mangroves whereas the restoration scenario assumes replanting large areas of mangroves already lost; that is we are doing more restoration in the scenarios analysed than conservation. The overall ratio of both conservation and restoration is calculated by adding the total present value benefits and costs of both measures. The very high restoration costs is the main factor driving the overall B-C ratio for both conservation and restoration. 3  The return on investment for wind energy investments will vary depending on the specific generation technologies and costs in places where the offshore wind installations are located. On grids that have a high share of zero-carbon generation, including hydropower and nuclear energy, adding ocean energy will not decrease emissions significantly. Conversely, for grids with a high share of carbon-intensive generation, emission displacements could be significant. 2 

• Every $1 invested in mangrove conservation and restoration generates a benefit of $3. When assessing specific interventions, the B-C ratio for conservation is 88-to-1 and for restoration is 2-to-1. Three factors drive

Average benefit:cost ratio 3:1 4:1 10:1

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

683

Fig. 18.1  Benefits significantly outweigh costs across sustainable ocean-based interventions, with average B-C ratio ranging between 3:1 and 12:1. Note: Average benefit-cost (B-C) ratios have been rounded to the nearest integer and the net benefits value to the first decimal place.

The B-C ratio for mangroves is the combined ratio for both conservation- and restoration-based interventions. The average net benefits represent the average net present value for investments and is calculated over a 30-year horizon (2020–2050). Source: Authors’ calculations

emissions will happen after 2030, and limiting the analysis to 2050 captures only a portion of returns from these investments, which will continue beyond 2050. • Every $1 invested in increasing production of sustainably sourced ocean-based protein (to ensure a healthy, balanced diet by 2050) is estimated to yield $10 in benefits. The increase in demand for ocean-based protein to provide a healthy diet for 9.7 billion people by 2050, which would replace a percentage of emission-intensive land-based protein sources, can be achieved by reforming wild-capture fisheries and by increasing the sustainable production of ocean-based aquaculture. Both measures will deliver benefits such as better health outcomes to consumers, higher revenues to fishers, lower GHG emissions mitigating the risks of climate damage, reduced land-based conflicts and lower water usage.

marine biodiversity from increasing the number of offshore wind farms; and distributional impacts of the benefits and costs on poorer communities. Given these nonmonetised impacts, the B-C ratios present a partial estimation of all benefits and costs that are likely to accrue as a result of such investments. These four examples are indicative of the relative scale of benefits compared to the costs. Further research and analysis to address these gaps will provide a more complete picture of the value of benefits versus costs. Although data limitations prevented a full accounting of all benefits and costs, the results of the analyses suggest that taking actions to transform these sectors will generate a host of benefits that are much larger than the costs.4 The results show that sustainable ocean-based investments yield benefits at least five times greater than the costs (Fig.  18.2), with minimum net returns of $8.2 trillion over 30  years. Better awareness of evidence of the possible ROI will help strengthen the economic case for action.

A number of impacts (both benefits and costs) have not yet been monetised, but they need to be considered by policymakers. These include the impact of GHG emissions on ocean acidification and the associated loss to biodiversity and commercial shellfish production; a potential increase in tourism revenues globally from restored mangroves; biodiversity benefits from healthier ecosystems; impacts on

For example, this is particularly true for the majority of ecosystem service benefits for mangroves that are not privately owned or traded, and hence their “value” is not reflected in price signals. We refrained from monetising some of the benefits due to the uncertainty of nonmarket valuation techniques. Further information is available in Sect. 18.5.1. 4 

684

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 18.2  Sustainable ocean investments yield benefits at least 5× higher than costs. Note: The total benefits and costs in the figure present the lower-bound present value estimates to demonstrate the minimum scale of quantified net benefits. Source: Authors’ calculations

3 Introduction The ocean’s economic value is undisputed: it generates jobs that support millions of livelihoods, it supplies resources that have enabled decades of industrial growth, and its sea routes enable 90% of world trade (Fleming et al. 2014). The ocean’s ecosystem services are vital for the well-being of society. For example, in some least-developed countries, fish protein accounts for more than 50% of animal protein intake (FAO 2018). Likewise, the ocean is reflected in many cultural practices, is manifest in inspirational art and provides recreational and aesthetic value to many (Fleming et al. 2014). However, these services and benefits are at risk as the ocean faces pressures from enhanced economic activity, demands from a growing human population and uncertainty from a warmer, unstable climate. Overfishing, pollution, climate change and loss of biodiversity are eroding the ability of the ocean to continue to sustain livelihoods and prosperity. The cumulative impact of human activities and climate change are likely to cause further ecosystem degradation or even collapse of ecosystems

such as coral reefs, kelp forests and seagrasses (Halpern et al. 2019; IPCC 2019). This analysis begins to estimate the benefits and costs of transitioning towards a sustainable ocean economy by focusing on four areas that represent key aspects of the ocean economy. It builds on The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019) and The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019) and other analyses and reports to demonstrate that ocean-based investments can yield considerable economic benefits to society in the long term.

3.1 Scope of the Analysis The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel) commissioned this benefit-cost analysis as an input to the deliberations of the Ocean Panel, serving to strengthen the evidence base of the forthcoming Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy report and action agenda.

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

685

The Ocean Panel proposes that a sustainable ocean economy can simultaneously deliver on three dimensions. It can

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets (Hoegh-­ Guldberg et al. 2019).5 These are the four interventions analysed:

• Protect: reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while safeguarding biodiversity; • Produce: contribute to sustainably powering and feeding a planet of 9.7 billion people in 2050; and • Prosper: create better jobs and support more equitable economic growth, household income and well-being.

• • • •

Conserving and restoring mangrove habitats Scaling up offshore wind energy production Decarbonising the international shipping sector Increasing production of sustainably sourced ocean-based protein (to ensure a healthy, balanced diet by 2050)

To achieve this vision, it will be critical to take action to transform ocean-based sectors and ecosystems towards sustainability. We indicate the scale of benefits compared to costs by focusing on specific policy interventions across one coastal ecosystem, mangroves, and the ocean-based sectors involved with offshore wind energy, international shipping and ocean-­ based protein from capture fisheries and mariculture (Table 18.2). Although it was not possible to cover all potential interventions across these sectors, specific interventions were chosen to meet three criteria: achievement of the Ocean Panel’s vision, contribution to the global efforts to reduce GHG emissions, and contribution to delivering countries’

This analysis is the first attempt to measure the global net benefit and benefit-cost (B-C) ratio of implementing ocean-­ based interventions over a 30-year horizon (2020–2050). While in the past, significant efforts have been made to assess the net positive benefits from protecting marine ecosystems and transforming ocean-based activities, they focused on particular measures, ecosystems and investments in particular regions or referred to assessments over shorter time periods. Consequently, the overall global benefits and costs of transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy across these four areas have not been generated in an aggregate form or included in global discussions. Building on existing literature, this working paper aims to address the knowledge gap by focusing on sustainable transformation pathway scenarios and by using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Table 18.2  The four ocean-based areas analysed

4 Methodology

Ocean-based sectors/ ecosystems Mangrove coastal habitats Ocean-based renewable energy Ocean-based transport Ocean-based food production

Specific actions Conserve and restore mangrove coastal habitats

Scale up the production of offshore wind energy (fixed and floating wind installations)a Reduce emissions from international shipping with a target to reach net-zero emissions in 2050b Achieve a healthier balanced diet for 9.7 billion people by 2050 by switching a share of protein from emission-intensive land-based sources of protein (notably beef and lamb) to low-carbon sustainably produced ocean-based sources of proteinc

Notes: a  Based on the scenarios analysed, offshore energy will likely continue to dominate the generation potential of the ocean energy sector in 2050, accounting for 65% of the sector’s potential (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019) b  The analysis excludes military and fishing vessels and domestic transport and includes bulk carriers, oil tankers and container ships, which account for the majority of the emissions (55%) in the shipping sector (Olmer et al. 2017) c  Sustainable production involves reforming fisheries by 2050 and increasing the production of sustainable ocean-based aquaculture (fed and nonfed) Source: Authors

This paper summarises the potential impact of investments in four ocean-based areas (see Table  18.2) over 30  years (2020–2050). By dividing the present value of benefits by the present value of costs, a B-C ratio for each sector is estimated (Box 18.1). The assumptions used to derive the B-C ratio differ for each sector. They are discussed in detail in Sect. 18.5. A generic analytical framework was applied to ensure consistency and comparability in analysing the impacts in each area: • The ambition for each area was defined as the level of sustainability that would be achieved in 2050 with respect to an identified baseline scenario. The business-as-usual (BAU) and sustainable transformation pathway projections, based on scenarios modelled in The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019) and The Global Although the interventions selected are key to achieving the 2050 sustainable ocean economy vision, they do not represent an exhaustive list of actions that will be required to make such a transition. For example, this analysis does not look at the impacts of moving towards a sustainable coastal tourism sector, of reducing marine pollution, or of expanding the network of marine protected areas. 5 

686

•

•

•

•

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019), are described in Sect. 18.4.1. A range of benefits and costs were identified that would achieve the target state over 30 years. These impacts were quantified monetarily where possible and were described qualitatively where a lack of data did not allow for such quantification. Future benefits and costs were discounted using a rate of 3.5%. The discounted benefits and costs were summed over 30 years (2020–2050) to arrive at a present value of benefits and costs for 2050 (Box 18.1). All values are based on 2019 prices. For each area, a B-C ratio was developed by dividing the present value of benefits in 2050 by the present value of costs. The present value of benefits and costs were aggregated across the areas to provide an aggregate B-C ratio for 2050.

Box 18.1 Estimating the Benefit-Cost Ratio

The benefit-cost (B-C) ratio indicates the return from ocean-based investments in the four areas in 2050. A B-C ratio greater than 1 demonstrates that the returns from an investment will be higher than the costs estimated over the chosen time period. Present value of benefits Present value of costs Sum of discounted benefits over 30 years  Sum of discounted costs over 30 years  B Bn   C0 Cn  0      0 n 0 n  1  r  1  r    1  r  1  r  

B/C 

where n = year; B = benefits; C = costs; r = discount rate. Discounting is used to compare benefits and costs occurring over different periods of time by converting them into present values. This is based on the concept that people prefer to receive goods and services now rather than later.a The discount rate used in the Green Book, also known as the social time preference rate, is based on two components: the ‘time preference’, which is the rate at which consumption and spending are discounted over time, assuming no change in per capita consumption, and the ‘wealth effect’, which reflects the expected growth in per capita consumption over time, where future consumption will be higher relative to current consumption and is expected to have a lower utility.b Source: a, b HMT (2018).

The time frame of 2020–2050 provides enough time for measures to be implemented and environmental benefits to result. In addition, the year 2050 aligns with long-term strategies to reduce emissions to net zero by midcentury (IPCC 2018) and meet the 2050 biodiversity vision where biodiversity is valued, conserved and restored to sustain a healthy planet (Cooper 2018). The time frame also overlaps with the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science and delivery of the 2030 SDG. We used a constant social discount rate of 3.5% for the analysis (HMT 2018). Views vary on the correct discount rate for climate policies as well as the extent to which rates differ between developing and developed countries.6 Some economists give more weight to environmental benefits that occur in distant years and recommend a lower discount rate for intergenerational decisions or a ‘hyperbolic’ discount rate that declines over time (Hausker 2011). For example, the Stern Review recommends a declining social discount rate, with rates lower than 3% for investments beyond 30  years (Stern 2007). The review states, ‘If the ethical judgement is that future generations count very little regardless of their consumption level then investments with mainly long-run pay-offs would not be favoured. In other words, if you care little about future generations you will care little about climate change. As we have argued that is not a position which has much foundation in ethics and which many would find unacceptable’.7 To reflect the intertemporal consideration of resource values, we selected a lower social discount rate. Given that the appraisal period is 30 years (and no longer), we decided on a constant 3.5% social discount rate.8

It is often argued that social discount rates are likely to be higher for developing countries because the social opportunity costs for capital is higher or the cost of borrowing capital tends to be higher. For example, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank typically apply a real discount rate of 10–12% when evaluating projects in developing countries (Warusawitharana 2014). 7  For example, the Stern Review recommends a declining social discount rate with rates lower than 3% for investments beyond 30 years (Stern 2007). The review states, ‘If the ethical judgement is that future generations count very little regardless of their consumption level then investments with mainly long-run pay-offs would not be favoured. In other words, if you care little about future generations you will care little about climate change. As we have argued that is not a position which has much foundation in ethics and which many would find unacceptable’. 8  Based on the recommendation of the Stern Review, the treasury for the United Kingdom recommends the use of a 3.5% discount rate for the first 30 years, followed by a declining rate until it reaches 1% for 301 years and beyond (Lowe 2008). It can be argued that a lower rate can be implemented in different ways if agreement to use a low rate is reached. For example, there could be two options: (1) a global agreement is reached so that investments on the ocean and coasts are evaluated with a low discount rate, but no country is required to act if its own internal discount rate is higher and the project does not pass its own internal return on investment criteria (unless international transfers change that balance), or (2) a global agreement is reached so that there are parallel evaluations—one with the low internationally agreed-upon discount rate and the other with the country’s own rate for public investments. 6 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

Challenges related to carrying out a benefit-cost analysis of environmental measures include key benefit and cost omissions, ambiguity or uncertainty in assigning monetary benefits to nonmarket goods, difficulty in integrating distributional aspects,9 and increased subjectivity for intangible benefits and costs. Although B-C ratio analyses or return on investment (ROI) studies at the global level are appealing, this approach has limitations. The biggest risk of global benefit-­cost estimates is that they do not present the distribution of benefits and costs across developing and developed countries. Global B-C ratios do not reflect heterogeneity (due not only to the distribution of benefits and costs across the globe but also to differences in discount rates). Consequently, the estimates should not be interpreted as giving an exact depiction of the flow of returns. They have been developed to indicate the scale of benefits relative to costs specific to the scenarios analysed for different activities. The analysis aims to stimulate timely discussion, influence ongoing debate on emerging sustainability issues and ensure that investments to obtain a sustainable ocean economy are not ignored in global discussions. The analysis does not attempt to show the regional variation of the benefits and costs. Conducting these assessments, which closely consider local factors, should be a key step when implementing ocean-­ based measures and regulations at local and national levels.

4.1 BAU and Sustainable Transformation Pathway Scenarios for 2050

benefits and costs needed to achieve this pathway against a BAU scenario. The sustainable transformation pathway and BAU scenarios, taken from Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. (2019) and the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) report (2019), are summarised in Table 18.3. For most interventions, benefits are accrued over the long term but the investment costs occur up front.

4.2 Framework for Assessing Benefits The four areas can yield three categories of benefits, which are discussed in more detail below: • Health benefits from reducing environmental risks • Environmental and ecological benefits from reduced environmental degradation (on land and in the ocean) and prevention of future temperature rise from climate change • Economic and social benefits from stimulating economic activity and promoting sustainable development Table 18.3  Business-as-usual and sustainable transformation pathway scenarios Four actions Conserve and restore mangroves

The analysis aims to answer four key questions: • If the rate of mangrove loss were halted and degraded mangrove areas were restored, what would be the benefits and costs to society? • If the world decided to expand offshore wind energy generation (from 0.3% of total energy generation in 2020 to 2–7% of total future energy generation in 2050), what would be the benefits and costs to society? • If the international shipping sector reduced its emissions to net zero, what would be the benefits and costs to society? • If sustainable ocean-based food production increased (to meet the balanced diet requirements as advocated by the 2019 report by the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health [Willett et  al. 2019]), what would be the benefits and costs to society? To answer these questions, we identified a sustainable transformation pathway scenario for 2050, then measured In addition, the benefit-cost analysis does not apply any ‘equity weighting’ when aggregating benefits across countries or regions that have very different levels of wealth, thus giving relatively greater weight to the impacts of rich people relative to poor people. 9 

687

Scale up offshore wind energy production

Decarbonise international shipping

Business-as-usual (BAU) Scenario Blue carbon ecosystems continue to decline, but at decreasing rates. The rate of loss of mangroves globally is estimated at 0.11% per year.a

Sustainable transformation pathway scenario Mangrove conservation: The per year loss under BAU is halted completely.b Mangrove restoration: Two scenarios were considered: (1) a moderate restoration effort recovering 40% of the historical ecosystem cover by 2050 (consistent with global mangrove Alliance goals), and (2) an aggressive scenario of complete restoration of pre-1980s cover.c Worldwide installed The total installation capacity offshore wind energy for offshore wind energy is capacity in 2018 estimated to grow generated 77 terawatt substantially by 2050. The hours (TWh) per year offshore wind energy and accounted for less generation for 2050 is than 1% of world estimated at 650–3500 TWh energy production.d The per year.e Under this scenario, current energy the energy mix will shift to a technologies mix higher fraction of renewables remains constant (and to meet the future increase in the share of offshore energy demand. wind energy remains low) as energy production expands. The total annual Emissions in international greenhouse gas (GHG) shipping are reduced to net emissions from zero by 2050.g international shipping is estimated to grow from 800 megatonnes (Mt) in 2012, to 1100 Mt. in 2030 and to 1500 Mt. in 2050.f (continued)

688

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 18.3 (continued) Four actions Increase ocean-based food production

Business-as-usual (BAU) Scenario • Fisheries continue to be overfished and global annual marine capture production declines in 2050 by 25%.h • Fed aquaculture (finfish) production remains at the 2020 level (11.7 million metric tonnes, or mmt) due to fishmeal constraints.i • Nonfed aquaculture (bivalve) continues to grow slowly to 28.5 mmt in 2050 due to lack of investments.j

Sustainable transformation pathway scenario • To meet healthy diet requirements in 2050, we need to double the current amount of ocean-based protein.k Part of this can be achieved by fisheries reform and the rest by increasing sustainable marine aquaculture production. • With global fisheries reform, annual marine capture production increases by 40% compared with baseline projections.l Fed finfish mariculture production increases to 22.4 mmt by 2050.m Bivalve production grows to 65.2 mmt in 2050.n

Oita et  al. 2018; Simões-Wüst and Dagnelie 2019; Tilman and Clark 2014). Finally, healthy mangroves directly provide nutrition to local communities via enhanced fisheries and indirectly via increases in other ecosystem services (such as coastal protection and improvements in water quality) and by income-generating activities (such as timber for fuelwood, nontimber forest products like honey and medicines, and income from tourism.)12 Some health benefits cannot be quantified; thus, they have been described qualitatively. The monetary value of these benefits could be significant, and additional research is required to quantify them. The benefit assessed across most interventions is avoided health damage from increased GHG emissions, and it focuses specifically on the impacts of criteria pollutants (Box 18.2).

4.2.2 Environmental and Ecological Benefits Direct climate change mitigation would be achieved by Notes: Total energy generation in 2018 was estimated to be 27,000 reducing GHGs and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. These impacts include avoided losses in activities TWh/year; offshore wind contributed 0.3% Sources: a–gHoegh-Guldberg et  al. (2019); hCostello et  al. (2019); that are counted in a country’s gross domestic product, or i, j FOLU (2019); kWillett et al. (2019); lCostello et al. (2019); m, nFOLU GDP (such as agriculture, fisheries productivity,13 tourism, (2019) manufacturing and services); avoided property damages from increased coastal flooding; and avoided noneconomic impacts that do not appear in GDP measures (such as the 4.2.1 Health Benefits These include interventions such as scaling up ocean-based loss of natural habitats from increased ocean acidification renewable energy production and decarbonising shipping and increased risks to human health from extreme temto reduce GHG emissions. Indirect health-related cobene- peratures, including heat stress). We use the social cost fits of reducing air pollutants include reduced mortality of carbon method to measure the environmental exterrates, improvements in productivity from improved well- nalities caused by an increase in GHG emissions (Box being of workers,10 lower absenteeism from school/work 18.3). Biodiversity-­related cobenefits include an increased caused by reduced childhood asthma,11 and reduced abundance of marine wildlife, reduced noise and other disturbances that negatively impact marine species, and morbidity. Measures that induce even moderate shifts in diet from the natural treatment of pollution and waste. These benhigh meat consumption towards ocean-based protein have efits have a direct positive impact on the marine ecosyswell-documented human health benefits (Blas et  al. 2019; tem and its organisms and indirectly contribute to societal González Fischer and Garnett 2016; Hollander et al. 2018; well-being. Working in a highly polluted setting for a long period of time can affect your mood or disposition to work. Evidence shows statistically significant adverse output effects (resulting in lower productivity) from prolonged exposure to ambient particles (He et al. 2019). 11  There is a link between shipping pollution and childhood asthma (Sofiev et al. 2018) that leads to children missing school and their parents missing work. The shipping sector analysis explores this in more detail. 10 

Tourism-based income can improve economic and social conditions in  local communities; hence, it indirectly contributes to health benefits. 13  Climate change can have a positive or negative impact on regional fisheries; overall, though, there will be a decline in fisheries productivity. 12 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

689

Box 18.2 A Description of Avoided Mortality Losses from Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Box 18.3 Measuring Climate Benefits Using the Social Cost of Carbon

The cobenefits of global greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions on air quality and human health are estimated using analysis from West et  al. (2013), which found that the global average marginal cobenefits of avoided mortality were US $50–380 per tonne of carbon dioxide reduced ($65–490  in 2019 prices). The analysis used a global atmospheric model and consistent future scenarios via two mechanisms: reducing coemitted air pollutants and slowing climate change and its effect on air quality. The model accounts for the impacts of ozone as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), international air pollution transport and changes in global ozone from methane, and the study evaluates future scenarios in which population susceptibility to air pollution and the economic ‘value of statistical lives’ grows.a The authors state that the cobenefits may be underestimated because they do not account for people younger than age 30 (including children and neonatal effects), and they do not account for the benefits of avoided morbidity outcomes (i.e., reduced output from lower productivity). Note: aThe value of statistical life is based on the willingness (and ability) to pay for reducing the risk of death. Hence, the study estimates marginal cobenefits to be high in North America and Europe, reflecting higher incomes in the region. Overall, though, the marginal cobenefit is found to be highest in regions with largest population affected by air pollution.

Benefit-cost analysis assumes that society should reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions up to the point where the marginal cost of reducing a tonne of CO2 is just equal to the marginal benefit of keeping that tonne out of the atmosphere. The social cost of carbon (SCC) measures the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions; that is, it represents the dollar value of the cost (i.e., damages) avoided by reducing CO2e emissions by 1 tonne.a The model used to deliver SCC values, the integrated assessment model, provides a range of estimatesb because of the many factors (including the types of greenhouse gas emissions) analysed, the types of impacts (gross domestic product, or GDP, versus non-GDP) analysed,c the discount rates used and size of risk aversion of the population.d The SCC value used in this analysis reflects the avoided costs from changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, loss from increased natural disasters and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air-­conditioning.e To prevent double counting with estimated health benefits from a reduction in ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), we used the SCC value developed under the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency that focuses only on damage costs from increases in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The damage costs for CO2 was estimated, in 2007 prices, at US $42 in 2020 and rises to $69 in 2050. Because the SCC value used does not account for all the damage costs, the impacts quantified monetarily are underestimates. Notes: a  Hausker (2011). b  Based on a number of studies, SCC values range from $50 to $417 per tonne of CO2e reduced (BEIS 2019; ToI 2019). c   Activities counted in a country’s GDP, such as agriculture, fisheries productivity, tourism, manufacturing and services, would feature in a GDP measure whereas non-GDP measures would include noneconomic impacts, including the loss of natural habitats and increased risks to human health (from heat stress and other factors). d   Standard practice in benefit-cost analysis is to take a risk-neutral approach to uncertainties. In the real world, individuals and organisations of all types display risk aversion to catastrophic impacts (Hausker 2011). e  EPA (2016).

4.2.3 Economic and Social Benefits Transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy can lead to higher productivity, efficiency gains and revenues. For example, reforming fisheries will lead to long-term revenues and profits from higher fisheries productivity (outweighing the short-term losses). Similar fisheries productivity benefits have been observed in restoring and maintaining healthy mangroves. Improving the productivity of resources will in turn help boost revenues to industry, contributing to a country’s national income. In addition, driving innovation and technological advancement will increase efficiency gains and unleash unforeseen market opportunities (GCA 2019). In addition, these investments will help countries meet their SDGs and targets (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). This includes creating decent jobs (SDG 8.5), protecting vulnerable communities from climate-related disasters (SDG 1.5), reducing poverty by improving household income/livelihoods (SDGs 1.1 and 1.4) and helping countries achieve their food security targets (SDG 3.2).

690

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

4.3 Framework for Assessing Costs

5.1 Conserve and Restore Mangroves

The costs of transformation, relative to BAU, were assessed by examining a list of actions and measures that can be undertaken by the government and private sector to achieve targets such as restoring mangroves, reducing emissions, reforming fisheries and increasing sustainable ocean-based aquaculture production. Examples of these types of costs are given below:

5.1.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios The assumptions about the BAU scenario and the sustainable transformation pathway needed to achieve the conservation and restoration targets by 2050 are informed by Hoegh-­ Guldberg et al. (2019).

• Costs to business include capital investments; for example, building new offshore aquaculture farms, increasing offshore renewable energy, implementing technological improvements in shipping and increasing private research and development (R&D) expenditures. • Costs to government include costs of regulations (on mangrove and fisheries conservation), public R&D expenditures and higher enforcement and monitoring costs (for mangroves and fisheries). • Costs to households include temporary reductions in household income from fisheries reform and the forgone income from the alternative use of the mangrove area by shrimp farming and/or charcoal production if they are not protected (opportunity cost). The presence of positive private opportunity costs may be an economic barrier to the success of mangrove conservation because they represent a direct economic loss (or disincentive) to local communities that undertake mangrove conservation activities. For some sectors, such as renewable energy production and ocean-based aquaculture, the private sector costs were estimated based on existing analytical projections of the state of the technology in 2030 and 2050, and we assumed reductions in future costs due to economies of scale and ‘learning by doing’ (Arrow 1962). If components of costs were not quantified—for example, the costs of implementing national regulations to ensure decarbonisation of the shipping sector have not been monetised—they are discussed qualitatively.

5 Assessing the Return on Investment for Four Sustainable Ocean Transformations: Scenarios, Assumptions, Methodology, Results This section presents the scenarios, discusses the assumptions and methodology used to estimate the benefits and costs for each of the four areas examined and finally presents the net benefits and the B-C ratios.

5.1.2 The BAU Scenario Although blue carbon ecosystems continue to decline, they do so at decreasing rates thanks to improved understanding, management and restoration (Lee et al. 2019). For instance, the rates of mangrove loss globally declined from 2.1% per year in the 1980s (Valiela et al. 2001) to 0.11% per year in the past decade (Bunting et  al. 2018). The BAU scenario assumes the loss of mangroves continues at 0.11% per year until 2050. The sustainable transformation pathway builds from this base. 5.1.3 The Sustainable Transformation Pathway Scenario The mitigation potential could be achieved via two pathways: conservation of ecosystems and restoration of ecosystems. • Conservation of mangroves. The total area for mangroves conserved per year is estimated to be 15,000– 30,000  hectares (ha) (see Table  18.4).14 This scenario avoids emissions of carbon stored in soils and vegetation. The total potential GHG mitigation contribution is estimated to be 0.02–0.04 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2e per year (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).15 • Restoration of mangroves. Restoration sequesters and stores carbon as vegetation grows. In the Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) study, the range of potential mitigation varied with the level of effort and investment. Two scenarios were considered: a moderate restoration effort recovering about 40% (184,000 ha per year) of the historical ecosystem cover by 2050 (consistent with Global Mangrove Alliance goals) and a more aggressivescenario of complete restoration (290,000 ha per year) of pre-1980s cover (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019). The corresponding total GHG mitigation potential was estimated at 0.16 GtCO2e per year to 0.25 GtCO2e per year in 2050 (Hoegh-­ Guldberg et al. 2019). See Table 18.4. This is based on avoiding the current loss of mangroves per year under BAU (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). 15  The range of CO2 sequestration potential per unit area for each ecosystem was calculated using default emission/removal factors from the IPCC (2013). 14 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs Table 18.4  Conservation and restoration pathways for mangroves by 2050

Table 18.5  Types of costs and data sources used to estimate the costs of mangrove conservation and restoration

Conservation Restoration Moderate Aggressive Moderate Aggressive 15,000 30,000 184,000 290,000

Description of costs Monitoring and maintenance Hectares conserved cost: Median cost covers the or restored per year current marine protected GHG mitigation 0.02 0.04 0.16 0.25 area expenditure plus potential (GtCO2e estimated shortfalla per year) Global restoration costs of Notes: GHG greenhouse gas, GtCO2e gigatonnes of carbon dioxide mangroves equivalent Opportunity cost: Net Source: Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) economic returns from shrimp farming in Thailand The GHG emission mitigation estimates are likely conserva- Opportunity cost: Net tive because they do not account for avoided methane (CH4) economic returns from charcoal production in and high nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from alternative land northwestern Madagascar uses such as aquaculture and rice production (Hoegh-­ Opportunity cost: Net Guldberg et al. 2019). These emissions can be significant due economic returns from crab to mangrove conversions to aquaculture or rice farming; for catching in northeastern Brazilb

example, 30% of mangrove ecosystems in Southeast Asia have been converted to aquaculture and 22% to rice cultivation (Richards and Friess 2016). These GHG estimates from land use changes are excluded from the present analysis due to the lack of global data.

5.1.4 Assessment of Costs Conservation Costs For conservation, we estimated the cost of monitoring and maintaining the mangroves and the opportunity costs of the forgone net income from alternative use of the mangrove area (Table 18.5). For enforcement and monitoring costs, a global average cost estimate of maintaining marine protected areas was used as a proxy. For the second component, we looked at the opportunity costs for returns from shrimp farming, crab catching and charcoal production (see Table 18.5). Because it was unknown which activities might exist at which sites, we used the sum of the three to represent the higher estimate of the opportunity costs. We estimated the annual global costs of conservation to be $28.8–57.5 million based on the per-hectare estimates in Table 18.5 and the additional area conserved by 2050. These numbers are indicative of global costs. In reality, the actual costs might be lower or higher depending on the location and sizes of the protected areas. Restoration Costs Restoration is often needed when ecosystem degradation is reaching its ecological threshold and significant efforts are required for seeding and replanting mangrove species to restore it. The analysis uses the global restoration cost estimates reported in the Bayraktarov et  al. (2016) study that

691

Cost (US Adjusted $/ha/year) 2019$ 27 40

References Balmford et al. (2004)

8961 (median) 1078– 1220

9449 1873 (average)

Bayraktarov et al. (2016) Barbier (2007)

4

5

Witt (2016)

12

16

Glaser and Diele (2004)

Notes: ha hectare a  To assess the enforcement and monitoring costs, a global average cost estimate of marine protected areas was used as a proxy for the conservation costs for mangrove protection. Balmford et al. (2004) state that the total costs per unit area of running the marine protected areas in their sample varied enormously, with the sum of current expenditure plus estimated shortfall ranging from about $4 per square kilometre (km2) per year to nearly $30 million/km2/year (median, $2698/km2/year or $27/ha). We use the median figure in our analysis. The costs of a protected-area system are divided into three categories: (1) recurrent management costs for existing areas, (2) systemwide expenses needed to support a network of protected areas and (3) costs of bringing new areas into the system b  At $13.50 per person/day × 4500 person days in a year over about 50 km2 is about $12/ha/year

conducted a meta-analysis and systematically reviewed 235 studies (with 954 observations), including projects that restored and rehabilitated mangroves and other vegetated coastal habitats in different world regions. They suggested a median cost per hectare of $8961 per year (2010 prices, converted to $9449 in 2019 prices). We assume the costs are two times higher ($18,997) if both operating and capital costs are included (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). The opportunity cost for restoration is assumed to be the same as that of conservation, but the forgone benefits can occur only 5  years after the restoration efforts have been completed, assuming that once the coastal ecosystems have improved, these areas are again under the risk of being disturbed. The annual restoration costs are estimated to be $3.5–5.5 billion between 2020 and 2050.16

The range is obtained by multiplying the median cost (point estimate) with the area of restoration (range). 16 

692

Assessment of Benefits Mangroves extend over 150,000 square kilometres (km2), distributed across 123 countries (Beck et al. 2018). They provide a wide array of market and nonmarket benefits, which are categorised below according to health, environmental and economic/social benefits. The range of benefits quantified includes coastal protection benefits, sequestration benefits and fisheries productivity benefits. Conserving and restoring mangroves will also increase other ecosystem services, which, in turn, will increase societal well-being, which we have discussed qualitatively. In this study, we assumed that the benefits generated through mangrove restoration (such as coastal protection and fisheries productivity) will not accrue immediately following the restoration effort but rather after there has been improvement in the condition of the ecosystem. We assume this to be 5 years after the restoration/rehabilitation work begins (Burke and Ding 2016).17 In addition, the probability of success for mangrove restoration is very low. Bayraktarov et al. (2016) estimate the median survival of restored mangroves, assessed only within the first 1–2 years after restoration, to be 51.3%. For the restoration scenarios, we multiply the benefits by the probability of success of restoration or the median survival rate.

5.2 Health Benefits Mangroves are a direct source of food, fuelwood, fiber and traditional medicine for local inhabitants (Bandaranayake 1998; Chaigneau et al. 2019). They provide important opportunities for communities to generate incomes from tourism associated with recreational fishing and bird-watching that generate recreational and aesthetic value to visitors (Carnell et al. 2019). These livelihood, cultural and recreational benefits, while important to the physical and mental health and well-being of local communities as well as visitors (de Souza Queiroz et al. 2017; Pearson et al. 2019), have not yet been quantified. In some developing countries such as Kenya and Mozambique, mangrove medicine was used by coastal communities to cure stomach pains or headaches but did not have direct commercial value (Chaigneau et al. 2019).

5.3 Environmental Benefits 5.3.1 Protection from Storm Surges The biggest benefits of mangroves are that they form a natural breakwater that limits the damage to property, economic

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

disruption and loss of life caused by coastal flooding and storm surges, which become stronger and more frequent with climate change. The aerial roots, trunks and canopy of mangrove forests provide a strong protective barrier against winds, swell waves, storm surges, cyclones and tsunamis. Studies indicate that incoming wave heights are reduced by 13–66% by a 100-m-wide mangrove belt, and by 50–100% by a 500-m-wide belt (World Bank 2016). Protecting and restoring coastal and marine ecosystems can reduce the impacts of cyclones on an estimated 208 million individuals in 23 major mangrove-holding countries (Hochard et al. 2019).18 A meta-analysis of 44 studies found a median value of $3604 per hectare per year for the coastal protection services (avoided property damage) provided by mangroves (Salem and Mercer 2012), which, when updated to 2019 prices, yield annual benefits of $60–120 million for conservation scenarios analysed, and $375–592 million for restoration scenarios analysed (Table 18.6).

5.3.2 Mitigation of Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration Benefits Mangroves play an important role in sequestering carbon; hence, they can contribute towards mitigation solutions aimed at limiting temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The discounted climate benefits (calculated based on annual GHG emissions in Table 18.4) from reducing CO2 emissions are estimated at $42–83 billion for conservation and $137–214 billion for restoration over 30 years. 5.3.3 Other Ecosystem Services Mangroves also provide many ecosystem services, such as regulating water quality and reducing coastal erosion, that we have not been able to quantify (see Appendix 1).

5.4 Economic and Social Benefits 5.4.1 Commercial Fisheries Although some estimates have been much higher [e.g., Aburto-Oropeza et al. (2008) estimated that protecting 1 ha of mangroves in California was associated with increased fish yields valued at $37,500 per year], we conservatively used $18,000 per hectare per year (de Groot et  al. 2012), based on global meta-analysis, to assess the commercial value of fish yields associated with conserved or restored mangroves (Table  18.6). We estimate the global economic benefit from increased productivity of commercial fish spe-

Countries receiving the largest benefits in avoided flood damage in absolute dollar terms include China, India, Mexico, the United States and Vietnam. The largest beneficiaries relative to the size of their economies include many low-income countries, such as Guinea, Mozambique and Sierra Leone (Beck et al. 2018). 18 

The time frame for generating these benefits will vary, and in some extreme cases, full development of the aboveground biomass will not be achieved for 20–30 years (Osland et al. 2012; Salmo et al. 2013). 17 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs Table 18.6  Benefits of mangrove conservation and restoration in avoided property damage and fisheries productivity Type of benefit Avoided property damage Fisheries productivity

Benefit (US $/ Adjusted ha/year) 2019$ 3604 4000 18,000

19,980

References Salem and Mercer (2012) de Groot et al. (2012)

Note: ha hectare Source: Authors’ calculations

cies to be $300–600 million per year for the conservation scenarios and $1.9–3.0 billion per year for restoration scenarios.

5.4.2 Tourism Although we have not been able to provide a global estimate on increases in tourism arising from the scenarios analysed, these are likely to be significant for some countries. Mangrove tourism and recreation is a multibillion-dollar industry (Spalding and Parrett 2019). For example, tourism associated with coral reefs and mangroves in Belize contributed an estimated $150–196 million (12–15% of GDP) to the national economy in 2007 (Cooper et al. 2009). These benefits are also further discussed in Appendix 1. While there will be a short-term dip in coastal tourism following the COVID-­19 lockdown, this assessment focuses on benefits over a 30-year period. Over the longer term, we estimate these benefits will pick up as the global economy emerges out of the pandemic and economic crisis. There is also a strong social angle in terms of the distribution of the benefits. For example, low-income communities are most reliant on mangroves for key ecosystem services (Box 18.4).

693

Table 18.7  Net present value and benefit-cost ratios for mangrove conservation and restoration Transformation areas Conservation of mangrovesa Restoration of mangrovesb Total

Net present value (US $, billions, 2019$, 2020–2050) 48–96

Benefit-cost ratio 88:1

97–150

2:1

145–246

3:1

Notes: a  Conservation of 15,000–30,000 ha per year based on halting annual loss of mangroves b  Based on 184,000 ha per year for a moderate effort to 290,000 ha per year for an aggressive estimate Source: Authors’ calculations

B-C Ratio for a Hectare of Mangrove Restored/ Conserved We estimated the benefits for restoring 1 ha of mangrove to be $30,080 and for conservation $79,980. Based on the per hectare conservation and restoration costs in Table 18.5, we estimate the B-C ratio per hectare to be 2:1 for restoration and 48:1 for conservation.

Box 18.4 Mangroves Protect the Poorest Populations

5.4.3 Estimated Benefits and Costs We estimated the B-C ratio under two approaches. In the first approach, we estimated the ratio over 30 years (2020–2050) using present value benefits and costs. In the second approach, we calculated the B-C ratio per hectare.

Low-income communities rely heavily on mangroves for key ecosystem services. Over nearly 98 million people from 10 low- or lower-middle-income countries with major mangrove areas and a gross national income per capita less than US $4036 annually have suffered from cyclones.a This accounts for 50% of the global cyclone-affected population from 18 mangrove-­ holding countries. Poor coastal families are most vulnerable to natural disasters; hence, building ecosystem resilience to protect them from coastal flooding and cyclones will not only safeguard their valuable assets but also generate tremendous social benefits (e.g., feeling safe) that cannot be easily quantified monetarily. Note: a Hochard et al. (2019).

B-C Ratio Using Present Value Approach For every $1 invested in mangrove conservation and restoration, we get a return of $3. Net benefits for mangrove conservation are estimated at $48–96 billion and for restoration at $97–150 billion over 30 years (2020–2050). The value of net benefits for mangrove restoration is higher than conservation because we assumed the area of mangroves restored would be 10 times the area conserved (Table 18.7). However, we find that conservation of mangroves yields significantly more returns per dollar invested than restoration. For every $1 invested in mangrove conservation, we get a return of $88 dollars for conservation, versus $2 for restoration.

For both of the approaches, the ROI for restoration is lower, first, because the cost of mangrove restoration is much higher than conservation due to the high costs of seeding and replanting; second, it takes time to accrue benefits from restoration since the plants need to regrow and restoration requires the right conditions to ensure a high survival rate (see caveats in Appendix 1). The monetised benefits presented under both of the approaches exclude a number of ecosystem services provided by mangroves. Major ecosystem benefits such as erosion control, water management, nutritional benefits from

694

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

fisheries supported by mangroves19 and health benefits are excluded from the current assessment. This is mainly because our assessment relies on previous valuation studies or meta-­ analyses that either do not attribute a value to these particular services or provide a total value across a range of services but do not address double-counting issues. Other social benefits that are not accounted for include employment and the potential for livelihoods associated with sustainably harvesting timber and nontimber forest products. Taking into account these benefits will likely result in a higher ROI. The results from both of the approaches show that both types of interventions yield significant benefits and are important to ensure a high ROI. To reverse the current trend of marine and coastal resource depletion and further halt the release of CO2 emissions from marine resource degradation, significant investment will need to be made to transform the way coastal and marine ecosystems are being managed. They would need more reliable funding for management/ enforcement and greater participation/diversification of opportunities dependent on these ecosystems, in addition to strong ‘political will’ to involve measures that alter the fundamental attributes of a system (including value systems; regulatory, legislative or bureaucratic regimes; financial institutions; and technological or biological systems) (Ellis and Tschakert 2019). These social and political investments are important and have not been valued in the analysis.

(positive and negative) of expanding offshore wind energy against a baseline where fossil fuel sources of electricity generation continue to dominate. We looked at how much it would cost to increase production of offshore wind energy to meet the energy generation potential proposed in Hoegh-­ Guldberg et  al. (2019) and estimate the benefits to society from reductions in GHGs and water usage.

5.4.4 Data Limitations and Caveats Data limitations prevented us from assessing other coastal ecosystems: salt marsh and seagrass beds. Some caveats are that the value of mangrove conservation or restoration varies by locality, the costs are higher in developed countries, and coastal development pressure is a big influence. See Appendix 1 for important caveats.

• Offshore wind technologies displaced coal; and • Offshore wind technologies displaced the current (2018) energy-generation mix.

5.5 Scale Up Offshore Wind Energy Production Currently, global electricity generation from all ocean-based energy sources is less than 0.3% of the total (IEA 2019a). The ocean energy sector has seen a dramatic increase in investments over the past decade and is expected to grow (European Commission 2018; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; WBG et al. 2018). Currently, most offshore installations are in Europe, but a significant increase is expected in Asia, especially China (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). In assessing the impacts of expanding offshore wind energy generation, we do not advocate one renewable energy technology over another. Rather, we focus on the impact It can be argued that the value of nutritional benefits is already embedded in the value of fish sold. 19 

5.5.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios Between 2000 and 2017, the cumulative installed capacity of offshore wind energy rose from 67 megawatts (MW) to 20 gigawatts (GW) (IRENA 2018a, b). In 2018, the total global capacity of wind energy was 564 GW, of which 23 GW were offshore. Offshore wind energy produced 77 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity annually.20 By 2050, gross global electricity generation is projected to be between 42,000 and 47,000 (TWh) (IEA 2019a). In reviewing 15 energy scenarios for 2050 that considered ocean renewable energy, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) concluded that the annual energy generation from offshore wind technologies would increase between 650 and 3500 TWh per year.21 To assess the impact of this increase on GHG emissions, the authors made assumptions about what technologies offshore wind would displace. They looked at the impact on GHG emissions if

We used the second scenario, which projected that scaling up offshore wind energy could reduce GHG emissions by between 0.3 and 1.61 GtCO2e per year in 2050 (Hoegh-­ Guldberg et  al. 2019). Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. (2019) acknowledge that this is a simplistic approach and, in reality, the substitution effect of ocean-based energy will mainly impact certain grids with given energy mixes, which, in turn, depends on global trends, including technology costs.

5.5.2 Assessment of Costs Offshore Wind Energy Generation Costs We use the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) to estimate the cost of additional offshore wind energy generation. The LCOE includes capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable Within offshore wind energy technologies, bottom-fixed water technologies dominate the current capacity of offshore wind energy. 21  The authors based their estimation on several studies that have included offshore wind in scenarios projecting future energy mix. These include International Energy Agency scenarios, Bahar et  al. (2019) and Teske et al. (2011). We assume a linear increase in energy generation from 2020 to 2050. 20 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

695

Fig. 18.3  Historical levelised cost of electricity generation of offshore wind and strike prices in recent auctions in Europe. Note: MWh megawatt-­ hour. Source: IEA (2019b)

operations and maintenance costs, financing cost and an assumed utilisation rate for each plant type (IEA 2015). The LCOE for offshore wind power has declined since 2010 due to factors such as increased capacity from new installations (the ratio between realised energy output and theoretical maximum output), declining operational and maintenance costs due to improved turbine design (as they are made more robust for the offshore environment), improved capacity factors (linked to an increase in turbine size and hub height) and reduced transmission costs (Hoegh-­ Guldberg et al. 2019). The global weighted-average LCOE of offshore wind projects commissioned in 2018 was estimated at $127–140 per megawatt-hour (MWh) based on the standard cost of capital representing full market risk (7% for developing countries and 7.5–8% for developed countries) (IEA 2019a; IRENA 2019). Improved financing terms could reduce the LCOE of offshore wind (IEA 2019a). For example, applying a 4% weighted average of capital costs (WACC) to 2018 costs and performance parameters yields an offshore wind LCOE of about $100/MWh, which is 30% less than the LCOE derived from the standard WACC (7–8%) (IEA 2019b). Declining recent strike prices22 of offshore wind projects provide strong market signals of future cost reductions, indicating increased confidence from investors and setting the stage for low-cost financing opportunities for upcoming projects (Fig.  18.3). Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) of auction strike prices shows costs could fall as low as $50/MWh (in some cases including transmission) for delivery in the mid-2020s (for example, a UK strike price The strike price is a guaranteed price to be paid to wholesale generators of electricity. 22 

of $51/MWh was seen in the September 2019 auction) (IEA 2019b).23 Overall, evidence shows that with an economy of scale and learning curve effects, significant additional reductions in generation costs of offshore wind can be anticipated in subsequent years (IEA 2019b). For floating offshore wind energy platforms, the LCOE may be higher because this is a less mature technology compared with the predominate bottom-fixed technology; it represents only 0.03 GW of the total of 23 GW of offshore power capacity. While cost reductions in the sector are expected due to rapidly advancing technology and market conditions enabling deployment to compete globally,24 given the current low installation capacity of floating offshore wind facilities, it is difficult There is a risk that, depending on how auctions are designed, low bids may be associated with no delivery and/or renegotiations. For example, Welisch and Poudineh (2019) state that one-shot auctions and the lack of a nondelivery penalty clause increase the probability of speculative bidding and prevent bidders from learning and from utilising information efficiently. 24  In 2015 the costs of floating offshore energy were estimated to range between $187/MWh and $316/MWh (IEA and NEA 2015), with predictions that costs would fall by 40% by 2030 due to rapidly advancing technology and market conditions that enable offshore wind deployment to compete globally. These cost declines are also reflected in recent studies. Previous National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studies estimated the LCOE for an offshore wind project in the Massachusetts wind energy area to be $77/MWh (Moné et al. 2016). Later NREL studies revised the LCOEs downward to $74/MWh by 2027 and $57/MWh by 2032 for floating offshore technologies in Maine (Musial et al. 2020). The recent technological and commercial improvements in the global industry are applicable to the turbine design, turbine scaling effects on the balance of station, lower financing terms and lower costs for the floating platform, array and export cables. Commercial-scale plant costs (in terms of dollars per kilowatt) modelled for the Aqua Ventus technology were found to be approximately five times lower than the pilot-scale demonstration project cost that was originally estimated at $300/MWh. 23 

696

to predict its future global costs. That said, while the relative importance of floating wind power platforms will increase, we assume that within the next 30 years the majority of offshore wind installations will be bottom fixed; thus, for an overall cost estimate, we assume the LCOE figures will be close to that of the bottom-fixed installations. For this analysis, we looked at two scenarios based on IEA cost projections (IEA 2019b): • A moderate scenario based on a standard cost of capital financing representing full market risk (WACC is 7–8%). In this scenario, the global LCOE falls from $140/MWh in 2018 to less than $90/MWh in 2030 and close to $60/ MWh in 2040. • An aggressive scenario based on the same underlying technology costs and performance parameters as the moderate scenario, but which assumes low-cost financing (WACC of 4%). The global LCOE of offshore wind declines from $100/MWh in 2018 to $60/MWh in 2030 and to $45/MWh in 2040).

5.5.3 Offshore Wind System Integration Costs The costs of integrating offshore power generation into the land-based electricity system include infrastructure costs (for expanding and adjusting the existing electricity infrastructure to feed in electricity production) and balancing costs (for handling deviations from planned production and extra costs for investments in reserves for handling power plant or transmission facility outages). Offshore wind power requires an offshore grid as well as expanding the onshore transmission grid. The transmission or grid costs are closely tied to the regional regulations for connecting the project to the onshore grid (IEA 2019b). In 2015, the grid and balancing costs of integrating 50% of offshore wind power into the system were estimated at $43/MWh in 2019 prices (or €37/MWh) for offshore projects in Germany (Agora Energywiende 2015). These estimates were higher than the integration costs for photovoltaic (PV) solar and onshore wind ($5–20/MWh) because it costs more to connect with an offshore generation source. However, these costs are expected to decline as offshore wind projects increase and technologies improve. The average up-front cost to build an offshore wind project, including transmission costs, will drop by more than 40% over the next decade, according to the IEA. Such a drop would be due to innovation, economies of scale and supportive action to reduce costs by grid operators.25 Wind corridors for onshore wind have helped to streamline the siting of transmission for multiple projects that allow multiple developers to share the cost. These innovations could help bring down costs. 25 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Table 18.8  Levelised cost of electricity for conventional sources of energy, 2019 Type of energy sourcea Conventional coal Natural gas Nuclear Hydropower (seasonal)b

US $/MWH, 2019$ (3% discount factor) 71–103 67–146 28–70 74

US $/MWH, 2019$ (7% discount factor) 72–152 83–110 41–111 74

Notes: MWh megawatt-hour a   Levelised cost of electricity generation (LCOE) estimates for coal, natural gas and nuclear are based on NEA and IEA (2015) country-­ level analysis of LCOE for the various technologies. The ranges show that the LCOEs will vary by location as each technology and each country faces a different set of risk profiles. Original estimates are converted from 2013 prices to 2019 prices using the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator b  LCOE estimates for hydropower are based on analysis of plants based in the United States (see Stacey and Taylor 2019). They calculate LCOE for new plants using EIA data (which used WACC of about 4%). They state that new plants have higher fixed costs and LCOE (than existing resources) as they begin their operational lives with a full burden of construction cost to recover Source: IEA and NEA (2015), Stacey and Taylor (2019)

For this analysis, we take a conservative approach and assume the grid and balancing cost is $43/MWh in 2020 and declines by 20% ($34/MWh) over 2030–2050.

5.5.4 Baseline Energy Generation Costs In 2018, coal, gas, nuclear and hydropower accounted for 90% of the total electricity generation (IEA 2019a). We assume that, under the baseline scenario, demand for electricity will increase over 30  years (2020–2050) and additional investments in conventional sources of energy (mainly fossil fuels) will be made to meet the demand. We analysed the LCOE of conventional sources of energy to estimate the current costs of energy generation in the baseline based on two discount factors (Table 18.8). Based on the current energy mix and the discount factor, we estimate the global weighted average of LCOE in the baseline to be $86–94/MWh. We assume that by 2040 the LCOE will fall by 20% based on learning effects.

6 Additional Costs of Energy Generation from Offshore Wind The following equation is used to calculate the additional costs of scaling up offshore wind production:

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

697

Costs of offshore wind energy generation  offshore wind generation costs offshore wind integration costs - baseline energy generation costs

The total costs of scaling up offshore wind power are shown in Table 18.9, with the moderate scenario costing $250–884 billion and the aggressive scenario costing $97–420 billion.

6.1 Assessment of Benefits Offshore wind energy can deliver a suite of health, environmental and ecological, and economic and social benefits.

6.1.1 Health Benefits Due to its very low CO2 emissions and negligible emissions of mercury, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, as well as its 0 generation of solid or liquid waste, offshore wind energy production could have a positive impact on human health depending on what energy sources it displaces. Observational and modelling studies indicate that three million premature deaths are attributable to ambient air pollution and another 4.3 million to household pollution (WHO 2016). By multiplying the annual CO2e emissions mitigation potential by the marginal cobenefits of avoided mortality (see Box 18.2), we estimate the total avoided damage costs (or discounted health benefits) from transitioning to offshore renewable energy at $0.15–4.4 trillion over 30 years (2020–2050).26 Table 18.9 Total costs of scaling up offshore wind production, 2020–2050

Scenarios Moderate

Costs (US $, billions, 2019$) 250–884

Description • Global LCOE falls from $140/MWh in 2018 to less than $90/MWh in 2030 and close to $60/MWh in 2040 • Integration costs: Grid and balancing costs are $43/MWh in 2020, declines by 20% over 2030–2050 Aggressive • Global LCOE of offshore wind 97–420 declines from $100/MWh to $60/ MWh in 2030 and to $45/MWh in 2050 • Integration costs: Grid and balancing costs are $43/MWh in 2020, declines by 20% over 2030–2050 Source: Authors’ calculations

6.1.2 Environmental and Ecological Benefits Water Consumption Impacts When estimating the impact of water usage for energy generation, we looked at water withdrawal and water consumption. Water withdrawal is the volume of water removed from a source, including water that is eventually returned to the same source; by definition, withdrawals are always greater than or equal to consumption (IEA 2016).27 The type of cooling technology used mainly determines how much freshwater is withdrawn and ultimately consumed, although fuel mix, the power plant’s role in the electricity system, turbine design and weather also influence the amount of water required (IEA 2016). Thermal power plants (coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and geothermal) demand considerable amounts of water for cooling (IEA 2016) (Table 18.10). In contrast, studies show that wind systems require near zero water for energy generation and cooling (Macknick et  al. 2011). We estimate the water consumption to be 860–1315 gallons/MWh under the baseline. Using the true cost of water in terms of avoided damage to the environment, we estimate a range from $0.10 per cubic metre (m3) in water-abundant Table 18.10  Water technologies Fuel type Nuclear Natural gas Coal PV solar Offshore wind

Cooling typea,b Tower, once-through, pond Tower, once-through, pond, inlet Tower, once-through, pond n/a n/a

factors

for

nonrenewable

Water consumption (Gallons/MWH) 269–672 198–826 103–942 26 0

Notes: MWh megawatt-hour, PV photovoltaic a  Dry cooling is also an option that is not discussed here as it is expensive and has limited application b  Once-through cooling involves lower water consumption but higher water withdrawal than circulating cooling systems. In some jurisdictions (typically arid), once- through cooling is no longer permitted. However, we provide estimates of this technology to demonstrate a conservative water consumption scenario Source: Macknick et al. (2011)

This analysis does not account for the impact of returning the water because it often gets returned at a different temperature, leading to thermal pollution. 27 

This is due to reduced criteria pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter (that are indirectly displaced). 26 

consumption

698

areas to $15/m3 in extremely water-scarce areas (Trucost 2013). We estimate the benefits (discounted) of achieving offshore energy transformation through water savings alone to be $1.3 billion to $1.4 trillion over 2020–2050. Climate Impacts We used the social cost of carbon method (see Box 18.3) to estimate the value of reductions in GHG emissions attributable to offshore wind at $344 billion to $1.4 trillion over 30 years. Impacts on Biodiversity

Building more offshore wind farms could have both positive and negative impacts on biodiversity. The net impacts have not been quantified monetarily, and they would vary depending on the location of the offshore wind farm and the policies and measures to address negative impacts. Effective marine spatial planning, combined with emerging ocean energy technologies, can be effective in mitigating biodiversity loss from ocean energy technologies and reinforcing biodiversity cobenefits (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). The risks of installing wind farms in the marine environment include biological invasions, noise and disturbing vibrations to marine species, collisions between birds and wind turbine rotors and the presence of electromagnetic fields that can disrupt marine life and benthic habitats (Langhamer 2012; Sotta 2012). However, studies have shown a gap between perceived risks and actual risks, and the former arise from uncertainty or lack of data about the real impacts (Copping et al. 2016). While it is important to acknowledge possible impacts, some of the actual risks are likely to be small and can be avoided or mitigated (Copping et al. 2016). For example, spatial planning appears to reduce risks, such as collisions with seabirds and impacts on migratory cetaceans, to manageable levels (Best and Halpin 2019). However, as wind energy expands into new areas, it could become more difficult to mitigate impacts. Wind farms can have positive environmental impacts by serving as artificial reefs for many organisms (Hammar et al. 2016). In addition, the prohibition of bottom trawling near offshore wind farms for safety reasons eliminates the disturbance of fish, benthos and benthic habitats. Evidence from Belgium and Norway suggests that in areas with a homogeneous seabed, wind farms may enhance diversity (Buhl-Mortensen et al. 2012; Degraer et al. 2012).

6.1.3 Economic and Social Benefits This analysis does not monetise the impacts on jobs and livelihoods to the wider community, but it acknowledges them qualitatively. Offshore wind energy can create jobs: German and UK case studies state that offshore wind development is more labour-intensive than onshore wind development because of the greater challenges inherent in building and

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

operating offshore farms in marine environments (BMWi 2018; IRENA 2018a). In Germany, the offshore segment accounted for 17% of total German wind employment in 2016, even though it represents no more than about 10% of the country’s current total wind capacity. Estimates predict that direct full-time employment in offshore wind will be around 435,000 globally by 2030 (OECD 2016).28 Similar analysis by Ocean Energy Systems shows that deployment of other forms of ocean energy (tidal range, wave power and ocean thermal energy) can also provide new jobs and additional investments (Huckerby et al. 2016). However, the net global impact of the growth of the ocean-based energy on net jobs across the whole of the energy sector are less certain because the entire energy sector will transition to cleaner energy sources. Moving to cleaner energy will lead to job losses in the fossil fuel sector, though ocean-based renewable energy has the potential to benefit workers transitioning from declining offshore fossil fuel industries (IRENA 2018a; Poulsen and Lema 2017; Scottish Enterprise 2016), minimising the costs of transition and the risks of structural unemployment.

6.2 Estimated Benefits and Costs We estimated the B-C ratio under two approaches. In the first approach, we estimated the ratio over 30 years (2020–2050), where additional energy production is calculated for each year against the BAU scenario, using present value benefits and costs. In the second approach, we calculated the B-C ratio for one unit of energy produced.

6.2.1 B-C Ratio Using Present Value Approach Table 18.11 shows the high and low benefit-cost ratios for the first approach—calculating additional energy production for each year against the BAU using present values benefits and costs. On average, there is a net positive benefit from expanding offshore wind production. The net present value of benefits was estimated to be $253 billion to $6.8 trillion over 30 years. Table 18.11  Net benefits from scaling up offshore wind energy and benefit-cost ratio Net present value; net benefit (US $, Benefit-cost Benefit-cost Action billions, 2020–2050) ratio (low) ratio (high) Scale up offshore 253–6849 2:1 17:1 wind production Source: Authors’ calculations

This is an estimate of direct jobs, not including indirect or induced jobs, derived from the economic activity of an offshore wind farm. 28 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs Table 18.12  Benefit-cost ratio for offshore wind production under varying LCOE levels Scenario Scenario 1: LCOE is US $140/MWh; integration costs are $43/MWh; baseline costs are $86–94/MWh Scenario 2: LCOE is $60/MWh; integration costs are $43/MWh; baseline costs are $86–94/MWh Scenario 3: LCOE is $45/MWh; integration costs are $30/MWh; baseline costs are $68–75/MWh

Benefit-cost ratio 0.9:1–3:1 4:1–16:1 7:1–28:1

Note: LCOE levelised cost of electricity; MWh megawatt-hour Source: Authors’ calculations

The ROI in 2050 can be high, as shown by the B-C ratio of 2-to-1 to 17-to-1 in 2050.

6.2.2 B-C Ratio for a Unit of Energy Generation and Transmission We estimated the benefits for production of one additional unit of energy to be $75–300/MWh. The B-C ratio varies mainly depending on the LCOE of offshore wind assumed. We examined three scenarios with different LCOE values and found B-C ratios between 0.9-to-1 and 28-to-1 (Table 18.12). Both approaches show that the value of the ROI will increase as the costs of energy generation for offshore wind fall with improved technologies and as actions are taken to reduce integration costs. The estimates should be treated as partial because they do not include key impacts that are discussed qualitatively, such as impacts (positive and negative) on biodiversity and on jobs and livelihoods in coastal communities. Data Limitations and Caveats Data limitations and caveats are described in Appendix 2. They include potential risks to biodiversity, variations in GHG mitigation depending on the fuel mix in the local grid, variations in LCOE depending on local market conditions, and omitting financial benefits from water savings.

6.3 Decarbonise the International Shipping Sector Shipping is a significant source of emissions with identifiable reduction pathways (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). The sector is responsible for approximately 1 GtCO2e per year and represents around 3% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Smith et al. 2015). Based on current trends, GHG emissions will double by 2050 to roughly 2 GtCO2e, compared with 2010 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). In 2018, the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a resolution29 to reduce GHG emissions from shipSee IMO (2018).

29 

699

ping by at least 50% by 2050, relative to 2008 emission levels. However, greater ambition is needed to keep global temperature rise under 2 °C to 1.5 °C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; UNFCCC 2015).

6.3.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios The sustainable transformation pathway focuses on decarbonising only the international shipping sector. Although there is potential to reduce emissions in both domestic and international shipping, we focused on international shipping, which accounts for 55% of the total emissions in the sector (Olmer et  al. 2017). The following scenarios were considered from Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019). Under the BAU scenario, it is estimated that total annual GHG emissions from international shipping will grow from 800 megatonnes (Mt) in 2012 to 1100 Mt. in 2030 to 1500 Mt. in 2050. The mitigation potential assumes a 20–39% emissions reduction in 2030 from a 2008 baseline, and in 2050, a 50–100% emissions reduction from the 2008 baseline emissions (Table 18.13). The upper-bound emissions reduction for 2050 assumes that all vessels move to full use of nonfossil fuels from renewable feedstock. The lower bound is set at 50%, taken as the minimum interpretation of the IMO’s objectives in the initial GHG reduction strategy (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). 6.3.2 Assessment of Costs Because only a small subset of the fleet is likely to be ‘zero-­ carbon-­ fuels ready’ by 2030, we assume the mitigation potential for 2030 to be mainly driven by maximising energy efficiency (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). This includes technological measures that increase the energy efficiency of a ship, such as altering its weight (using lighter materials) or design (such as hull coatings and air lubrication to reduce friction), and other ways to reduce or recover energy (such as via propeller upgrades and heat recovery). These measures could result in fuel savings of up to 25% (ITF 2018). In addition, energy could be saved by changes in how ships—and, more broadly, maritime transport systems—are operated, such as changes in speed, ship-port interface and onshore power. Over the last few years, both slower speeds and larger ship sizes have contributed to a decrease in shipping emissions (ITF 2018). Table 18.13  Greenhouse gas mitigation potential from decarbonising international shipping, 2030 and 2050 2030 Mitigation potential (GtCO2e/ Action year) Reduce emissions from 0.2–0.4 international shipping

2050 Mitigation potential (GtCO2e/year) 0.75–1.50

Note: GtCO2e gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019)

700

However, efficiency measures are ultimately limited by factors such as the efficiency of a propeller or an internal combustion engine that are impossible to improve beyond a certain point (IMarEST 2018). As those limits are approached, improvements have increasingly diminishing returns and become less cost-effective (IMarEST 2018). Hence, the cost of decarbonising international shipping is ultimately capped by the cost of switching to zero CO2 emissions fuels and technologies (IMarEST 2018). We refer to the IMarEST (2018) study to estimate the cost of GHG reduction in international shipping. The study assumes that significant absolute emissions reductions are achieved even at low marginal cost of carbon ($50/tonne) (IMarEST 2018).30 The results from the same IMarEST (2018) model state that, depending on how prices evolve for renewable electricity in coming decades and other assumptions in the scenarios, a 70–100% absolute reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 can be achievable for a marginal abatement cost of $100–500/tCO2e. By multiplying the cost per tCO2e abated with the mitigation potential estimated in the Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. (2019) study, we estimate the total costs (capital and operational) over 30 years to be $2.3 trillion to decarbonise shipping by 100%.31

6.3.3 Assessment of Benefits The health, environmental and ecological, and economic and social benefits from the international shipping sector reducing its GHG emissions are summarised below. Health Benefits Reduced PM2.5 from marine engine combustion mitigates ship-related premature mortality and morbidity (Sofiev et al. 2018). The annual avoided health damage cost to adults is calculated by multiplying the CO2e emission mitigation

This is because of the assumption about the availability of bioenergy; in these scenarios, it is significant relative to international shipping’s total demand for energy. In this modelling, bioenergy is assumed to enter the fuel mix as a substitute for fossil fuels and, therefore, is at the same price as the fossil fuel equivalent and is not dependent on additional carbon price to stimulate its take-up. For example, the study assumes that bioenergy enters the fuel mix as a substitute for fossil fuels at the same price as the fossil fuel equivalent (and is not dependent on additional carbon price to stimulate its take-up), the supply of bioenergy is 4.7 exajoules and there is a low price/capital cost of moving to future shipping energy sources, particularly electricity, biofuel, hydrogen and ammonia. The costs of investments increase (and, consequently, the B-C ratio decreases) if we assume a scenario where the cost of alternative fuel is higher. 31  Our estimates reflect both operational costs and capital investments. It is, hence, higher than the cost estimate provided in the recent analysis by the University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) and the Energy Transitions Commission for the Getting to Zero Coalition (2019), which states that approximately up to $1.6 trillion ‘capital investments’ is needed between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the IMO target of reducing carbon emissions from shipping by 100% by 2050. 30 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

potential by the average marginal cobenefits of avoided mortality (see Box 18.2). In addition to the impact on adult mortality, evidence shows that reducing shipping emissions will positively impact childhood morbidity by reducing childhood asthma (Sofiev et al. 2018). Based on the methodology outlined above for reducing adult mortality and for childhood asthma (see Appendix 3), we estimate the discounted cumulative health benefits from reducing emissions to be $1.3–9.8 trillion over 30 years (2020–2050). Environmental and Ecological Benefits Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal ‘hot spots’ of ocean acidification in areas close to busy shipping lanes. Hot spots harm local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood species (Hassellöv et al. 2013). Reducing global GHG emissions, including shipping emissions, is critical to mitigating local and global ocean acidification. A recent study found that lower trophic species such as bivalves were affected disproportionately due to the compounding effects of shifts in temperature, chlorophyll and ocean acidification. The commercial mollusc industry is estimated to lose over $100 billion by 2100 due to ocean acidification alone (Narita et al. 2012). In addition, reducing ship speeds could positively impact marine mammals and other species. A 10% reduction in ship speed could reduce the total sound energy generated underwater by 40% and reduce the overall whale strike rate by 50% (Leaper 2019). Such measures would benefit marine species (including the whale population) globally, resulting in higher ecosystem service values (both recreational and nonuse values32) that will, in turn, improve human well-­ being. Because of uncertainty about the exact impact that measures to reduce GHG emissions would have on ocean acidification and noise, we have not been able to monetarily quantify these key impacts. Reducing emissions in shipping will help avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. We estimate the climate benefits (see Box 18.3) from reducing carbon emissions to be $0.8–1.6 trillion over 30 years. Economic and Social Benefits Estimates suggest that improved hull shape and materials, larger ships, drag reductions, hotel-load savings and better engines and propulsors, together with routing improvements, can deliver overall efficiency improvements of 30–55% (ETC 2018). The analysis indicates that reducing

Nonuse values (e.g., existence, bequest and option values) are the benefit values assigned to environmental goods that people have not used or do not intend to use. For example, the current generation can place a value on ensuring the availability of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning to future generations (bequest value). 32 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

a vessel’s speed by 10% (e.g., from 20 knots to 18 knots) results in a 19% reduction in cargo-hauling fuel consumption after accounting for the reduced shipping speed and the associated loss in shipping time (Faber et  al. 2012). These savings are already included in the cost calculations for 2030. Estimated Benefits and Costs Based on the methodology outlined above, we estimated that there are net benefits from making investments to decarbonise the shipping sector. The net discounted benefit (average) over 30 years (2020–2050) is estimated to be $1.2–9.1 trillion. The B-C ratio is estimated to be 2-to-1 to 5-to-1 in 2050 (Table 18.14).

6.3.4 Data Limitations and Caveats Data limitations and caveats include a lack of consideration of the secondary impact on commodity prices and the impact of all cost reductions (technology change) in the future. For details, see Appendix 3.

6.4 Increase the Production of Sustainably Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins The analysis for this section builds on the estimates provided in The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019), the analysis of Costello et al. (2016) that looks at the return from global fisheries under contrasting management regimes, the analysis of Sumaila et  al. (2012) that measures the net present value of rebuilding fish stocks over 50 years, and the analysis of Mangin et al. (2018) that compares the benefits from fisheries management against the costs for individual countries. To determine the level of ocean-based protein production required to ensure a healthy, balanced human diet by 2050, we refer to the EAT-Lancet Commission report (Appendix 4; Willett et  al. 2019), which states that the ocean will be required to produce 85–90 million metric tonnes (mmt) of edible-weight ocean protein annually by 2050. It is estimated that the world (freshwater and ocean) currently produces only half that amount (FOLU 2019; Willett et  al. 2019). Table 18.14  Net benefit from decarbonising international shipping and benefit-cost ratio

Action Decarbonise international shipping

Net benefit by 2050 (US $, billions, 2019$) 1152–9050

Source: Authors’ calculations

Benefit-cost Benefit-cost ratio (low) ratio (high) 2:1 5:1

701

6.4.1 Baseline, Sustainable Transformation Pathway and Target Scenarios The 2019 FOLU report looks at ocean-based production across three sectors: wild marine capture fisheries, ocean-­ based fed aquaculture (finfish) and ocean-based nonfed aquaculture (bivalves). The production scenarios under BAU and the sustainable transformation pathways are shown in Table 18.15. Production is measured in million metric tonnes live-weight equivalent. Broadly, the transformation scenarios for the sectors were modelled in terms of possibilities of expanded production. • Wild-capture fisheries. Costello et  al. (2016) and Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate fisheries management that aims to maximise long-term catch (maximum sustainable yield) could increase fisheries production up to 96–99  mmt. This is higher than the current catch (80 mmt) and the projected BAU catch in 2050 (67 mmt) (Costello et al. 2019). • Fed mariculture production. In the BAU scenario, fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements remain at current levels due to the absence of large investments into improving feed efficiency, limiting the growth of fed aquaculture (FOLU 2019). Under the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, aquaculture fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements decrease by 50% by 2050, allowing increased production in fed aquaculture to be achieved via measures such as feed efficiency and alternative feed replacement (FOLU 2019). • Nonfed mariculture production. In the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, policy incentives to boost the eating of low-carbon food increase bivalve/molTable 18.15  The business-as-usual and sustainable transformation pathways Type of ocean-based food production Wild-capture fisheries (marine)

Business-as-usual scenario Global annual marine capture production will decline from 80 mmt in 2020 to 67 mmt in 2050a Fed mariculture Fed mariculture (finfish) production remains at the 2020 level of 11.2 mmtc Nonfed Bivalve mariculture mariculture grows to 28.5 mmt in (bivalves) 2050 from 16.3 mmt in 2020c

Sustainable transformation pathway scenario Global annual marine capture production stabilises at 96–99 mmtb by 2050 Fed mariculture production increases to 22.4 mmt by 2050c Bivalve mariculture grows to 65.2 mmt in 2050c

Notes: mmt million metric tonnes a  Costello et al. (2019) b  Costello et al. (2016, 2019); Sumaila et al. (2012); this refers to the higher estimates of the Sumaila et al. optimal catch range under reform c  FOLU (2019)

702

lusc production and consumption to 4% per  annum as opposed to the BAU average annual growth rate of 3.1% over the last 10 years (FOLU 2019).

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

•

6.4.2 Assessment of Costs The analysis in this paper builds on the investment cost estimates and assumptions in The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU 2019), Sumaila et al. (2012) and Mangin et al. (2018). Capture Fisheries Reform Analysis by Mangin et al. (2018) estimates that under a fisheries reform scenario, annual global fisheries management costs would be $13–15 billion, whereas under BAU, the costs are estimated at $8 billion.33 Sumaila et al. (2012) estimate that the amount governments need to invest to rebuild world fisheries is between $130 billion and $292 billion in present value over 50 years, with a mean of $203 billion.34 Nonfed and Fed Mariculture Production • Additional bivalve production (compared with BAU) is estimated at an average cost of $605 per tonne (FOLU 2019). • In the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, the capital costs for setting up fed mariculture farms are estimated at $157 million for offshore mariculture and $60 million for nearshore mariculture for 2020–2030 (FOLU 2019; O’Shea et al. 2019).35 Between 2020 and 2030, it is assumed that 25% of the additional production will come from new capital expenditures to build these farms (FOLU 2019). After 2030, we assume that the cost of investment will fall by 15%. The capital costs will fall from $157 mil-

•

•

• The paper estimates a country-level B-C ratio for management improvements for 30 countries. It categorises landings in each country into three broad management categories: catch share, where managers and regulators set a scientifically determined catch limit on the amount of fish that can be caught using measures (e.g., community-based allocation, individual quotas, individual vessel quotas, individual transferable quotas, and territorial use rights for fisheries); strong catch controls, which include a broad range of management that can be classified as strong biological management without catch shares; and a broad ‘other’ category that consists of the rest of the fisheries referred to as open access. It focuses on three types of fisheries management costs: administration (or management), research and surveillance, and enforcement (Mangin et al. 2018). 34  The estimated transition costs include the costs to society of reducing the current fishing effort to levels consistent with the maximum sustainable yield and the payments governments may decide to employ to adjust capital and labour to uses outside the fisheries sector (such as vessel buyback programs and alternative employment training initiatives for fishers). 35  This is based on estimates that the average capital expenditure for a large-scale, high-tech farm is $6.50–20.00 per kg (O’Shea et al. 2019). The average production per farm is estimated to be 3000 tonnes/year (FOLU 2019).

lion to $133 million over 2031–2050. All increases in production beyond 2030 come from new farms. Because mariculture expansion is limited by shortages and the rising costs of fishmeal made from forage fish, we assume that fed mariculture expansion is possible over 30 years (2020–50) because of a 50% reduction in traditional fishmeal, with the gap filled by novel feed ingredients such as insects or algae.36 Although these alternatives currently cost more than fishmeal,37 we assume prices will decline with innovation and scaledup production. Increasing the scale of fed mariculture and replacing fishmeal and fish oil with alternative fish feed will lead to a change in the variable costs of mariculture farms. To calculate the impact on variable costs, we assumed that, until 2030, the price of alternative feed would be twice the price of fishmeal and then, because of innovations, it would fall to equal the price of fishmeal in 2030–2050. Public and private R&D spending across food and land-­ use systems was assumed to grow from 0.07% GDP (2018) to 0.1% of GDP by 2030. FOLU analysis assumes 20% of the additional R&D spending on food and land-­use systems ($197 billion over 2018–2030) is allocated to alternative fish feed, intensification impacts and the scaling up of innovative production methods such as multitrophic mariculture and offshore mariculture. After 2030, we assumed the R&D expenditure in the food and land-­ use systems would continue to grow at the same rate38 (reaching 0.13% of GDP in 2040 and 0.17% in 2050), and the proportion spent on ocean-based proteins would remain the same. Under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2030 scenario, mariculture would employ

33 

We estimated the increase in fishmeal and alternatives required under the sustainable transformation pathway scenario where mariculture increases to 22.4 t by 2050. The gap filled by novel alternatives and associated costs is calculated via the following steps. (1) We calculated the existing fishmeal requirements in the BAU using the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and fishmeal inclusion rate for salmon production. We use an FCR of 1.5 and a fishmeal inclusion rate of 25% (Konar et al. 2019). We assume the fishmeal inclusion rate decreases by 50% (to 13%) in the sustainable transformation pathway scenario. (2) We assumed that under the sustainable transformation pathway scenario, 50% of the fishmeal production (100 million t) will be replaced by alternative ingredients by 2050. (3) Finally, we used the current capital cost to produce feed ($1426/t) as a proxy to calculate the additional capital investment required to expand alternative feed (Suleiman and Rosentrater 2018). Using these steps, we estimated $145 billion in additional investments will be required in alternative feed to expand production to meet the gap caused by reducing traditional fishmeal usage. 37  The fishmeal price in 2018 was approximately $1600/t. 38  This reflects the gradual growth of R&D expenditure observed for the world over 2000–2010. For all countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, R&D expenditure grew from 2.1 to 2.4% in 2017. 36 

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

three million farmers (OECD 2016). We assumed all mariculture farmers would receive training for sustainable production and improving feed efficiency ($450 per farmer [FOLU 2019]) over 2020–2050. Based on these estimates and assumptions, the discounted costs are estimated to be $656 billion over 30  years (2020–2050).

6.4.3 Assessment of Benefits Health Benefits The real gain in health benefits is the potential to increase sustainable protein supplies by encouraging more fish consumption (produced via sustainable means) over other protein sources. This would reduce human mortality and morbidity from reduced GHG emissions (see below for the link between GHG emissions and animal-based proteins), increase healthier diets and reduce health costs from reduced pesticide and antimicrobial exposure. This is estimated to be approximately $170 billion in 2030 and $390 billion in 2050 (FOLU 2019). Sustainable sourcing of ocean protein and micronutrients also helps diversify nutritious food supplies, particularly for poorer coastal communities that depend disproportionately on fish for their protein and micronutrient consumption. The distributional health benefits to poorer communities have not been analysed or quantified here. Environmental and Ecological Benefits Livestock production has high GHG emissions and requires extensive land use. The demand for animal- based protein is projected to increase even more quickly than overall food demand by 2050 due to increases in the world population and in incomes across the developing world (Searchinger et al. 2019). Since foods vary widely in their embedded land use and GHG emissions per unit of protein (Poore and Nemecek 2018), changes in the composition of future diets could greatly affect the emissions consequences of growth in protein demand (González Fischer and Garnett 2016). It is estimated that CH4 and N2O emissions in the BAU food system scenario will grow from 5.2 GtCO2e in 2010 to 9.7 GtCO2e in 2050 (Springmann et al. 2018). Of that projected growth, over 75% will come from projected growth in animal products (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). Ocean-based proteins are substantially less carbon intensive than land-based animal proteins (especially beef and lamb), with farmed bivalves being particularly climate friendly (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019).39 Therefore, actions This does not include farmed shrimp, which can be quite high in GHGs. However, salmon/marine fish and bivalves score well in terms of lower GHG emissions. 39 

703

that shift diets towards ocean-based proteins can reduce pressure on land and also reduce emissions. Moving to diets that are less dependent on terrestrial animal products, especially beef and lamb, would also slow the growth in demand for freshwater to support livestock agriculture (Hoegh-­ Guldberg et al. 2019). The transition, if properly managed, could yield benefits of $330 billion in 2050 (FOLU 2019). In addition, such diet shifts will reduce deforestation, the majority of which will be driven by clearing forests for future meat production and consumption. Searchinger et al. (2019) estimated that animal-based foods accounted for roughly two-thirds of agricultural production emissions in 2010 and more than three-quarters of agricultural land use. Under BAU, the analysis estimated that agriculture would expand by nearly 600 million ha (an area nearly twice the size of India), including the expansion of 400 million ha of pasturelands (Searchinger et al. 2019). The additional reduction in emissions from preventing deforestation has not been included in the estimated benefits.

6.4.4 Economic and Social Benefits Reforming fisheries will result in an increase in revenues and profits to fishers in the long term. Costello et al. (2016) state that after all fisheries are optimally managed, it will take 10 years for stocks to recover and will result in $53 billion in fisheries profits against the BAU scenario. Sumaila et  al. (2012) estimate that rebuilding world fisheries could increase profits from the current negative $13 billion to a positive $77 billion per year. Comparing these benefits to the cost of management, Sumaila et  al. (2012) and Mangin et  al. (2018) show that the cumulative benefits of sustainable management of fish stocks exceed the management costs. Sumaila et al. (2012) state that rebuilding fisheries stock will deliver a net gain (net present value) of between $600 billion and $1.4 trillion over 50 years, versus transition costs of $130– 292 billion.40 Estimated Benefits and Costs Based on key reports and papers, the benefits from increasing the share of sustainably produced ocean-based proteins in diets is estimated to be 10 times the costs (Table 18.16). Evidence indicates that while the global B-C ratio for fisheries management reform is about 9.2-to-1, the ratio is higher than 200 for some countries (Mangin et al. 2018). Sumaila The lower bound corresponds to 82 t of catch and the upper bound, 99 t, which is closer to the Costello et al. (2016) estimates. To be consistent, we used both cumulative benefit and cost estimates from Sumaila et al. (2012), which offer a scenario in which the optimal fish landings increase to 99 t when calculating the total net present value for increasing consumption of sustainably produced ocean based protein from capture fisheries, fed aquaculture and nonfed aquaculture. The net gains are present value estimates calculated using a 3% discount rate (Table 18.17). 40 

704

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 18.16  Net benefits from increasing the production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins and benefit-cost ratio

Action Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based protein in diets

Net benefit by 2050 (US $, billions, 2019$) 6678

Benefit-­ cost ratio 10:1

Source: Authors’ calculations based on estimates from FOLU (2019), Mangin et al. (2018), Sumaila et al. (2012)

et al. (2012) estimate the B-C ratio for rebuilding global fisheries to be as high as 7:1. The value of net benefits is estimated to be $6.7 trillion over 30 years; the total benefits are $7.4 trillion versus $769 billion total costs.41 Data Limitations and Caveats The estimates do not fully take into account the effects of climate change and ocean acidification. We recognise that there are regional differences and that there are barriers to shifting diets. See Appendix 4 for more details.

7 Conclusion The overall rate of ROI can be high, with the average B-C ratio ranging from 3-to-1 to 12-to-1 (Table  18.17), and in some cases, such as conservation of mangroves and fisheries reform (for particular countries), it can be much higher. Our research found that investing $2.0–3.7 trillion globally across the four areas from 2020 to 2050 could generate $8.2–22.8 trillion in net benefits. Actions to transform these four areas will bring multiple benefits. The total monetised and discounted benefits are estimated at $10.3–26.5 trillion over 2020–2050. Monetised benefits include health benefits, such as reduced mortality from improved air quality, reduced childhood asthma and improved health outcomes from dietary shifts towards sustainably produced ocean-based protein; environmental benefits, such as avoided property losses from coastal flooding, the prevention of land degradation and reduced water usage; and economic benefits, such as reduced production costs due to technological improvements and increased profits from higher fisheries productivity. The total monetised and discounted costs are estimated to be $2.0–3.7 trillion over 2020–2050. The costs assessed include costs to business (capital costs to set up new infrastructure, R&D costs and increases in variable costs), costs to government (regulatory costs, monitoring costs and research costs) and costs to households (loss of forgone income).

The B-C ratios vary across the countries and range from 1.7 up to 268, with a median of about 14 for catch share management (Mangin et al. 2018). 41 

Table 18.17  Summary of benefit-cost ratios for the four action areas in 2050 Action Conserve and restore mangrovesa Decarbonise international shippingb Increase production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins Scale up offshore energy productionc

Average benefit-­ cost ratio 3:1 4:1 10:1 12:1

Notes: a  The ratio presented is the combined ratio for mangrove conservation and restoration. When assessing specific interventions, the benefit-cost ratio for conservation is estimated to be 88:1 and for restoration 2:1 b  The benefit-cost ratio estimated for decarbonising international shipping ranges from 2:1 to 5:1 c  The benefit-cost ratio estimated for scaling up of global offshore wind energy production ranges from 2:1 to 17:1 Source: Authors’ calculations

A number of impacts (both benefits and costs) have not been monetised but are important and must be considered during the policy decision-making process. These include the following considerations: • Reduced GHG emissions have a positive correlation with the reduced risk of ocean acidification. The measures assessed can positively impact lower trophic species such as bivalves, which are affected disproportionately due to the compounding effects of shifts in temperature, chlorophyll and ocean acidification. • The tourism value of mangroves (and other coastal ecosystems) may increase over time as biomass and diversity increase within the protected areas. • A number of ecosystem services from mangrove protection and restoration have not been quantified. • For example, vegetated coastal habitats are used by a remarkable number of marine and terrestrial animals. Dense mangroves buffer ocean acidification and are becoming recognised as valuable natural systems that can help treat wastewater (Ouyang and Guo 2016). • Measures to reduce emissions in shipping that involve lowering ship speeds reduce the total sound energy generated and overall whale strike rate and, hence, positively impact marine mammals and other species. • The distributional impacts of the benefits and costs have not been measured. For example, poor coastal families are the most vulnerable in natural disasters, so building ecosystem resilience to protect them from coastal flooding and cyclones will not only safeguard their valuable assets but also generate tremendous social benefits (e.g., feeling safe) that cannot be easily monetised. The estimates also do not take into account the additional nutritional benefits to human health in terms of micronutrients, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. • The analysis does not account for changes to the B-C ratio based on changes in the global physical risk profile associ-

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

705

• Increasing the production of sustainably sourced ocean-based proteins. Substantial gains in fisheries productivity can be achieved through better management of fish stocks, which eliminates overfishing, illegal and unregulated fishing and discards of nonmarketable fish. Sustainable marine aquaculture practices will also help meet the growing food demand. Technological innovation and adoption in breeding, production systems, disease control and environmental management will help improve mariculture’s productivity and environmental perforGiven that the B-C ratios in Table 18.17 are a partial estimate mance (Waite et  al. 2014). Encouraging innovation can of all benefits and costs likely to accrue as a result of the make valuable contributions to the future scalability and specified investments, they should be treated as indicative to lower prices of substitutes as forage fish resources become provide the relative scale of benefits from sustainable ocean-­ scarce (Konar et al. 2019). Incentives are required to shift based investments compared with the costs. Further research diets towards low-carbon ocean-based proteins and away and analysis to address gaps in quantifying benefits will help from high-carbon land-based sources of protein (Hoegh-­ provide a more complete picture of their value versus their Guldberg et al. 2019). costs. The analysis does not attempt to show the regional variation of the costs and benefits, nor does it show the dis- Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following tribution of benefits and cost across society (especially people for their review, feedback and inputs: Juan Carlos Altamirano, focusing on the impact on vulnerable groups). Conducting Maximilian Bucher, Lauretta Burke, Linda Cornish, Diletta Giuliani, Craig Hanson, Peter Haugan, Norma Hutchinson, Catherine Lovelock, these assessments should be a key step when implementing Sara MacLennan, Justin Mundy, Finn Gunnar Nielsen, Eliza Northrop, ocean-based policies and regulations. Linwood Pendleton, Alex Perera, Carlos Muñoz Pina, Tristan Smith, Although data limitations prevented a full accounting of Mark Spalding, Michael Tlusty, Laura Malaguzzi Valeri, Adrien all benefits and costs, the results of the analyses suggest that Vincent, Richard Waite, Jacqueline Wharton and Sophie Wood. While our colleagues were very generous with their time and input, this report taking the following actions to transform the ocean economy reflects the views of the authors alone. will generate a host of benefits that are larger in magnitude The authors would also like to acknowledge Maximilian Bucher for his valuable assistance, advice and contribution, especially in terms of than the costs: ated with climate change. Often, the costs of climate change– related risks are underestimated, including the potential damage of weather-related shocks and sea level rise. If ‘resilience’ (e.g., through the integration of natural flood defences) is built into investments, then the benefits (e.g., of protective mangroves) could include a reduction in the cost of capital (due to improved risk-adjusted performance metrics) and/or reduced long-term operational expenses (e.g., through avoided losses and reduced maintenance costs).

• Conserving and restoring mangroves. While the B-C ratio for restoration is lower than for conservation, both types of interventions yield significant benefits and, hence, are both important to ensure a high ROI. Protection measures to conserve these ecosystems should be enhanced along with measures that provide incentives for restoration (e.g., payment for ecosystem services schemes) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). • Scaling up offshore wind energy production. Scaling up offshore wind energy to replace fossil fuel–based sources of power generation will help deliver better local health outcomes, reduce risks of damages from climate change, create jobs and deliver immediate environmental benefits such as reduced water usage. Measures such as marine spatial planning is key to ensuring offshore wind technologies amplify these benefits as well as mitigate any environmental risks to habitats and marine species (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). • Decarbonising the international shipping sector. Transitioning international shipping to net-zero emissions by 2050 will be costly, but these measures will be key to realising the estimated scale of benefits (health outcomes and environmental benefits), which substantially outweigh the costs.

providing essential data from The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition, clarifying its underlying assumptions and suggesting modifications for the purposes of this study. Thank you also to Mary Paden, Lauri Scherer, Carni Klirs and Rosie Ettenheim for providing administrative, editing and design support.

 ppendix 1. Conservation and Restoration A of Mangrove Habitats I ncreasing Ecosystem Services from Mangrove Conservation and Restoration Vegetated coastal habitats are used by a remarkable number of marine and terrestrial animals (Li et al. 2018; Rog et al. 2017). Dense mangroves trap and stabilise sediments that buffer the effects of floodwaters and tidal movements. They are becoming recognised as valuable natural systems that can play an important role in wastewater treatment systems (Ouyang and Guo 2016). The values of these ecosystem services can be significant, as demonstrated in Box 18.5, which provides a local example of the scale of these values for mangroves in Myanmar. While global value estimates of ecosystem services exist (i.e., Costanza et al. 1997, 2014; de Groot et al. 2012), many of these estimates are resulting from meta-­ analysis (i.e., analysis of analyses) rather than primary valu-

706

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

ation studies. Hence, there have been concerns around the • It is not yet understood how climate change will affect the validity of using these values for simple benefit transfer productivity and resilience of coastal mangroves. In without accounting for specific characteristics of the sites marine ecosystems, rising atmospheric CO2 and climate where ecosystem service value needs to be estimated (Himes-­ change are associated with concurrent shifts in temperaCornell et al. 2018). We thus excluded them from the current ture, circulation, stratification, nutrient input, oxygen B-C ratio analysis. However, as new primary valuation data content and ocean acidification, with potentially wide-­ become available, incorporating such benefits will improve ranging biological effects (Doney et al. 2012). However, marine decision-making. there is less confidence regarding the influence temperature will have on interactions among organisms, which is important for ecosystem productivities (Kennedy et  al. Data Limitations and Caveats 2002). • The analysis does not account for the opportunity costs of • We excluded salt marshes and seagrasses from the calcucoastal developments. The economic value of protecting lation due to limited global data availability for both in and restoring coastal habitats, even when the necessary terms of benefit assessment. During the literature review, legal framework is in place, often loses out to the ecoonly one study (Carnell et al. 2019) was found to assess nomic value of coastal development—even when sea the improvement in fisheries productivity through sealevel rise, storm surge and other risks are clearly present. grass conservation, but the estimate is very local, pertainTo mitigate these risks, a better understanding of the driving only to Australia. Restoring salt marshes and ers of degradation is needed, as are measures (policy and seagrasses is found to be more expensive than restoring educational) that aim to change consumer/human behavmangroves because most salt marsh and seagrass restoraiour and raise awareness of the benefits derived from tion efforts did not reach economy of scale. nature-based solutions. • The actual conservation and restoration costs for man- • Marine and coastal ecosystem conservation may result in groves might be lower or higher depending on the specific short-term economic losses due to the forgone economic location, the sizes of the targeted areas and the measures gains from any prohibited or reduced commercial fishing used. Total restoration costs are up to 30 times cheaper in activities (opportunity costs). However, in the long term, countries with developing economies (compared to this will help increase the productivity of fisheries in Australia, European countries and the United States) nearby fishing grounds through fish migration and reduce (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). the risk of ecosystem collapse due to overfishing. The • The analysis assumes a survival rate of 51.3% for the conservation benefits estimated are highly dependent on restored area, based on median survival rates provided by the annual carbon mitigation potential estimated by Bayraktarov et  al. (2016). In reality, however, survival Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019) and the avoided risk of clirates vary significantly between sites due to a few factors mate damages estimated using the social cost of carbon. in play. First, the survival rate of mangroves is highly species-specific (Mitra et  al. 2017). Second, a lack of incentives to engage local residents in the long-term manBox 18.5 The Economic Value of Key Mangrove Benefits agement of restored areas is another reason for low surin Myanmar vival rates (Hai et al. 2020). Addressing these factors will The values for ecosystem services of mangroves in be key to improving restoration survival rates and achievMyanmar, as estimated by Estoque et al. (2018), illusing the scale of the benefits described in this study. trate the scale of the benefits that accrue to society Restoration efforts should follow a protocol that includes from various ecosystem services. diagnosing the causes of the deterioration or deforestation In Myanmar, a mangrove’s most valuable service is of the mangroves, setting a baseline, planning restoration as a fish nursery (US $9122 per hectare [ha] per year) activities and long-term monitoring of the restoration and as coastal protection from storm surges ($1369/ha/ project (Hai et al. 2020). Strong community participation year). Recreational benefits are estimated at $476/ha/ in managing the ecosystem, including in the planning, year. Mangroves also regulate water flow ($275/ ha/ implementation, management and monitoring, will be year) and water quality ($61/ha/year) (see Table 18.18). essential to ensure the success of restoration efforts.

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs Table 18.18  Value of mangroves in Myanmar

Ecosystem service Wood-based energy and timber Coastal protection

Hazard mitigation Regulation of water flow

Regulation of water quality Mitigation of climate change Maintenance of fisheries nursery populations and habitat Recreation and experiential Cultural, amenity and aesthetics

Valuation method Value of marketed and nonmarketed production Avoided expenditures on physical reclamation and replenishment Costs of equivalent engineered storm protection defences Expenditures saved on alternative freshwater sources (alternative deep well and borehole drilling, piping) Reduced costs of wastewater treatment and sediment trapping Potential value of carbon emissions reductions offsets sales Contribution to on-site and off-site capture fisheries

Tourism expenditures and earnings Domestic and international visitor willingness to pay

Value (2018US $/ ha/year) 7.22 1369.28

707

tainty because energy development is still immature. Further analysis in this area will help provide a more holistic picture on the ROI for the ocean energy sector overall. • Water-saving benefits are estimated based on the opportunity costs of water. Direct financial benefits are also associated with water savings, but we excluded them from the benefit assessment because local water prices vary greatly across countries.

349.01 275.25

 ppendix 3. Decarbonising International A Shipping

617.13

 stimating the Avoided Costs of Childhood E Asthma

304.64

9112.45

475.97 28.46

8 Appendix 2. Scaling Up Offshore Wind Energy Production Data Limitations and Caveats Potential risks to biodiversity could arise or increase with the expansion of wind energy, especially as it moves farther from the coast. In such cases, it could be more difficult or costly to mitigate impacts on habitats and wider biodiversity. • The types of generation displaced by ocean energy will depend on the specific generation technologies and costs in places where ocean energy is located. On grids that have a high share of zero-carbon generation, including hydropower and nuclear energy, adding ocean energy will not decrease emissions significantly. Conversely, for grids with a high share of carbon-intensive generation, emission displacements could be significant. • The cost of building more offshore wind generation will vary depending on the supply chain and infrastructure available in each market. The investment required will be much higher for developing nations than for countries like Denmark that already have a wind power market. • The analysis focuses solely on offshore wind energy generation because the projected future costs of other ocean renewable energy installations are subject to high uncer-

In schoolchildren, asthma leads to lost school days, which limits academic performance and has consequent psychological effects. Therefore, children with asthma have more indirect costs than older asthmatics, as the direct cost to parents is limited to missed workdays and other expenses. The total avoided costs from childhood asthma are estimated by summing the health care costs, the cost of school absenteeism and adult missed workdays. The following assumptions are made to derive the avoided costs from childhood asthma: • Globally, 86 million children could suffer from asthma, based on the fact that 334 million people in the world have asthma and 26% of the world population is 14 years or younger (Global Asthma Network 2018).42 Evidence-­ based regression analysis shows that 16% of these cases could be attributed to shipping (Sofiev et  al. 2018), accounting for 14 million childhood asthma cases. • Sofiev et al. (2018) states that childhood asthma morbidity due to shipping declines by 54%, from 14 million children affected in the BAU case to 6.4 million children in the 2020 Action case.43 We assume these benefits are delivered in 2030 (i.e., when 54% of children suffering from asthma are asthma free). We assume a 100% reduction of GHG emissions in shipping will reduce childhood morbidity cases (attributable to shipping) by 100% (14 million). • The average missed days is estimated to be 6.4 days per child (Nunes et  al. 2017; Ojeda and Sanz de Burgoa 2013), and we assume at least one adult loses that many days of work per year to care for the child. The value of additional days lost attributable to asthma per year was $301 for each worker and $93 for each student (Nunes et al. 2017). Without adjusting for the higher prevalence for asthma among young and old persons. 43  The 2020 Action assumes on-time implementation of the IMO’s 0.5% low-sulphur fuel standard. 42 

708

• The average annual health financial costs to government for treating pediatric asthma is estimated to range from $3076 to $13,612 per child in the United States (Perry et al. 2019). We take this as a proxy of the global health care cost to treat the illness.

Data Limitations and Caveats • The analysis does not incorporate all potential cost reductions from innovation and increased R&D efforts. In this respect, the model is conservative because these factors would be expected to reduce technology capital costs. The analysis does not account for additional infrastructure investments such as safe storage and handling of hydrogen/ammonia at the ship-to-shore interface. • The costs of investments increase (and consequently B-C ratio decreases) if we assume a scenario where the cost of alternative fuel is higher. • The analysis does not compare the carbon impact of ship transportation versus air transportation. Investment in cleaner ships to meet demands from a growing economy will lead to a lower carbon footprint solution for global trade and travel (versus ground or air transport of goods and people). • The analysis is static and does not analyse the secondary or indirect impacts following the shipping sector transitioning to a low-fuel economy. Although switching to cleaner fuel will impose costs to the shipping industry, the overall impacts on the economy will depend on how the firms absorb the increase in costs and, thus, are relatively uncertain. Being faced with higher cost, the industry could transfer part of the impacts to the price of final commodities (more likely if they are price inelastic), produce more local product, or reduce profit margins, which would lead to lower future capital investment until the industry’s market equilibrium returns. The overall impact on consumers and households will depend on which of these impacts dominate, and by what extent. In most developed economies, impacts are expected to be negligible, and there are policy options for managing impacts in especially vulnerable and/or disproportionately impacted countries.

 ppendix 4. Increasing the Production A of Sustainably Sourced Ocean-Based Proteins

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

the report did not have the scope to fully analyse fishing and mariculture systems globally. Therefore, while some estimates were included on recommended fish intake, more detailed analysis is needed. EAT, along with other partners,44 is supporting further work to expand scientific understanding of the role of ocean-based protein for planetary health and human well-being. This research, referred to as the Blue Food Assessment, aims to outline pathways for a transformation to sustainable and healthy blue food for all people on the planet, now and into the future. Analysis has focused on marine food production, but a greater understanding of aquatic food production as a whole (including freshwater fisheries and aquaculture)45 is needed to evaluate the benefits and costs of aquatic food to human health and the environment. Those working on the Blue Food Assessment have recognised this and aim to incorporate it into the analysis. • The fisheries reform scenarios are optimistic and assume optimal fisheries management everywhere, which may not be achievable in reality. In addition, the impacts of climate change, such as warming sea temperatures, on fish stocks and their movements have not been fully taken into account in this paper because they are difficult to model and cost. The authors recognise that impacts on production could be significant in some regions. • The projections do not incorporate the potential impacts of ocean acidification on fish and fisheries. There is a lack of sufficient understanding of the capacity for marine organisms to adapt through acclimation as well as transgenerational and evolutionary adaptation (Gaylord et al. 2015; Munday 2014; Munday et al. 2013) to reliably predict ocean acidification impacts on marine populations and ecosystems (FAO 2018). • The FOLU (2019) analysis states that the benefits are the difference between the global hidden costs under the better future and current trends scenarios. It provides an indicative estimate of the potential benefits accruing to the global economy from following the better future development path relative to remaining on the current trajectory. For the aquaculture sector the FOLU does not estimate the increase in revenues from production or direct benefit in terms of value added to GDP (which is accounted for under the fisheries reform scenario); rather, it is a reduction in the size of the externalities currently stemming from food and land use.

Partners include the Food and Agriculture Organization, Friends of Ocean Action, Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, Stockholm Resilience Centre, World Economic Forum and World Resources Institute. 45  Currently, the majority of aquaculture production is inland or freshwater, which constitutes 64% of the total global aquaculture production, and the proportion is likely to be higher in Asia (FAO 2018). 44 

Data Limitations and Caveats • The report by the EAT-Lancet Commission has set out scientific targets for healthy diets that will optimise human health (Willett et al. 2019). By its own admission,

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs

• There are many barriers to shifting diets away from emission-­intensive land-based sources of protein such as beef and lamb.46 Consumer purchases are typically based on habit and unconscious mental processing rather than on rational, informed decisions (Ranganathan et al. 2016). Factors such as price, taste and quality tend to be more important than sustainability in purchasing decisions (Ranganathan et al. 2016). The costs of policy measures and business practices—such as private/public procurement, marketing and campaigning costs or sending clear market signals via carbon taxes or changes in subsidies— to enable a change in diet have not been estimated in this analysis. Several assumptions have been used to estimate the costs; hence, these should be treated with caution. • The estimates do not take into account the additional nutritional benefits to human health in terms of micronutrients, not just protein, particularly in low- and middle-­ income countries. Ocean-based food production provides food security during extreme events (e.g., heavy rainfall and hurricanes) when the supply of land-based food sources is affected and limited. • The average B-C ratio calculated here hides the regional and local variances that will occur in aquatic food production. These variances are likely to impact the livelihoods of smallerscale fishers and farmers the most, and they often have the lowest resilience to changes in capture/farming levels.

About the Authors Manaswita Konar is the Lead Ocean Economist at the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Ocean Initiative. Contact: [email protected]. Helen Ding is an Environmental Economist at the World Resources Institute. Contact: [email protected].

About WRI World Resources Institute is a global research organization that turns big ideas into action at the nexus of environment, economic opportunity, and human well-being. Reducing consumption of animal-based foods should not be a goal for people who are underconsuming. Animal-based foods provide a concentrated source of some vitamins and minerals that are particularly valuable to young children in developing countries whose diets are otherwise poor (Ranganathan et al. 2016). 46 

709

Our Challenge Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth’s resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people’s lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade.

Our Vision We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise management of natural resources. We aspire to create a world where the actions of government, business, and communities combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment for all people.

Our Approach Count It We start with data. We conduct independent research and draw on the latest technology to develop new insights and recommendations. Our rigorous analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities, and informs smart strategies. We focus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where the future of sustainability will be determined. Change It We use our research to influence government policies, business strategies, and civil society action. We test projects with communities, companies, and government agencies to build a strong evidence base. Then, we work with partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strengthens society. We hold ourselves accountable to ensure our outcomes will be bold and enduring. Scale It We don’t think small. Once tested, we work with partners to adopt and expand our efforts regionally and globally. We engage with decision-makers to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact. We measure success through government and business actions that improve people’s lives and sustain a healthy environment.

710

References Aburto-Oropeza O, Ezcurra E, Danemann G, Valdez V, Murray J, Sala E (2008) Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(30):10456–10459. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105 Agora Energywiende (2015) The integration costs of wind and solar power: an overview of the debate on the effects of adding wind and solar photovoltaic into power systems. Agora Energywiende, Berlin. https://www.agora-­energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2014/ integrationskosten-­wind-­pv/Agora_Integration_Cost_Wind_PV_ web.pdf Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud 29(3):155–173. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2295952 Bahar H, D’Ambrosio D, Malischek R, Paillere H (2019) Tracking power. International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/ reports/tracking-­power-­2019 Balmford A, Gravestock P, Hockley N, McClean CJ, Roberts CM (2004). The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(26):9694–9697. Bandaranayake WM (1998) Traditional and medicinal uses of mangroves. Mangrove Salt Marshes 2(September):133–148. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1009988607044 Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy 22(49):178–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­0327.2007.00174.x Bärnighausen T, Bloom DE, Canning D, Friedman A, Levine OS, O’Brien J, Privor-Dumm L, Walk D (2011) Rethinking the benefits and costs of childhood vaccination: the example of the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. Vaccine 29(13):2371–2380. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.090 Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074. https:// doi.org/10.1890/15-­1077 Beck MW, Narayan S, Trespalacios D, Pfliegner K, Losada IJ, Menéndez P, Espejo A et  al (2018) The global value of mangroves for risk reduction. Summary report. The Nature Conservancy, Berlin. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/ Marine/crr/library/Documents/GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionSummaryReport10.7291/V9930RBC.pdf BEIS (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) (2019) Updated short-term traded carbon values: used for UK policy appraisal (2018). BEIS, National Archives, London. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/794186/2018-­s hort-­t erm-­t raded-­c arbon-­ values-­for-­appraisal-­purposes.pdf Best BD, Halpin PN (2019) Minimizing wildlife impacts for offshore wind energy development: winning tradeoffs for seabirds in space and cetaceans in time. PLoS One 14(5):e0215722. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215722 Blas A, Garrido A, Unver O, Willaarts B (2019) A comparison of the mediterranean diet and current food consumption patterns in Spain from a nutritional and water perspective. Sci Total Environ 664(May):1020–1029. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/30769304 BMWi (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie) (2018) Economic indicators of the energy system. BMWi, Berlin. www. bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Studien/oekonomische-­ indikatoren-­undenergiewirtschaftliche-­gesamtrechnung.pdf Buhl-Mortensen L, Buhl-Mortensen P, Dolan MFJ, Dannheim J, Bellec V, Holte B (2012) Habitat complexity and bottom fauna composition at different scales on the continental shelf and slope of Northern Norway. Hydrobiologia 685(February):191–219. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10750-­011-­0988-­6

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Bunting P, Lucas R, Rosenqvist A, Rebelo L-M, Hilarides L, Thomas N, Hardy A et al (2018) The global mangrove watch—a new 2010 baseline of mangrove extent. Remote Sens 10(10):1669. https://doi. org/10.3390/rs10101669 Burke L, Ding H (2016) Valuation of coastal protection near Paramaribo, Suriname. Final report for World Wildlife Fund Guianas. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k. cloudfront.net/downloads/316_02_project_peri_urban_coastal_ protection_options_paramaribopre_final_report_wri.pdf Carnell PE, Reeves SE, Nicholson E, Macreadie P, Ierodiaconou D, Young M, Kelvin J et al (2019) Mapping Ocean wealth Australia: the value of coastal wetlands to people and nature. The Nature Conservancy, Melbourne Chaigneau T, Brown K, Coulthard S, Daw TM, Szaboova L (2019) Money, use and experience: identifying the mechanisms through which ecosystem services contribute to wellbeing in coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Ecosyst Serv 38(August):100957. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100957 Colombo GL, Ferro A, Vinci M, Zordan M, Serra G (2006) Cost-­ benefit analysis of influenza vaccination in a public healthcare unit. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2(2):219–226. https://doi.org/10.2147/ tcrm.2006.2.2.219 Cooper D (2018) Scenarios for the 2050 vision for biodiversity. Paper presented at the convention on biological diversity second bogis-­ bossey dialogue for biodiversity, “Framing and Setting the Scene,” March 3. https://www.cbd.int/cooperation/bogis/2018/DC.pdf Cooper E, Burke L, Bood N (2009) The economic contribution of Belize’s coral reefs and mangroves. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Working paper. https://www.wri.org/publication/ belizes-­coastal-­capital Copping A, Sather N, Hanna L, Whiting J, Zydlewski G, Staines G, Gill A et al (2016) Annex IV 2016 state of the science report: environmental effects of marine renewable energy development around the world. Ocean Energy Systems, Lisbon. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/ publications/state-­of-­the-­science-­2016 Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K et  al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(May):253–260. https://doi. org/10.1038/387253a0 Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S et  al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26(May):152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 Costello C, Ovando D, Clavelle T, Strauss CK, Hilborn R, Melnychuk MC, Branch TA, Gaines SD et al (2016) Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(8):5125–5129. https://www.pnas.org/content/113/18/5125 Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S et al (2019) The future of food from the sea. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel. org/sites/default/files/2019-­11/19_HLP_BP1%20Paper.pdf de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M et al (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005 de Souza Queiroz L, Rossi S, Calvet-Mir L, Ruiz-Mallén I, García-­ Betorz S, Salvà-Prat J, de Andrade Meireles AJ (2017) Neglected ecosystem services: highlighting the socio-cultural perception of mangroves in decision-making processes. Ecosyst Serv 26(Part A):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.013 Degraer S, Brabant R, Rumes B (eds) (2012) Offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: heading for an understanding of environmental impacts. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels Doney SC, Ruckelshaus M, Duffy JE, Barry JP, Chan F, English CA, Galindo HM et al (2012) Climate change impacts on marine ecosys-

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs tems. Annu Rev Mar Sci 4(January):11–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­marine-­041911-­111611 Ellis NR, Tschakert P (2019) Triple-wins as pathways to transformation? A critical review. Geoforum 103(July):167–170. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.12.006 EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency) (2016) Social cost of carbon. EPA fact sheet. EPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2016-­12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf Estoque RC, Myint SW, Wang C, Ishtiaque A, Aung TT, Emerton L, Ooba M et al (2018) Assessing environmental impacts and change in Myanmar’s mangrove ecosystem service value due to deforestation (2000–2014). Glob Chang Biol 24(11):5391–5410. https://doi. org/10.1111/gcb.14409 ETC (Energy Transitions Commission) (2018) Mission possible: reaching net-zero carbon emissions from harder-to-abate subsectors by mid-century. ETC, London. http://www.energy-­transitions.org/ sites/default/files/ETC_MissionPossible_FullReport.pdf European Commission (2018) In-depth analysis in support of the commission communication (2018) 773: a clean planet for all—a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. European Commission, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/ com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf Faber J, Nelissen D, Hon G, Wang H, Tsimplis M (2012) Regulated slow steaming in maritime transport: an assessment of options, costs and benefits. CE Delft, Delft. https://theicct.org/publications/ regulated-­slow-­steaming-­maritime-­transport FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018: meeting the sustainable development goals. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ i9540en/i9540en.pdf Fleming LE, McDonough N, Austen M, Mee L, Moore M, Hess P, Depledge MH et al (2014) Oceans and human health: a rising tide of challenges and opportunities for Europe. Marine Environ Res 99(August):16–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.05.010 FOLU (Food and Land Use Coalition) (2019) The global consultation report of the food and land use coalition. FOLU, London. https:// www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/global-­report/ Gaylord B, Kroeker KJ, Sunday JM, Anderson KM, Barry JP, Brown NE, Connell SD et al (2015) Ocean acidification through the lens of ecological theory. Ecology 96(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1890/14­0802.1 GCA (Global Commission on Adaptation) (2019) Adapt now: a global call for leadership on climate resilience. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32362 Glaser M, Diele K (2004) Asymmetric outcomes: assessing central aspects of the biological, economic and social sustainability of a mangrove crab fishery, Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae), in North Brazil. Ecol Econ 49(3):361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.017 Global Asthma Network (2018) The global asthma report 2018. Global Asthma Network, Auckland. http://www.globalasthmareport.org/ Global%20Asthma%20Report%202018.pdf González Fischer CG, Garnett T (2016) Plates, pyramids, planet. Developments in National Healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-­i5640e.pdf Hai N, Dell B, Phuong V, Harper RJ (2020) Towards a more robust approach for the restoration of mangroves in Vietnam. Ann For Sci 77:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-­020-­0921-­0 Halpern BS, Frazier M, Afflerbach J, Lowndes JS, Micheli F, O’Hara C, Scarborough C, Selkoe KA (2019) Recent pace of change in human impact on the World’s ocean. Sci Rep 9(August):11609. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-­019-­47201-­9

711

Hammar L, Perry D, Gullström M (2016) Offshore wind power for marine conservation. Open J Marine Sci 6(1):66–78. https://doi. org/10.4236/ojms.2016.61007 Hassellöv I-M, Turner DR, Lauer A, Corbett JJ (2013) Shipping contributes to ocean acidification. Geophys Res Lett 40:2731–2736. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50521 Hausker K (2011) The social cost of carbon and competing decision frameworks for climate policy. Paper presented at the fall meeting of the American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Indianapolis, October 12–17 He J, Liu H, Salvo A (2019) Severe air pollution and labor productivity: evidence from industrial towns in China. Am Econ J Appl Econ 11(1):173–201. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170286 Himes-Cornell AH, Grose SO, Pendleton L (2018) Mangrove ecosystem service values and methodological approaches to valuation: where do we stand? Front Mar Sci 5(October):1–15. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00376 HMT (Her Majesty’s Treasury) (2018) The green book: central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. HMT, London. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf Hochard JP, Hamilton S, Barbier EB (2019) Mangroves shelter coastal economic activity from cyclones. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(25):12232–12237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820067116 Hoegh-Guldberg O et  al (2019) The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­10/ HLP_Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf Hollander A, De Jonge R, Biesbroek S, Hoekstra J, Zijp MC (2018) Exploring solutions for healthy, safe, and sustainable fatty acids (EPA and DHA) consumption in The Netherlands. Sustain Sci 14(2):303–313. https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/6325482 Huckerby J, Jeffrey H, de Andres A, Finlay L (2016) An international vision for ocean energy. Version III.  Ocean Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme, Lisbon. https://www. ocean-­e nergy-­s ystems.org/news/oes-­v ision-­f or-­i nternational-­ deployment-­of-­ocean-­energy/ IEA (2019a) Global energy and CO2 status report 2019: the latest trends in energy and emissions in 2018. IEA, Paris. https://www.iea.org/ reports/global-­energy-­co2-­status-­report-­2019 IEA (2019b) Offshore wind outlook 2019. IEA, Paris. https://www.iea. org/reports/offshore-­wind-­outlook-­2019 IEA (International Energy Agency) (2016) Special report: water-energy nexus. IEA, Paris. https://webstore.iea.org/weo-­2016-­special-­ report-­water-­energy-­nexus IEA and NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) (2015) Projected costs of generating electricity. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, IEA; Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, NEA, Paris. https://www. oecd-­nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-­proj-­costs-­electricity-­2015.pdf IMarEST (Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology) (2018) Further consideration of how to progress the matter of reduction of GHG emissions from ships: the costs of GHG reduction in international shipping. ISWG-GHG 3/3. IMarEST, London IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2018) Resolution MEPC.304(72) (adopted on 13 April 2018) initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships. IMO, London. http://www. imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine-­ Environment-­Protection-­Committee-­%28MEPC%29/Documents/ MEPC.304%2872%29.pdf IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC, Geneva. [Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts,

712 J.  Skea, P.R.  Shukla, A.  Pirani, et  al.] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/ assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf IPCC (2019) IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. IPCC, Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ uploads/sites/3/2019/11/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf. [Edited by H.-O.  Pörtner, D.C.  Roberts, V.  Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, et al.] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2013) 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: wetlands. IPCC, Geneva. [Edited by T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, and T.G. Troxler] IRENA (2018a) Offshore wind investment, policies and job creation: review of key findings for G7 ministerial meetings. IRENA, Halifax. https://www.irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Sep/IRENA_offshore_wind_note_G7_2018.pdf?la=en& hash=B186614D923AB1F0A07D7285612C4B037057A0C0 IRENA (2018b) Renewable energy benefits: leveraging local capacity for offshore wind. IRENA, Abu Dhabi IRENA (2019) Renewable power generation costs in 2018. IRENA, Abu Dhabi. https://www.irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/ Publication/2019/May/IRENA_Renewable-­Power-­Generations-­ Costs-­in-­2018.pdf ITF (International Transport Forum) (2018) Decarbonising maritime transport: pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035. ITF policy paper 47. ITF, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. https://www.itf-­oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/ decarbonising-­maritime-­transport.pdf Kennedy VS, Twilley RR, Kleypas JA, Cowan JH Jr, Hare SR (2002) Coastal and marine ecosystems & global climate change: potential effects on U.S. resources. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. ­https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2002/08/ marine_ecosystems.pdf Konar M, Qiu S, Tougher B, Vause J, Tlusty M, Fitzsimmons K, Barrows R, Cao L (2019) Illustrating the hidden economic, social and ecological values of global forage fish resources. Resour Conserv Recycl 151(December):104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104456 Langhamer O (2012) Artificial reef effect in relation to offshore renewable energy conversion: state of the art. In: marine renewable energies: perspectives and implications for marine ecosystems,xs special issue. Sci World J 2012(December):386713. https://www. hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/386713/ Leaper R (2019) The role of slower vessel speeds in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, underwater noise and collision risk to whales. Front Mar Sci 6(August):505. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2019.00505 Lee SY, Hamilton S, Barbier EB, Primavera J, Lewis RR (2019) Better restoration policies are needed to conserve mangrove ecosystems. Nature Ecol Evol 3(6):870–872. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-­ 019-­0861-­y Li X, Bellerby R, Craft C, Widney SE (2018) Coastal wetland loss, consequences, and challenges for restoration. Anthropocene Coasts 1(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-­2017-­0001 Limcangco MR, Armour CL, Salole EG, Taylor SJ (2001) Cost-benefit analysis of a Haemophilus influenzae type B meningitis prevention programme in the Philippines. PharmacoEconomics 19(4):391– 400. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-­200119040-­00006 Lowe J (2008) Intergenerational wealth transfers and social discounting: supplementary green book guidance. Her Majesty’s Treasury, London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193938/Green_ Book_supplementary_guidance_intergenerational_wealth_transfers_and_social_discounting.pdf Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC (2011) A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies. Technical report NREL/TP-6A20-50900.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Washington, DC. https:// www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf Mangin T, Costello C, Anderson J, Arnason R, Elliott M, Gaines SD, Hilborn R, Peterson E, Sumaila R (2018) Are fishery management upgrades worth the cost? PLoS One 13(9):e0204258. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204258 Mitra A, Pal N, Saha A, Chaudhuri TR, Fazli P, Zaman S (2017) Survival rate of mangroves: a proxy to assess ecosystem health. Indian J Geo-Marine Sci 46(10):2046–2053. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/42756 Munday PL (2014) Transgenerational acclimation of fishes to climate change and ocean acidification. F1000Prime Rep 6:99. https://doi. org/10.12703/P6-­99 Munday PL, Warner RR, Monro K, Pandolfi JM, Marshall DJ (2013) Predicting evolutionary responses to climate change in the sea. Ecol Lett 16(12):1488–1500. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12185 Musial W, Beiter P, Nunemaker J (2020) Cost of floating offshore wind energy using New England aqua ventus concrete semisubmersible technology. Strategic partnership project report NREL/TP5000-­75618. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75618.pdf Narita D, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ (2012) Economic costs of ocean acidification: a look into the impacts on global shellfish production. Clim Chang 113(August):1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-­ 011-­0383-­3 Nunes C, Pereira AM, Morais-Almeida M (2017) Asthma costs and social impact. Asthma Res Pract 3:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40733-­016-­0029-­3 O’Shea T, Jones R, Markham A, Norell E, Scott J, Theuerkauf S, Waters T (2019) Towards a blue revolution: catalyzing private investment in sustainable aquaculture production systems. The Nature Conservancy and Encourage Capital, Arlington, VA OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016) The ocean economy in 2030. OECD, Paris. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264251724-­en Oita A, Nagano I, Matsuda H (2018) Food nitrogen footprint reductions related to a balanced Japanese diet. Ambio 47(3):319–326. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­017-­0944-­4 Ojeda P, Sanz de Burgoa V (2013) Costs associated with workdays lost and utilization of health care resources because of asthma in daily clinical ractice in Spain. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 23(4):234–241 Olmer N, Comer B, Roy B, Mao X, Rutherford D (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013–2015. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC. https:// theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-­shipping-­GHG-­ emissions-­2013-­2015_ICCT-­Report_17102017_vF.pdf Osland MJ, Spivak AC, Nestlerode JA, Lessmann JM, Almario AE, Heitmuller PT, Russell MJ et  al (2012) Ecosystem development after mangrove wetland creation: plant–soil change across a 20-year chronosequence. Ecosystems 15(August):848–866. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10021-­012-­9551-­1 Ouyang X, Guo F (2016) Paradigms of mangroves in treatment of anthropogenic wastewater pollution. Sci Total Environ 544(February):971–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.013 Pearson J, McNamara KE, Nunn PD (2019) Gender-specific perspectives of mangrove ecosystem services: case study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands. Ecosyst Serv 38(August):100970. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100970 Pelletier L, Chung P, Duclose P, Manga P, Scott J (1998) A benefit-cost analysis of two-dose measles immunization in Canada. Vaccine 16(9– 10):989–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-­410X(97)00281-­8 Perry R, Braileanu G, Palmer T (2019) The economic burden of pediatric asthma in the United States: literature review of current evidence. PharmacoEconomics 37(February):155–167. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40273-­018-­0726-­2

18  A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360(6392):987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 Poulsen T, Lema R (2017) Is the supply chain ready for the green transformation? The case of offshore wind logistics. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73(June):758–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2017.01.181 Ranganathan J, Vennard D, Waite R, Dumas P, Lipinski B, Searchinger T, GlobAgri-WRR Model Authors (2016) Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. Working paper, installment 11 of creating a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-­public/Shifting_Diets_ for_a_Sustainable_Food_Future_1.pdf Richards DR, Friess DA (2016) Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(2):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113 Rog SM, Clarke RH, Cook CN (2017) More than marine: revealing the critical importance of mangrove ecosystems for terrestrial ­vertebrates. Divers Distrib 23(2):221–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ddi.12514 Salem ME, Mercer DE (2012) The economic value of mangroves: a meta-analysis. Sustainability 4(3):359–383. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su4030359 Salmo SG, Lovelock C, Duke NC (2013) Vegetation and soil characteristics as indicators of restoration trajectories in restored mangroves. Hydrobiologia 720(December):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10750-­013-­1617-­3 Scottish Enterprise (2016) Oil and gas “seize the opportunity” guides: offshore wind. Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow. https://www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/media/1116/sesdi-­o il-­a nd-­g as-­d iv-­g uide-­ offshore-­wind.pdf Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J, Matthews E (2019) Creating a sustainable food future: a menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Final report. https:// www.research.wri.org/wrr-food Simões-Wüst AP, Dagnelie PC (2019) To be or not to be for humankind: organic diets revisited for a sustainable development. Sustain Earth 2:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-­019-­0008-­7 Smith T, Jalkanen JP, Anderson BA, Corbett JJ, Faber J, Hanayama S, O’Keefe E et al (2015) Third IMO greenhouse gas study 2014. International Maritime Organization, London. http://www.imo.org/ en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Study/GHG3%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Report.pdf Sofiev M, Winebrake JJ, Johansson L, Carr EW, Prank M, Soares J, Vira J et al (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nat Commun 9:406. www.nature.com/ articles/s41467-­017-­02774-­9 Sotta C (2012) Documentary summary of the environmental impact of renewable marine energy. Parc naturel marine d’Iroise, Le Conquet. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/3-­2-­1_Documentary_summary_EN-­MERiFIC-­web.pdf Spalding M, Parrett CL (2019) Global patterns in mangrove recreation and tourism. Mar Policy 110(December):103540. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103540 Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky L, de Vries Lassaletta W et al (2018) Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562(7728):519. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-­018-­0594-­0 Stacey TF, Taylor GS (2019) The levelized cost of electricity from existing generation resources. Institute for Energy Research, Washington, DC. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2019/06/IER_LCOE2019Final.pdf Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

713

Suleiman R, Rosentrater KA (2018) Techno-economic analysis (TEA) of extruded aquafeeds. J Food Res 7(5):57–68. https://doi. org/10.5539/jfr.v7n5p57 Sumaila UR, Cheung W, Dyck A, Gueye K, Huang L, Lam V, Pauly D et  al (2012) Benefits of rebuilding global marine fisheries outweigh costs. PLoS One 7(7):e40542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040542 Teske S, Pregger T, Simon S, Naegler T, Graus W, Lins C (2011) Energy [R]evolution 2010—a sustainable world energy outlook. Energ Effic 4(August):409–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-­ 010-­9098-­y Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515(7528):518–522. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature13959 Tol RSJ (2019) A social cost of carbon for (almost) every country. Energy Econ 83(September):555–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eneco.2019.07.006 Trucost (2013) White paper: valuing water to drive more effective decisions. Trucost, London. https://www.trucost.com/publication/ white-­paper-­valuing-­water-­drive-­effective-­decisions/ UMAS (University Maritime Advisory Services) and Energy Transitions Commission (2019) The scale of investments needed to decarbonize international shipping. Insight brief. London, UMAS and Energy Transitions Commission. https://u-­mas.co.uk/LinkClick.asp x?fileticket=03IebWyJns8%3d&portalid=0 UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015) Decision 1/CP.21: adoption of the Paris agreement. Conference of Parties, UNFCCC, Paris. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/ files/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51(10):807– 815. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-­3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW ]2.0.CO;2 Waite R, Beveridge M, Brummett R, Castine S, Chaiyawannakarn N, Kaushik S, Mungkung R, Nawapakpilai S, Phillips M (2014) Improving productivity and environmental performance of aquaculture. Working paper, installment 5 of creating a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://wriorg. s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-­public/WRI14_WorkingPaper_WRR5_ final.pdf Warusawitharana M (2014) The social discount rate in developing countries. FEDS notes. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-­7172.0029 WBG (World Bank Group), ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program), and SERIS (Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore) (2018) Where sun meets water: floating solar market report. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/579941540407455831/Floating-­Solar-­ Market-­Report-­Executive-­Summary Welisch M, Poudineh R (2019) Auctions for allocation of offshore wind contracts for difference in the UK. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford. https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-­content/ uploads/2019/02/Auctions-­f or-­a llocation-­o f-­o ffshore-­w ind-­ contracts-­for-­difference-­in-­the-­UK-­EL-­33.pdf West JJ, Smith SJ, Silva RA, Naik V, Zhang Y, Adelman Z, Fry MM, Anenberg S, Horowitz LW, Lamarque J-F (2013) Co-benefits of global greenhouse gas mitigation for future air quality and human health. Nat Clim Chang 3(October):885–889. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2009 WHO (World Health Organization) (2016) Burden of disease from the joint effects of household and ambient air pollution for 2012. WHO, Geneva. https://www.who.int/airpollution/data/AP_jointeffect_BoD_results_Nov2016.pdf Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T et al (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-­ Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.

714 Lancet 393(10170):447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­ 6736(18)31788-­4 Witt E (2016) A financial and economic assessment of the conservation of Northwestern Madagascar Mangroves. Master’s thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University. https://dukespace.lib. duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/11911/E.Witt_MP.pdf?se quence=1&isAllowed=y World Bank (2016) Managing coasts with natural solutions: guidelines for measuring and valuing the coastal protection services of mangroves and coral reefs. In: Beck MW, Lange G-M (eds) Wealth accounting and the valuation of ecosystem services p­artnership

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan technical report. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/995341467995379786/ Managing-­coasts-­with-­natural-­solutions-­guidelines-­for-­measuring-­ and-­valuing-­the-­coastal-­protection-­services-­of-­mangroves-­and-­ coral-­reefs Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV (2002) Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis. Pediatrics 110(4):653–661. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.110.4.653

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

Highlights • With a longer-term vision and the right actions, the COVID-19 pandemic can mark the beginning of a new type of global and societal cooperation in building a sustainable ocean economy. • The pandemic has had deep and wide-reaching consequences for people around the world, resulting in a crisis that has led to significant loss of human life, increasing food and nutritional insecurity and poverty, and affecting almost all areas of the global economy. • The ocean economy, which contributes upwards of US $1.5 trillion in value added to the global economy has been particularly hard hit by the pandemic. Significant revenue losses have been felt across coastal and marine tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, and the global shipping industries. Hundreds of millions of jobs have been affected, with disproportionate impacts for developing and small island nations and already vulnerable coastal communities. • The linkages between ocean-based sectors and landbased economies mean that the pandemic’s impacts flow beyond these individual sectors, with economic and social repercussions across the entire economy. A sustainable and equitable recovery is critical not just for those who live or work near the coasts but for the well-being and resilience of societies and economies at large. Despite the significance of the impacts, only a limited number of investments through stimulus and recovery packages are currently directed towards affected ocean workers, coastal communities and the sustainable rebuilding of the ocean economy. Originally published in: Northrop, E., et al. 2020. A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis. Report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at http://www.oceanpanel.org/bluerecovery Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission. Published under license from the World Research Institute.

19

• Furthermore, many response measures have the potential to reverse progress made to date on ocean sustainability and exacerbate the existing threats to ocean health, undermining the myriad non-monetary benefits provided by the ocean which are essential to human well-being and prosperous societies, and the ability of the ocean to continue to be a workplace, a source of income, livelihoods and nutritional food for billions of people worldwide. • Investment through recovery and stimulus packages represents a crucial lever for accelerating the shift from business as usual to a more sustainable future that delivers on global targets under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement. • Humanity is at a critical crossroads. Stimulus which locks in high-emitting, high-polluting and inequitable development pathways now will have catastrophic implications for ocean health, the global climate emergency, economic resilience, human health and prosperity. • The strategic investment of recovery and stimulus funds into the ocean economy offers an untapped opportunity to support job creation and economic diversification and relief in the short term. Such investments can also accelerate the sustainable and equitable growth of ocean industries, thereby securing the long-term health and resilience of the ocean and ocean economy and the myriad benefits that it provides to humanity. • This report proposes a set of five priority opportunities for governments to consider for the immediate investment of stimulus funds to support a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ from the COVID-19 crisis. These mutually beneficial, no-regrets ‘blue stimulus’ opportunities, identified on the basis of criteria, are particularly relevant at this time for their potential to deliver short-term economic, social (health) and environmental benefits for affected communities and sectors, while building longer-­ term social, economic and ecological resilience:

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_19

715

716

•

•

•

•

–– Invest in coastal and marine ecosystem restoration and protection. –– Invest in sewerage and wastewater infrastructure for coastal communities. –– Invest in sustainable community-led non-fed marine aquaculture (mariculture) (e.g. shellfish and seaweed). –– Incentivise zero-emission marine transport. –– Incentivise sustainable ocean-based renewable energy. As evidenced by the stimulus response to the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, not all investments will be directed at measures capable of providing job creation in the short term. Instead, much of the investment will be used to lay the foundation for long-term recovery through systemic transitions to improve the efficiency and cost-­effectiveness of the economy and initiating large infrastructure projects that will yield benefits over the next 10–30 years. This report proposes a set of additional opportunities that are more systemic and oriented towards using this critical juncture to sustainably reset the ocean economy. This will enable the accelerated transition of ocean industries towards smarter, sustainable practices that conserve marine ecosystems, promote human well-being and build social and economic resilience to future shocks. Maximising the use of financial mechanisms (e.g. debt restructure and financial grants) offers an unprecedented opportunity to incentivise sustainable recovery efforts and avoid a roll-back in advances already made in sustainable fisheries management, marine conservation and ocean data. Heightened awareness of the importance of coordinated and evidence-based global action to shared challenges, and rapid shifts towards new technologies and working practices as evidenced during the COVID-19 crisis, may create new opportunities for advancing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement. The urgency cannot be overstated. As the world continues to battle the health crisis, millions are without incomes to provide for themselves and their families. They need a job and a lifeline, for right now and for the future. Policymakers and financial decision-makers must consider the potential of the ocean economy’s role in social and economic recovery and ensure that the ocean economy rebuilds to be more sustainable, equitable and resilient—as this is key to our global prosperity and well-being.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

1 Introduction A healthy ocean is the foundation for prosperous, healthy and vibrant economies. There is an unprecedented opportunity, through global stimulus and recovery responses to the COVID-19 crisis, to reset and rebuild economic activities in ways that will ensure a more sustainable, equitable and resilient ocean economy fit for everyone’s future. This report provides a roadmap to achieve this vision.

1.1 Context The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented human health crisis around the world, resulting in significant loss of life. Emergency measures introduced to curb the extent of the virus have led to severe restrictions on human mobility, economic activities and services, affecting large swathes of the economy and resulting in widespread unemployment and impacts on people’s livelihoods, well-being and wider health (Xu and Joyce 2020). The resulting global economic downturn is expected to exceed the one experienced during the 2008–2009 global financial crisis (Bluedorn and Chen 2020). The global economy is projected to contract by 4.9–6% in 2020 (IMF 2020a), the largest economic dip since the global depression of the 1930s (OECD 2020c). Gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to shrink in nearly every country in 2020, although with significant variation reflecting differing national circumstances. As economic projections have been revised downwards, unemployment has continued to rise. Worldwide, some 300 million full-time jobs could be lost, and nearly 450 million companies are facing the risk of serious disruption (ILO 2020c), reducing local incomes, tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings. Early evidence suggests that groups that were economically most vulnerable before the pandemic will experience the greatest impacts, exacerbating existing inequalities within society (UN DESA 2020a). Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic may force as many as 100 million people into extreme poverty and could double the number of people facing acute hunger, to 265 million people by the end of 2020 (Anthem 2020).

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

Before the pandemic, ocean-based industries such as fishing, energy, shipping and marine and coastal tourism had been conservatively estimated to contribute 2.5% of world gross value added, a value that was predicted to double by 2030 (OECD 2016). As of 2010, these ocean-based industries contributed some 31 million direct full-time jobs (OECD 2016). This figure is significantly higher when jobs provided through informal or artisanal employment are included. For example, upper estimates in 2011 suggest that the fisheries sector alone provides the equivalent of 237 million full-time jobs when small-scale fisheries and artisanal employment are also considered (Teh and Sumaila 2013). The ocean also connects cities and countries around the world, driving economic activity and trade for the more than a third of the global population that lives within 100  km of the sea (Kummu et  al. 2016). Most of the world’s megacities are located in the coastal zone. A healthy ocean not only underpins the global economy but also provides myriad non-monetary benefits alongside essential goods and services that are vital for healthy human societies, including regulating the global climate, offering a storehouse of compounds key for fighting disease (Blasiak et al. 2020) and providing natural infrastructure to protect against storm surges, flooding and coastal erosion. Fish and fish products are among the most highly traded foods in the world, supplying a critical source of animal protein, micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids, particularly in low-­income, food-deficit countries and small island developing states (SIDS) (FAO 2020a). The pandemic has significantly disrupted ocean sectors and global supply chains. These ocean industries do not operate in isolation from one another, or from the ocean environment of which they are part (OECD 2016). This has led to cascading and interrelated impacts across the ocean economy, marine ecosystems and society. Fiscal measures announced in response to the COVID-19 crisis by G20 nations are already three times greater than those made available during the 2008–2009 financial crisis. More is expected as the focus shifts from emergency spending to recovery investments. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has called for a coordinated approach to social and economic recovery from the pandemic, a response that does not lose sight of the parallel threat to the global

717

community posed by the climate emergency. Leaders from business and civil society alike are advocating for this unprecedented situation to be used as a catalyst for a cleaner, greener and more resilient future (Harrabin 2020). The actions that governments and financial institutions take now to repair and rebuild the global economy will chart the course of economic growth and sustainability for many years to come. Although the nature of the investments themselves might have a short-term focus, their impact will be felt over the medium to long term. It is therefore important to avoid locking in high-emitting, high-polluting and inequitable pathways that limit the ability to build sustainable and resilient economic systems. Investment through recovery and stimulus packages represents a crucial lever for accelerating the shift from business as usual to a more sustainable future that delivers on global targets under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement. While the solutions will differ from one country to another, humanity has a unique opportunity to reboot economic activities in a way that is more firmly in service of society and restores planetary health for future generations. A healthy ocean is essential in the quest for a sustainable and prosperous future, and it will be an important ally in rebuilding national and global economies from the impacts of COVID-19 and lifting communities out of poverty. Cumulative impacts to ocean health resulting from unsustainable development, overexploitation of natural resources, pollution and climate change are, however, already causing rapid changes across ocean ecosystems, undermining the ocean’s ability to continue to provide vital benefits and services to the global economy and humanity. A transformational shift is needed in the relationship between humanity and the ocean, in acknowledgement of its material and non-­ material values and importance, to ensure that the solutions pursued in response to the COVID-19 crisis do not further undermine ocean health or the future opportunities associated with the growth of a sustainable ocean economy. The importance of green stimulus to maintain advances towards a greener economy has been recognised by some governments, yet few have recognised the role that ‘blue’ stimulus opportunities could also provide in supporting advances to meet environmental and climate change chal-

718

lenges. This report considers this gap between the impacts and responses and offers a set of high-level guiding principles for governments and financial institutions to consider as a first step towards ensuing a sustainable blue recovery to COVID-19. It also supports the notion that a ‘blue’ recovery is a ‘green’ recovery and vice versa—the decision to ensure a sustainable blue recovery does not come at the expense of a green recovery—they should go hand in hand and cover the full land-to-ocean interface of activities. Early indications suggest that society may emerge from this crisis to be less cooperative and effective (Sachs et al. 2020). However, with a longer-term vision and the right actions, the pandemic can mark the beginning of a new type of global and societal cooperation in building towards a sustainable ocean economy—which for the purposes of this report is described as the sustainable use of ocean resources (produce) in ways that preserve the health, function and resilience of ocean ecosystems and associated services (protect) and improve livelihoods and jobs (prosper). Given the importance of the ocean as a workplace and a source of income, livelihoods and nutritional food for billions of people worldwide, the importance of resetting the ocean economy on a sustainable and just path so as to reduce vulnerability to future shocks, restore resilience in natural systems and redress existing inequalities must not be overlooked.

1.2 About This Report 1.2.1 Scope This report aims to provide a holistic assessment of the impact (economic, social and environmental) that COVID-­19 has had on the ocean economy. Section 2 considers the emerging impacts on the ocean economy and early responses to the crisis by governments, financial institutions, industry, intergovernmental organisations (IOs) and non-­governmental organisations (NGOs). In considering the impacts, it looks at six key sectors—marine and coastal tourism, fisheries, marine aquaculture (mariculture), shipping, energy and marine conservation—as well as how these impacts are interconnected across the ocean economy as a whole. Recognising that this crisis continues to evolve, these impacts represent a snapshot in time but can still offer important lessons on the scope and degree to which recovery measures must take into account ocean-based sectors, workers and affected communities, and the health of the ecosystems upon which these industries depend. Section 3 provides a roadmap for a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ predicated on three mutually reinforcing elements—effective protection of ocean ecosystems, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. It outlines

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

• high-level guiding principles for ensuring a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ to aid governments as they consider the nature of their recovery after COVID-19 (Sect. 3.1); • ‘blue stimulus’ opportunities that are ripe for the immediate investment of stimulus funding and which can deliver short-term economic benefits to affected communities or sectors while also providing longer-term social and environmental benefits (Sect. 3.2); • ‘blue transformations’ opportunities, which through more systemic or longer-term policy reform can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable ocean economy in order to secure economic recovery, resilience and prosperity over the longer term (Sect. 3.3); and • ‘blue conditionality’ opportunities associated with financial grants and debt relief which can advance key reforms in areas such as sustainable fisheries management and monitoring and enforcement of protected areas (Sect. 3.4).

1.2.2 Approach The report relies on real-time analysis of impacts of the COVID-19 crisis presented in published reports, working papers and blog posts to help provide an aggregated picture of the resulting economic, social and environmental impacts of COVID-19 on the ocean economy (Sect. 2.1). The COVID-19 response measures (Sect. 2.2) are based on systematic review of the policy response reports from international organisations (such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank), think tanks, consultancies, academic institutions and national government websites. Both the impacts and response measures are rapidly evolving landscapes and, as such, these sections are not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the status quo. The opportunities for investment of stimulus funding identified in Sect. 3 are based on an extensive literature review and set of criteria to identify priorities that respond to the needs of governments and communities now, but which also help catalyse progress towards a sustainable ocean economy. These criteria were selected through literature review, and through expert input from bilateral and multilateral funders and government representatives involved in the design of recovery and stimulus packages. The opportunities highlighted in Sect. 3 of this report are not exhaustive of what will be required to fully transition to a sustainable ocean economy. There is already extensive literature on the solutions and opportunities for action to build a sustainable ocean economy that should be referred to in conjunction with this report—which focuses on the particular economic challenges and opportunities facing governments at this time. Annex 2 offers a summary of relevant literature.

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

The report draws on publicly available information (including news articles, expert opinion pieces, peer reviewed reports, academic studies and project-specific case studies) to identify potential (short- and long-term) economic, social and environmental benefits for the priority areas of action and interventions identified. The figures included are offered as proof points and illustrative examples, not as conclusive statements or guarantees. For numbers of potential job creation, many of the estimates presented in the report are based on range of studies, including ones that use input–output (I-O) models to derive job numbers, which have their limitations1. The benefits (economic, social or environmental) that may accrue as a result of a particular policy decision or financial investment will be specific to the location, economy and population they relate to. While it is beyond the scope of this particular assessment, the value of new analysis in these areas—particularly an assessment of the direct and indirect employment opportunities associated with transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy—is well recognised and encouraged to inform decisions that relate to the ocean’s contribution to socioeconomic development. In generating this report, the authors engaged with the 14 offices of the heads of state and government represented on the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (www.oceanpanel.org) to gather real-time information on country impacts, response measures and priorities, and the relevance and feasibility of interventions for these diverse geographies and economies. This report is, however, an ­independent input to the Ocean Panel process and does not reflect the views of the Ocean Panel members.

2 Emerging Impacts and Early Responses Jobs and sectors in the ocean economy and already vulnerable coastal communities have been hard hit by the COVID-­19 crisis with significant revenue losses felt across coastal and marine tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, and the shipping industry. The linkages between ocean-based sectors and land-based economies mean that these impacts flow beyond these individual sectors to have economic and social repercussions across the entire economy. Only a small proportion of COVID-19 stimulus packages account for the impacts suffered by coastal communities and workers in the ocean econ-

I-O analyses can portray the linkages between sectors well, based on industry-level accounts. However, they have several weaknesses, including the assumption of fixed prices (prices do not change when demand for a good, service, or input changes), fixed ratios of labour to other factors of production and fixed sectoral share of GDP over time.

719

omy and an even smaller subset focuses on transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy.

2.1 Emerging Impacts on the Ocean Economy This assessment focuses on the impact that the crisis is having across six ocean-based sectors. We consider three categories of impacts (Table 19.1): • Economic impact measures the impact on output, jobs, revenue, future investment targets and productivity of ocean-based sectors. • Social impact identifies vulnerable groups (such as women, workers in the informal sector, young workers and Indigenous community members), poorer communities or low-skilled essential workers who face higher health risks due to limited access to healthcare and are disproportionately affected due to job losses and loss of livelihoods. • Environmental impact assesses the benefits and harms to ocean health arising from a range of factors including reduced intensity of ocean-based economic activities, roll-back of environmental policies, changes in societal behaviours (e.g. increased use of e-commerce shipping, disposable personal protective equipment [PPE] and single-­use plastics) and reduction in private sector funding for conservation.

2.1.1 Economic Impact The ocean economy was projected to double by 2030, but this growth potential has been curtailed by COVID-19 (Richens and Koehring 2020; OECD 2016). Significant revenue losses have been experienced across most ocean-based sectors, with coastal and marine tourism being the hardest hit (UNCTAD 2020b). Across these sectors—in particular coastal tourism, shipping, fisheries and aquaculture—we see a significant loss in revenues, risks of high job losses and reduced appetite for future investment (Table 19.1). With a decline in international tourist arrivals, the coastal tourism sector has seen a sharp drop in revenue, putting hundreds of millions of direct tourism jobs at risk2. Seafood sectors (both wild fisheries and aquaculture) have been affected by a fall in aggregate demand for seafood due to the closure of restaurants and supply chain disruptions (FAO 2020b; UNCTAD 2020b). Slowed demand has negatively affected maritime shipping, the cruise sector and shipbuilding.

1 

Ocean tourism before COVID-19 was directly valued at US $390 billion globally and comprises a significant portion of many nations’ GDP (OECD 2016). 2 

720

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.1  Summary of impacts across ocean-based sectors and ecosystems Sectors Coastal and marine tourism

Marine transport

Economic impact Social impact Environmental impact  The loss in gross value added is  Small and medium enterprises,  The reduction in tourism revenues could estimated to be up to US $2.1 autonomous workers and workers have a knock-on impact on conservation trillion for the whole of the tourfrom vulnerable communities, who and restoration efforts (MPA News 2009) ism sector, with 100 million jobs at constitute 80% of the coastal tourism  The reduction in tourism activities risk (UNCTAD 2020b) sector workforce, have been hard hit provides a temporary respite to reef by the reduced flow of income ecosystems (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman  Coastal regions are expected to be  Seafarers from the cruise industry 2002) the most affected, and the have been badly affected due to cumulative reduction in gross suspension of cruise operations and domestic product (GDP) from April quarantining of workers and to June is estimated be between passengers (ILO 2020a; UNCTAD €9.7 billion to €24.9 billion for 2020b) areas in Europe alone (OECD 2020b)  Unemployment is significantly higher in the Pacific islands and Caribbean,  Small island developing states have which rely more on tourism revenues seen a decline in tourism receipts of (ILO 2020a) 25%, resulting in a $7.4 billion loss (or a 7.3% fall in GDP) (Coke-­  Women are likely to be most affected Hamilton 2020) by job losses in the tourism sector  For the Caribbean, analysis (based on the proportion of women estimates job losses to be 1.4 employed in low-skilled jobs in the million to two million and losses to sector) the tourism sector to be $27 billion to $44 billion (WTTC 2020)  Recovery is estimated to take a minimum of 10 months to 2 years after the pandemic, and longer for smaller economies reliant on tourist arrivals from a few developed economies (UNCTAD 2020b)  The cancellation of shipping is  Travel restrictions and grounded  Short-term environmental benefit might estimated to be causing revenue airplanes make crew changeover be observed due to lower transport losses of $1.9 billion for the carriers impossible, leading to repeated demand (World Maritime News 2020) contract extensions. About 200,000  Due to weak markets, several shipping seafarers have overrun their contracts  The outbreak is costing the liner companies are now considering scrapping and another 200,000 are now waiting segment of the global shipping excess tonnage (NSA 2020a). This could to get on board (ICS 2020b). This is industry around $350 million a present an opportunity to get rid of older putting the personal safety, physical week in lost volume (ICS 2020a; and more polluting tonnage and mental health of seafarers at risk Paris 2020)  Although the shipping sector’s capacity to (IMO 2020; ILO 2020a; UNGC  With 384 sailings cancelled, the invest in more environmentally friendly 2020a; ICS 2020a) and could lead to first half of 2020 could see a 25% technologies has been reduced (ECSA maritime accidents reduction in shipping, with a 10% 2020), there is still a strong drive towards annual fall in 2020 (World Maritime  Seafarers stuck at sea due to crew decarbonisation, as seen in recent change restrictions are prevented News 2020). For all ships, announcements from the industry (NSA from reuniting with families (UNGC departures in the first week of April 2020b; Mærsk 2020; CMA CGM 2020) 2020a; IMO 2020; ILO 2020a) 2020 were down 20% compared to  COVID-19 has curtailed the ability of the 2019, while the decrease in  Crew members are often denied International Maritime Organization to container-ship departures was 29% medical treatment by foreign have physical meetings, which may lead (Heiland and Ulltveit-Moe 2020) authorities during the quarantine to delays in the adoption of regulations period (ICS 2020b; IMO 2020)  The shipbuilding sector has necessary to achieve environmental sustained a major blow from targets and a reduction in ambition among production halts, temporary layoffs governments (long-term risk) and liquidity issues—particularly in  An increase in loss and waste throughout the European Union the seafood supply chain as a result of an  The drop in demand for new ships increase in quarantine paperwork and may lead to reductions in shipyard reduced personnel at the docks activity (Saumweber et al. 2020)

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

721

Table 19.1 (continued) Sectors Wild capture fisheries

Aquaculture

Ocean-based renewable energy

Economic impact  Global fishing activity has dropped by 10% since 11 March (Clavelle 2020)a. The impact has been even more significant for small-scale fishers (Campbell et al. 2020)  Sales and prices have fallen for premium seafood products generally sold to restaurants, such as lobster, crabs, scallops and wild salmon (Saumweber et al. 2020)  Export-oriented fisheries have seen a vast reduction in demand (particularly from Asia, the United States and Europe) as well as port closures, lost access to cold storage and cessation of shipping and air freight (Orlowski 2020)  Demand has increased for non-­perishable compared to fresh seafood (UNCTAD 2020b)

Social impact Environmental impact  Female employment may benefit from  A decline in fishing pressure, particularly the production shift towards femaleby legal industrial fleets, could allow fish intensive occupations such as preserving stocks with more resilient life histories to and freezing (UNCTAD 2020b) recover (Bennett et al. 2020)  The reduced demand, limited  Illegal, unreported and unregulated and accessibility of markets and collapsed (IUU) fishing may increase due to the prices of some fisheries have restricted suspension of observer programs and small-scale fishers’ ability to pursue fishing patrols their livelihoods and food security  Increased pressure on supply chains, due  Women working in the processing sector to port closures and restricted access, may may be more likely to lose their jobs due lead to harder-to-regulate practices such to the sector’s tendency to offer as increased transshipment of fish at sea. temporary and lower-paid positions Such activities are more likely to be without social protection benefits associated with illicit fishing and human (Orlowski 2020; The Fish Site 2020) rights violations (Saumweber et al. 2020)  Gender-based violence may increase  The sustainability of stocks may be (Harper et al. 2020) compromised by the extension of fishing seasons and the halting of stock  Fishing communities may become assessment surveys (Carr 2020) ‘hotspots’ for rapid infection due to the migratory nature of fishers and  Negotiations on fisheries subsidies at the the frequency of international visitors World Trade Organization have been (FAO 2020a) forced onto a slower track (GSI 2020)  Probable major disruptions to regionally important tuna industry in the Pacific islands will impact national access to tuna, with resulting economic consequences (Farrell et al. 2020)  Local processing of tuna may be disrupted, and shortages of imported processed and packaged foods are possible (tinned foods). SMEs in this sector could be particularly affected (Farrell et al. 2020)  Production may be affected by the  COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred  Delays in trade are forcing fish farmers to disruption in the supply of feed or among seafood process workers in sit on stocks of live fish for prolonged input, transportation and labour Ghana, the United States and periods, increasing demand for fishmeal shortages elsewhere, as well as in other animal and fish oil containing aquafeed (FAO processing plants (Love et al. 2020) 2020a). This could increase pressure on  Specialty aquaculture products like forage fisheries that are pre-dominantly shellfish (e.g. lobster, shrimp and  Women, who comprise a used for aquafeed production oysters) are hardest hit by restaurant disproportionate share of temporary closures (FAO 2020b) and casual workers, face the highest risk of losing their jobs due to falling  Flight cancellation has directly business revenues (Holmyard 2020) affected trade in some high-end fresh products that are transported  Women working or shopping in by air (FAO 2020b) vendor markets are at greater risk of infection, since these locations have  The sale of prepackaged, frozen or limited sanitation and hygiene canned fish and fish products has facilities (FAO 2020a) increased in the short term due to panic buying. However, these industries may not be able to continue supplying the market if the raw material (such as feed) is not available (Aquafeed 2020)  Offshore wind energy has seen  It is difficult to get specialised  Falling energy demand means sharp significant growth during COVIDpersonnel on board offshore energy reductions in the growth of installed 19 (reNews 2020) platforms or into ports to undertake wind, solar and battery capacity in 2020, operations, maintenance and repair, with effects lingering into 2021  The forecast for offshore wind leading to increased risks to health and (Eckhouse and Martin 2020)c remains unchanged for 2021, as most safety (UNGC 2020a; IMCA 2020) projects are already financed and  However, offshore wind investment has under construction (IEA 2020a).  Though this is hard to disaggregate by more than made up for a slowdown in Beyond 2021, the industry might be sector or technology, some analysis investment in onshore wind and solar affected due to permitting and other shows that there could be regional job farm projects after the outbreak of approval delays caused by COVID-19 losses in the clean energy sector COVID-19 (Ambrose 2020)d b (Jordon 2020) (continued)

722

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.1 (continued) Sectors Economic impact Social impact Environmental impact Marine  Reduced revenues from tourism  Locals and Indigenous communities  Marine ecosystems (e.g. coral reefs) may conservation have affected the functioning of have turned to hunting and fishing for benefit from the reduced physical impact some conservation organisations food security (due to job and income of tourism activities and reduced sewage that relied on ecotourism for loss), rather than relying on food from hotels and restaurants. Polyethylene funding. This has forced these commodities sold in the markets terephthalate bottle consumption may be organisations to reduce costs, (Bowlin 2020). In some instances, reduced by the cancellation of mass including by reducing staff engaged this could affect the conservation of events, tourism and travel (Circulate in monitoring (Riedmiller 2020) nearshore reefs close to urban areas Capital and GA-Circular 2020)  Nature-based solutions for marine  Poaching and IUU fishing may increase ecosystems, such as the protection of due to roll-back of environmental mangroves, are receiving increased protection measures (Kroner 2020). Other attention for their contribution to impacts may include reversion to global efforts like the Sustainable unsustainable practices such as Development Goals and the Paris destructive fishing or mangrove clearing Agreement, for their co-benefits of  Environmental deregulation measures protecting and restoring coastal include extension of the fishing season, ecosystems to strengthen food opening of marine protected areas to security and for their provision of fishing (SUBPESCA 2020a, b, c; Carey y sustainable ‘goods and services’ that Cía 2020), reassignment of new artisanal improve social, economic and fishing quotas and rollover of uncaught ecological resilience to climate quota (Australian Government 2020b) change and COVID-19  The temporary roll-back on plastic bans may become permanent, which is likely to increase plastics in the ocean (Leonard and Mallos 2020)e. Marine plastic pollution in the ocean has increased due to the worker shortages in the informal waste sector, lack of demand for recycled plastics and lack of proper disposal of medical items such as masks Negative impacts, Positive impacts, No/neutral impacts  These figures primarily represent changes in activity for the world’s industrial fleet—fishing vessels over 24 m—and do not fully capture the impacts on small-scale fisheries b  15% of the U.S. total clean energy workforce could be lost over the coming months (more than half a million jobs) due to COVID-19. In March alone, more than 106,000 renewable energy and energy efficiency jobs were lost in the country (Jordan 2020) c  2020 global solar and energy storage installations are expected to drop nearly 20% compared to pre-COVID-19 projections (Energy Choice Coalition 2020) d  Bloomberg New Energy Finance believes that offshore wind projects are taking off despite the global economic gloom in part due to a two-thirds fall in cost since 2012 and a rush in China to finance and build offshore wind projects before the government’s subsidy regime expires at the end of 2021 e  Several governments, such as that of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, have suspended bans on single-use plastic bottles and bags in retail trade (Peszko 2020). The United Kingdom has suspended the plastic bag charge for online deliveries, with Scotland delaying the introduction of a packaging deposit-return scheme (Peszko 2020) a

A potential decline in renewable electricity capacity for onshore wind energy and solar farm projects is forecast due to factors such as supply chain disruption, lockdown measures, emerging financing challenges and decreased energy demand (IEA 2020a). The share of renewables in the electricity supply has increased, as their output is largely unaffected by demand3. Demand has fallen for all other sources of electricity, including coal, gas and nuclear power (IEA 2020b). However, increased offshore wind capacity in 2020 has more than made However, renewable sources (mainly wind and solar) saw their share of electricity substantially increase during COVID-19. For example, in less than 10 weeks, the United States increased its renewable energy consumption by nearly 40% and India by 45%. The ongoing increase in renewable energy into the grid results from a mixture of past policies, regulations, incentives and innovations embedded in the power sectors of many forward-thinking countries (Mojarro 2020). 3 

up for a slowdown in investments (across other renewable technologies) after the outbreak of COVID-19 (IEA 2020a). There is some uncertainty in growth projections for the offshore wind sector beyond 2021, due to permitting and other approval delays caused by COVID-19. In addition, the sectors’ interconnectedness amplifies the impacts discussed across the ocean economy (Box 19.1 and Fig. 19.1).

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

723

Fig. 19.1  Interwoven impacts across the ocean. (Source: Authors)

Box 19.1 Interwoven Impacts Across the Ocean Economy and the Rest of the Sectors

There are strong interconnections between ocean sectors and land-based economies. For example, fisheries and aquaculture provide employment to many communities and are vital for the food security of both coastal and inland communitiesa. The global maritime shipping industry carries around 90% of traded goods. In coastal areas, the tourism sector is the biggest contributor to local, regional and national GDP. Because of these interconnections and linkages between ocean-­ based sectors and land-based economies, impacts of COVID-19 flow beyond these individual sectors with amplified consequences for the entire economy. Some examples of the transmission of impacts across sectors are discussed below. Disruption to maritime shipping and port services has negative consequences for the seafood, agriculture, energy, health and tourism sectors. • Delays for fishing vessels in ports are associated with increased risk of higher seafood waste (Saumweber et al. 2020). • Port closures (or restricted access to ports) in some countries may have increased the use of transshipment—the transfer of fish and supplies from one vessel to another in open waters—which is more likely to be

associated with illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and human rights violations. • Port closures and travel restrictions also severely harm the global cruise tourism industry, leaving many tourists and seafarers unable to disembark from vessels and replacement crews unable to join their ships. • The ability of the shipping sector to provide undisrupted service to transport food, energy and other essentials, such as medical supplies, across the continents will play a critical role in overcoming this pandemic. The aquaculture sector and its ancillary business supply chains face setbacks due to international trade delays, restaurant and hotel closures, and reduction in fishing effort. • Lockdown restrictions on fishing operations have disrupted the production of fishmeal and fish oil (FMFO) from wild caught fisheries, with negative consequences for the aquaculture sector that is dependent on this input as feed (FAO 2020b). • At the same time, trade delays are leading to higher unsold volumes of farmed live fish, resulting in higher feeding costs for the aquaculture sector. The risk of

724

fish mortality is also increased, especially in situations where key inputs are in low supply (such as FMFO requirements) (FAO 2020b). • Reduced tourist visits caused by lockdown measures have heavily disrupted demand for seafood from the hotel and restaurant industry, particularly for highvalue species such as lobster and prawn, reinforcing the interdependencies between the tourism, fisheries and aquaculture sectors (UN 2020c). Ocean conservation and research have decreased as a result of falling tourism revenues, lost livelihoods in coastal communities and increased ocean pollution. • In some locations, particularly low- and middle-income countries, fewer tourist visits and reduced availability of associated revenues have curtailed the availability of funding for fisheries management and marine conservation measures (Greenfield and Muiruri 2020). • Coastal fisheries and reefs are also facing greater pressure, as local communities are turning back to traditional fishing as a food source—driven by a loss of income from tourism (Vyawahare 2020). This can be exacerbated when people return to their home communities from urban areas (Hockings et al. 2020). • The work of ocean research vessels has been impaired by port closures and quarantine restrictions, with knockon effects for ocean science and climate studies, such as the Alfred Wegener Research Institute Polarstern expedition, although some privately funded research missions have continued (e.g. Walsh Challenger Deep dive). • Increased production and use of single-use plastic (such as for e-commerce shipping, grocery delivery, additional

2.1.2 Social Impact Assessments of social impacts show that the COVID-19 crisis has disproportionately harmed a number of vulnerable groups, including women employed in temporary jobs, low-­ skilled workers, small-scale fishers and businesses, Indigenous community members and younger workers. Women represent the majority of the workforce in the ocean economy sectors hardest hit by the crisis—about 50% of workers in the seafood sector4, 70% in aquaculture, 80–90% in the post-harvest sector of small-scale fisheries5 and 54% in tourism (Holmyard 2020; UNWTO 2019; Monfort 2015; World Bank 2012; OECD 2015). As businesses lose revenue,

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

food layer protection, masks, gloves and other personal protective equipment) have increased plastic pollution in the ocean, since these items often are not properly disposed of (Tenenbaum 2020). Ocean pollution also has increased due to disruption of land-based waste collection and recycling facilities during COVID-19, especially in South and East Asiab. Reduced access to markets for small-scale fishers weakens the food security of entire local communities. • Reduced inland ferry services and quarantine measures have restricted the ability of many small-scale fishers to access local markets, sell their harvest and contribute to the local economy and the food security of their community. a  Fish accounted for about 17% of animal protein consumed by the global population (FAO 2020c). b  With recycling not recognised as an essential service in many countries, less than 20% of recyclers operated during the lockdowns in Vietnam, India and the Philippines, while in Thailand and Indonesia it was less than 60%, significantly curtailing waste collection in cities (Circulate Capital and GA-Circular 2020). Critical workers in the value chain lost jobs and income to support their families. The migration of workers in these countries (from urban to rural areas) has also reduced waste collection and recycling. For example, in India, 70–80% of informal sector waste workers have left cities for their hometowns (Circulate Capital and GA-Circular 2020). As a result, no wastepicking has been occurring in landfills and dumping grounds for India's five largest cities.

many will reduce their costs by laying off workers, starting with the temporary and casual jobs disproportionally occupied by women (Holmyard 2020) (Box 19.2)6. The shipping industry (including the cruise sector) has been particularly badly affected due to the suspension of cruise operations and quarantining of workers (ILO 2020a; UNCTAD 2020b), with seafarers’ physical and mental well-­being at risk. The reduced demand, limited accessibility of markets and collapsed prices of some fisheries have curtailed small-scale fishers’ ability to pursue their livelihoods. Indigenous communities are particularly at risk as they may have reduced immunity and limited access to healthcare (UN DESA Other systemic barriers such as gender-based violence and lack of access to finance and credit further contribute to the impacts faced by women when they are laid off work. In addition, in many countries women tend to have more work at home, raising children and taking care of the elderly and the sick. An increase in domestic violence and conflict within households could increase food insecurity for vulnerable groups (Farrell et al. 2020). 6 

When considering fisheries, aquaculture, seafood processing and all related services. 5  Of the 120 million people who work in the capture fisheries and post-­ harvest sectors, 47% are women. If the People’s Republic of China is excluded, the share of women fishers and fish workers approaches 60% (World Bank 2012). 4 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

725

2020a)7. These groups also face risks of lost livelihoods authorities has also declined in some communities due to resulting from the economic crisis, as many are employed in poor crisis management at all government levels. the informal sector or engaged in seasonal work (such as tourism), in which they do not receive social protection benefits8. As for all sectors, young people, low-skilled workers Box 19.2 Tourism Impact in Small Island Developing and informal workers across the ocean-based economy have States been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 crisis Due to the economic crisis caused by COVID-19, (ILO 2018, 2020c; World Bank 2020a)9. small island developing states (SIDS) as a whole have Across the seafood supply chain, the social and financial seen a 25% decline in tourism receipts, resulting in a resilience of small businesses (including ones that are family US $7.4 billion or 7.3% fall in GDP (Coke-Hamilton owned or whose workers are self-employed) is being weak2020)a. The gross domestic product (GDP) of the ened by labour shortages and low demand (Resilience 2020). Bahamas and Palau is expected to shrink by 8% or The severity of the impacts also varies across countries, more, making the current crisis the worst in recorded with the economies of small island developing states (SIDS) history, while the drop in GDP could reach 16% in the facing higher economic risk (Table 19.1 and Box 19.2) given Maldives and Seychelles (Coke-Hamilton 2020; UN their small economic base, high degree of openness and DESA 2020b). High external debt, low foreign reserves extreme dependence on the economic performance of a few and volatile capital flows have increased the severity of developed economies (UN 2020a; WTTC 2020). the pandemic’s economic consequences for many The crisis has had some positive social consequences at a SIDS (Coke-Hamilton 2020). This has had a severe community level, such as stronger ties within communities, impact on both direct and indirect employment (Coke-­ as demonstrated by many instances of food-sharing Hamilton 2020). In the Pacific and Caribbean islands, (Table  19.1), and by examples of community- run savings which rely heavily on tourism, hotels and resorts have clubs to improve social and financial resilience in fishing-­ been badly affected. For example, the Fiji Hotel and dependent communities throughout the Philippines (Arquiza Tourism Association reports that 279 hotels and resorts 2019; Polo 2020)10. However, social cohesion and trust in have closed since the outbreak, with 25,000 workers losing their jobs (ILO 2020b). 7  The impact of COVID-19 on Indigenous elders has cultural implicaImpact on women in tourism tions for their communities, as elders play a key role in keeping and In 20 of 28 SIDS, women constitute more than half transmitting Indigenous traditional knowledge, culture and practices. of those employed in the accommodation and food serThese include conservation of biodiversity, upholding traditions and vices sectors, the core economic activities related to customs, leading community gatherings and ceremonies, and serving as custodians of customary law and governance (UN DESA 2020a). tourism. Women in this sector and in these countries 8  Indigenous people account for almost 19% of the extreme poor, irreare also more likely than other women to own small spective of the region and residence in rural or urban areas and even and medium businesses. Given the female-intensive across international borders. They are custodians of a wealth of tradinature of employment in tourism, especially in low-­ tional knowledge and practices, languages and culture, which includes skilled activities, women in SIDS are more likely than time- tested responses to crises (UN DESA 2020a). 9  More than 61% of the world’s employed population—2 billion peomen to lose their jobs. Businesses may also choose to ple—earn their livelihoods in the informal sector. These workers lack lower wages or shift workers to informal or part-time the right to social protection benefits and schemes. Some of the low-skill work, worsening the already unclear terms of employworkers in these sectors are migrant workers. The combination of the ment in tourism. In addition, women face higher barridecline in economic activity, travel restrictions and lack of social protection in many migrant hubs induces such low-skilled migrants to seek ers to access business credit. In the absence of targeted to return home. However, back home returnees continue to face chalpolicies, this means women entrepreneurs in tourism lenges, including lack of employment opportunities, limited access to face a higher risk of bankruptcy than their male counsocial safety nets, large debts accumulated to finance migration (costs terparts (Zarrilli and Aydiner-Avsar 2020). that would have been paid with higher incomes earned at the destinaa tion), loss of remittances from abroad and even discrimination by com  According to the World Development Indicator munity members fearful that migrants may transmit COVID-19.Young database, tourism provides more than 50% of export people face multiple shocks from the COVID 19 crisis, including job revenue in 20 SIDS and more than 30% in 29 SIDS loss, disruption to education and training, and increased challenges to (Zarrilli and Aydiner-Avsar 2020). entering the labour market. A large proportion of young workers are employed in the hard-hit sectors (including tourism), and almost 77% of the world’s young workers are in informal jobs (compared to around 60% of workers aged 25 and above) (ILO 2020c). 10  Women make up the majority of members in savings clubs (~70%) and help fishing households pivot from quick spending to long-term financial planning. This change in behaviour can powerfully affect the long-­ term strategy behind coastal fisheries conservation and the goal of ending overfishing. The savings clubs have already proved to be a fast, secure and communal way to ensure food security for the community during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

2.1.3 Environmental Impact Overfishing, pollution and biodiversity loss were eroding the ocean’s ability to sustain livelihoods before COVID-19. The pandemic is likely to intensify the severity of these threats to the ocean. Decreased presence of law enforce-

726

ment, a slowdown in key international negotiations (such as talks on fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organization) and the roll-back of environmental regulation are likely to compromise ocean sustainability. For example, suspension of observer programs and fishing patrols may be leading to an increase in IUU fishing (Thomson 2020; CFFA CAPE 2020). Similarly, roll-back measures such as reassignment of new artisanal fishing quotas and rollover of uncaught quota have been reintroduced, which could reverse progress made in fish stock recovery (Australian Government 2020b). However, the policy response varies greatly from one country to the next and across levels of government11. Declining tourism revenue is also weakening conservation and restoration efforts, especially in cases where ecotourism provides the revenue stream for monitoring, data-gathering, conservation, certification and environmental education (see Box 19.3). Table 19.1 gives details of these impacts. In addition, COVID-19 has had a temporary impact on efforts to ensure the sustainable transition of ocean-based sectors12. However, the ambition to have a carbon-neutral fleet by 2050 is still active, as demonstrated in the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association climate strategy, the net-zero announcement by CMA CGM, the Mærsk Foundation donation to set up a new green technology research institute, as well as a number of large-scale projects involving energy companies (such as the partnership by Ørsted, Mærsk and others) to produce green methanol for shipping (NSA 2020b; Mærsk 2020; CMA CGM 2020)13.

For example, while we see the roll-back of many national-level environmental policies, some local-level governance approaches have used consultation to institute recovery plans for fisheries and aquaculture. One example is the virtual consultation by the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries with relevant stakeholders and government officials specifically to discuss issues confronting the fishery and aquaculture sector amid COVID-19 (PCAF 2020). 12  A survey of its members performed by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations revealed that COVID-19 may negatively affect efforts to decarbonise the shipping industry (ESCA 2020). Responding to a general question about investments in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, 44% of respondents to the survey said it will no longer be possible to return to the investments planned prior to the pandemic. Only 26% of respondents to the survey thought they would return to the same level of investments, whereas 30% thought the investments would still happen, but to a lesser extent (ESCA 2020). 13  Since decarbonisation of shipping is a full value chain endeavour, effort towards this transition should not be limited the shipping companies.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

While the decline of ocean-based activities, such as fishing14 and ocean-based tourism15, has offered temporary relief to marine ecosystems, over the coming months the combined effects of increased food insecurity, reduced presence of law enforcement bodies and economic recession could prevent the environmental benefits of decreased commercial maritime activities from being fully realised (Torgler et al. 2020)16. Box 19.3 Decline in Funding for Marine Conservation Due to Loss of Tourism Revenue

In many cases, governments use revenue from marine tourism to fund marine research and conservation efforts (Wilson and Tisdell 2003) and undertake monitoring and protection activities in marine protected areas. For example, in the Philippines’ Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, tourism revenues make up over half of the conservation budget needed to protect areas from illegal fisheries (UNESCO 2020). However, as the main tourism season (normally April and May) coincided with the strictest quarantine restrictions during the COVID-19 period, tourism revenues in Tubbataha have dropped sharply. With the decline in tourism revenues during COVID-19, some sites have turned to crowdfunding, online donations and government grants (where available) to meet the funding gaps. In some cases, private foundations have stepped in to compensate for reduced revenue from tourism and endowments. However, these funding sources are unlikely to be sustained. Others have had to reduce surveillance and/or downscale restoration programmes, leading to an increase in fishing pressure. For example, in Seychelles, Fiji, Indonesia, the Philippines and Hawaii, there are reports of increasing fishing pressure in marine protected and conserved areas, which is encouraged by a reduced management presence (Hockings et al. 2020).

11 

The lockdown and labour shortages have resulted in a decrease in global fishing activity of nearly 10% (Clavelle 2020). In some regions this could provide temporary relief to recovering fish populations and some possible benefits for small-scale fisheries in the longer run (Jigeesh 2020; John 2020). 15  A potential positive outcome for marine ecosystems as a result of the decline in tourism activities (e.g. reef trampling, anchor damage, etc.) is less sewage from tourist centres (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002). 16  Emissions reductions caused by economic downturns tend to be temporary—and can lead to emissions growth as economies attempt to get back on track. After the global financial crisis of 2008, for example, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production grew 5.9% in 2010, more than offsetting the 1.4% decrease in 2009. 14 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

727

2.2 Emerging Responses

2.2.1 National Governments

This section summarises the government policy responses announced thus far to absorb and react to COVID-19 disruptions to the ocean economy and the actions taken by development banks, international organisations (IOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the private sector to transition towards a sustainable ocean economy.

Rapid Emergency Response To date, response packages from governments have amounted to approximately US $10 trillion globally (IMF 2020a)17. As a part of the immediate response, governments have prioritised saving lives and protecting livelihoods, with money channelled directly to households and those on the frontlines of the pandemic. For the ocean economy, this means protecting vulnerable coastal communities dependent on marine natural resources, ocean economy workers, small and large-­ ­ scale businesses, and ensuring that supply chains remain open for delivery of essential goods (Box 19.4).

Box 19.4 Economic Relief for Ocean Economy Workers and Businesses

A number of measures were introduced by countries to support workers, vulnerable groups and small businesses. Some governments, such as those of the United Kingdom and Canada, along with the EU Commission, have also classified ocean workers as ‘key workers’, thereby giving them right to movement (EU Commission 2020d; UK Government 2020; Government of Canada 2020). The list below is not exhaustive but provides examples of support measures directed towards income protection and the welfare of ocean-economy workers. • Coastal tourism Measures include extension of loans and credit to businesses, wage subsidy to workers, financial relief to businesses such as loan consolidation and term extension, increased promotion of tourism and strengthened regional cooperation to boost tourism (e.g. by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) (Office of the Prime Minister, Canada 2020; KPMG 2020). • Marine transport Staff (especially onshore) have been covered by general wage support schemes in many countries. A number of countries have agreed to new international measures to open up foreign borders for seafarers and increase the number of commercial flights to expedite repatriation following an international crew change summit (Chambers 2020a)a. There have also been a number of government support measures and bailouts for maritime companies. • Wild capture fisheries Measures include grants and financial compensation for workers and small- scale

businesses and enterprises (in the harvesting, processing and artisanal fishing sector), increased state aid (European Commission 2020b), online training programmes, provision of new fishing equipment, refrigeration transport service for seafood caught by artisanal fisher organisations (e.g. a pilot programme in Chile), provision of loans at subsidised interest rates, waiver of government fees associated with licenses, rollover of quota and deferral of income tax for small businesses (SUBPESCA 2020d; IKI 2020). The European Union also provides a US $1.2 billion guarantee from the EU budget to the European Investment Bank so that it can incentivise European banks and mobilise about $9.3 billion of working capital financing for small and medium enterprises in the fisheries, aquaculture and seafood services sectors (European Commission 2020b). • Aquaculture Measures include income support to workers, increased funding to double community-based aquaculture production and loans or credits to seafood processors (EU Commission 2020a). In addition, the EU Commission, in response to stakeholders’ requests, adopted new measures for the aquaculture sector, including support to farmers for temporary suspension of production, and support to producers for private storage of aquaculture products.   The 13 countries to agree this are Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom now recognise seafarers as key workers. a

The majority of the $10 trillion constitutes rapid emergency response for the short term and focuses on mostly fiscal measures and regulatory or deregulatory measures. 17 

728

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 19.2  Announced COVID response fiscal stimulus package by country. (Note: Assumes the proposed ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery package is implemented in full. Source: Vivid Economics Data)

Long-Term Recovery Response Measures The second phase of response from national governments will be aimed at measures to promote longer-term economic recovery and resilience. Analysis from McKinsey shows that G20 nations have announced fiscal measures averaging 11% of GDP, which is estimated to be three times the response to the 2008–9 financial crisis (McKinsey 2020). The United States has announced the largest fiscal stimulus package, followed by Japan and the European Union (Fig.  19.2). Some countries, such as Italy, have said they will commit up to 40% of GDP to their economic stimulus packages (McKinsey 2020)18. So far, 30% of economic stimulus packages are going to sectors that currently have high environmental impact (Vivid Economics 2020)19. Within the 30%, it is estimated that the majority of the spending will have a predominantly brown impact without conditionality for performance improvements in these sectors20. Some of these ‘brown’ measures include unrestricted support to sectors that have proved to be environmentally harmful in the past and also include roll-­ back on various environmental regulations implemented to

deliver better environmental outcomes. For example, both the transport and industry sectors have been hit hard by the crisis and are receiving substantial support from governments. Another source estimated that more than half a trillion dollars worldwide—$509 billion (£395 billion)—is to be poured into high-carbon industries, with no conditions to ensure that they reduce their carbon output (Harvey 2020)21. In contrast, only about $12.3 billion is to go towards low-­ carbon industries, such as renewable energy, and a further $18.5 billion is intended for high-carbon industries provided they achieve climate targets (Harvey 2020). Some of these interventions target the ocean economy and even fewer align with a transition towards a sustainable ocean economy (Table  19.2 and Sect. 2.3). At this stage, there is little information on how these high- level interventions and investments will be implemented and the degree to which they advance priorities for the sustainable ocean economy or undermine such progress. Development Banks and Bilateral Development Aid During the crisis, domestic resource mobilisation has decreased in low-income countries, and external private finance is projected to drop by US $700 billion in 2020, with significant capital flight as a compounding problem (OECD 2020d). Remittances are predicted to fall by 20% in 2020 (Ratha et al. 2020), and foreign direct investment is expected to decline 30–40% in 2020–2021 (UNCTAD 2020a). Given the uncertainty of domestic finance opportunities in many low- and middle-income countries and the volatility of private flows, the need for bilateral and multilateral finance is unparalleled.

Fiscal measures are likely to be just one aspect of the response measures—monetary measures will also be key in stimulating demand and much- needed liquidity in the market. Assessing the impact of these measures (such as quantitative easing measures) on the ocean economy is beyond the scope of the analysis. 19  Economic stimulus packages encompass a range of fiscal mechanisms, including bailouts and loans. In defining the amount of stimulus flowing through to sectors with a high environmental impact, the index has removed any measures which are purely devised to provide income support to workers (e.g. furlough or income protection programmes). 20  Estimated by Vivid Economics (2020) based on the 14 of 18 countries it evaluates in its study. Brown orientation of these countries’ stimulus funding based on (1) the scale of funds flowing into environmentally intensive sectors, (2) the existing green orientation of those sectors and 21 Specific stimulus packages include, for example, bailout measures of (3) the efforts which steer stimulus toward (or away from) pro-­ the aviation industry without green conditionality, subsidies for fossil environmental recovery. fuel vehicles and an easing of permits for coal mining. 18 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

729

Table 19.2  Examples of blue stimulus packages announced by selected countries Country Australia

Selected blue stimulus packages At a sub-national government level, the Victoria government package includes A$129 million for the Department of the Environment, for upgrading public land facilities, supporting solar and water infrastructure and addressing erosion and flood risk in marine and coastal areas (Victoria State Government 2020). The Queensland government has committed to provide A$17 million to create a renewable energy training facility as well as a A$8.93 million boost to national parks (including key coastal and marine parks), to provide visitor infrastructure upgrades and enhancements to reenergise nature-based tourism (Queensland Government 2020) Canada New assistance amounting to US $62.5 million will be provided to the fish and seafood processing sector through the Canadian Seafood Stabilization Fund, and US $75 million is set aside for emissions reduction in offshore oil and gas. Funding of US $469.4 million will be used to establish the new Fish Harvester Benefit and the new Fish Harvester Grant. The program is designed to work within the unique pay structures and seasonal nature of the fishing sector. The program is open for applications from 24 August to 21 September 2020 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2020) Finland The supplementary budget of €5.5 billion contains a package of measures supporting the recovery and revitalisation of the economy with a sustainable focus • €13.1 million for state-run rehabilitation of nature sites and the development of nature tourism • €53 million for projects involving green areas, water services and forest conservation. Funding is also proposed for the rehabilitation of local recreation areas • €20.75 million for innovation support for shipbuilding • €5 million for vessel design work in a project to replace three present offshore patrol vessels with vessels capable of responding to oil and chemical spills The previously agreed national climate fund will be capitalised by €300 million. The fund will focus on combatting climate change, promoting digitalisation and boosting low-carbon operations in manufacturing industries (Finnish Government 2020) European For climate targets, the Green Deal sets aside about €225 billion (US $190 billion) for the recovery fund and €322 billion (US $280 Union billion) for the 2021–27 budget. Specific detail on the climate policies is not provided. The Euro- pean Union will report annually on its climate expenditurea The targets proposed by the European Commission in the Communication on the Farm to Fork strategy (Green Deal on food system) include reduction the use of fertilisers and pesticides, which cause marine pollution As part of green legislation, the European Commission’s Environment Committee voted to include CO2 emissions from the maritime sector in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), with a new target of 40% CO2 reduction by 2030 (EU Parliament 2020) The Environment Committee also called for an ‘Ocean Fund’ for the period from 2023 to 2030, financed by revenues from auctioning allowances under the ETS, to make ships more energy efficient and to support green infrastructure Germany The International Climate Initiative will spend €68 million (US $58 million) to support 29 projects (in 25 countries) responding to COVID; building future economic, social and ecological resilience; and seeking to prevent a new pandemic. The initiative aims to expand the role of green hydrogen as a part of modernising shipping programmes and helping the sector’s transition towards decarbonisation (BMU 2020). Its mission is to invest in a sustainable recovery of the economy (including increasing climate resilience of the fishing sector) to contribute to climate change mitigation and the conservation of biodiversity (IKI 2020) Italy A state aid scheme worth €100 million (US $85 million) will support agriculture, fishing and aquaculture small and medium enterprises. The fund will provide aid to maintain their activities through state guarantees on investment and working capital loans and direct grants to provide support during the temporary cessation of fishing activities (EU Commission 2020b) India Rs 20,050 crore (US $2.7 billion) will be invested over the next five years to bring about a blue revolution through sustainable and responsible development of the fisheries sector Jamaica Grants totalling US $1.2 billion will be made available to businesses operating in the tourism and related sectors (KPMG 2020) New An NZ$1.1 billion (US $736 million) environmental jobs program will aim to create 11,000 jobs, include major investments in Zealand restoring wetlands Norway NOK3.6 billion (US $400 million) is budgeted to support green technology projects that would benefit offshore wind and low-emissions shipping (Nikel 2020). A ‘green transition package’ (US $384.5m) will be used to support a range of initiatives, including investments in hydrogen power and battery storage technology and building offshore wind infrastructure as Norway looks to reach the Paris Agreement target of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2 °C by 2050 (Casey 2020) United Section 12005 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act allocates US $300 million in fisheries States assistance funding to states, tribes and territories with coastal and marine fishery participants who have been negatively affected by COVID-19 (NOAA 2020) Vietnam An extension is proposed for wind energy projects (including offshore wind) until 31 December 2023 (more than two years beyond the current deadline of 1 November 2021), and a new solar power feed-in tariff (including floating solar energy projects) has been announced (Morris 2020) Notes: The list of stimulus packages with a focus of blue sustainability is not exhaustive. Exchange rates: €1 = US $1.1842; NZ$1 = US $0.67; Rs1 = US $1.013; NOK1 = US $0.11 a  The Green Deal consists of a €750 billion recovery fund and a €1.074 trillion EU budget for 2021–27. The amount of money set aside for climate targets, is set at 30%. The recovery fund alone would be the largest green stimulus in history. Specific detail on the climate policies is not provided, and the European Union will report annually on its climate expenditure

730

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

A number of multilateral development banks and international financial institutions have mobilised resources to counteract the economic crisis in the most vulnerable countries. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other regional partners are working together on approaches to assist countries in the Pacific overcome the challenges of the current crisis and position themselves for economic recovery (IMF 2020c)22. A number of SIDS would also be eligible to apply for short-term debt relief as a part of the IMF’s Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (Coke-Hamilton 2020). As a part of building back better after COVID-19, the Asian Development Bank is working in cooperation with the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) on areas including gender inequality, climate change and ocean pollution (ANI 2020). Additionally, the African Development Bank (2020) has approved €225 million for a budget support loan for Egypt's electricity sector to bolster economic resilience and sustainability. These financial support measures would be in addition to several blue finance initiatives that were set up before the pandemic to achieve sustainable ocean health and governance. This includes the Asian Development Bank’s (2019) commitment of US $5 billion (2019–2024) to expand its investments and technical assistance in ocean health and the blue economy; the World Bank’s PROBLUE initiative that focuses on four pillars (fisheries and aquaculture; marine pollution; oceanic sectors and seascape management)23; and the European Investment Bank’s commitment to more than double its lending to sustainable ocean projects, to €2.5 billion ($2.7 billion), over the next 5  years (Richens and Koehring 2020)24. However, blue measures still constitute a very small share of the response budget for development banks, and the role that blue recovery measures can play in responding to the crisis could more explicitly emphasized. Bilateral aid and official lending to low- and middle-­ income countries from other countries can also make a big difference for the recovery. G20 nations have agreed to freeze

bilateral government loan repayments for low-income countries until the end of the year as part of a plan to tackle the health and economic crises triggered by the pandemic and prevent a debt crunch in emerging markets25 (Wheatley et  al. 2020). New Zealand has pledged NZ$55 million in aid spending for Pacific island nations (Dreaver 2020). Similarly, Germany, through the International Climate Initiative, has invested in a number of sustainability projects in 25 countries in response to COVID-19 to build future economic, social and ecological resilience (IKI 2020). Overseas development assistance (ODA) has also played a key role by building health and social protection systems in developing countries, which are critical to countries’ ability to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and are central to resilience and recovery (OECD 2020d). However, with several countries’ budgets in turmoil, it is possible that the overall level of ODA could decline in 2020 (OECD 2020e)26. In addition, recent analysis by OECD shows that over the 2013-18 period a mere 0.8% of global ODA was allocated to support sustainable ocean economy and highly concentrated in three sectors—maritime transport, fisheries and marine protection (OECD 2020f). This suggests that more could be done to support a wider range of existing and new ocean-based sectors and thus foster greater economic diversification and resilience post pandemic (OECD 2020f).

The doubling of the IMF’s emergency financing capacity means that up to $643 million could be made available immediately to the Pacific island economies. 23  In fiscal 2019, PROBLUE received signed contributions of over US $50 million from five donor countries (development partners are in the process of signing for over $100 million). Actual funds received from donors totalled approximately $28.8 million. Because of the focus on operationalising the trust fund and preparing the February 2019 annual work plan, PROBLUE approved grants of $2 million, of which $600,000 were disbursed, as of fiscal year 2019. Grant amounts and disbursements are expected to accelerate significantly in fiscal year 2020. As of 30 June 2019, PROBLUE’s total fund balance, taking into account actual funds received from donors, disbursements, commitments, and investment income, was just over $28 million. 24  The bank expects to mobilise at least €5 billion in investments from private-sector companies and investors, among other partners (Richens and Koehring 2020).

25 

22 

International Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations The role of IOs and NGOs is vital in supporting local and national efforts to fight the pandemic. IOs are helping client countries to better address the impacts of this crisis, with a focus on empowering, protecting and prioritising the most vulnerable27. For example, the COVID-19 response offer of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) focuses on SIDS and aims to support long-term recovery efforts in these regions by helping them diversify (and sustainably expand ocean economy activities) as well as digitally transform to respond rapidly to crises28. The moratorium on bilateral government debt repayments will begin on 1 May 2020. It will apply to the 76 countries that are eligible to receive assistance from the World Bank’s International Development Association, which works with the poorest countries, as well as all nations defined as least developed countries by the United Nations. Eligible countries must be ‘current’ on any debt service payments to the IMF and the World Bank. 26  The OECD calculates that if Development Assistance Committee members were to keep the same ODA to gross national income ratios as in 2019, total ODA could decline by $11 billion to $14 billion, depending on a single- or double-hit recession scenario on member countries’ GDP. 27  For more detail, see the UN COVID-19 response information at https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/information-un-system 28  The approach is to diversify and expand ocean economy activities and digital transformation to bolster governments’ institutional capacities to respond rapidly to crises.

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

Many IOs are working directly with industry associations to address the pandemic’s short-term and long-term impacts on specific sectors. For example, industry groups, such as the International Chamber of Shipping and the International Association of Ports and Harbours, and UN organisations like the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and the International Maritime Organization, have already led an enormous effort to establish safety protocols for preventing and mitigating COVID-19 in vessels and ports, and have also come together to explore ways to safely facilitate crew changes from disembarkation to the airport (Henriksen and Selwyn 2020). The International Chamber of Shipping has led the creation of a 12-step plan for governments on how to undertake crew changes29. The UN Global Compact is calling for a coalition of willing governments to protect global ocean supply chains by classifying these workers as ‘essential’; this includes offshore energy workers and fish farmers as well as seafarers (UNGC 2020a). The UN secretary general has called for bailouts of the shipping industry to be conditioned on alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement (Chambers 2020b). NGOs are working in partnership with multinational development banks and other financial institutions to address immediate needs whilst supporting a resilient, equitable and sustainable ocean economy. For example, the World Wildlife Fund is working to ensure continued monitoring and effective management of marine protected areas from the impacts of IUU fishing and other activities; advocating stimulus measures that promote clean energy and sustainable development; and making guidance available to cities dealing with high amounts of medical plastic waste (Plastic Cities 2020). Some NGOs are working with local fishers and women fish workers to connect catch to private households or local markets (e.g. restaurants), thereby supporting direct marketing of catches that would otherwise go unsold. For example, Rare is working with a fishing community in the Philippines to help manage its long- term finances (by setting up savings clubs), providing transportation for fishers (through engagement with government) and raising awareness about enforcing fish sanctuaries important for the long-term sustainability of community livelihoods (Polo 2020). Private Investment Some private sector companies are exerting pressure on governments to ensure that COVID-19 recovery is green and harnesses science-based targets. For instance, in May, a climate advocacy effort, backed by the United Nations and led by chief executive officers, saw 150 global corporations urge a net-zero recovery (UNGC 2020c). Private sector c­ ompanies A ‘roadmap’ was developed by a ‘supply chain coalition led by industry and unions in cooperation with UN agencies’ (ICS 2020c). 29 

731

are also actively engaging in UN task forces to help with the global COVID-19 response30. Blended social and green finance has also grown due to mounting pressure on business to implement more sustainable business practices (Laidlaw 2020)31. Also, evidence that green/SDG funds are outperforming their peers during COVID-19 could make investment in ocean- related projects more attractive (Corporate Citizenship 2020). Banks and investors are also under pressure from stakeholders to allocate more funding for environment, social and governance (ESG) initiatives, and some investment firms have launched clean energy funds. For example, the Southeast Asia Clean Energy Facility (SEACEF) is providing early-stage venture capital–type funding to get new clean energy projects off the ground in Southeast Asia (Nguyen 2020)32. However, there is some risk that ocean-based start-ups will face dwindling funds as private institutional investors have frozen their investment decisions (Runyon 2020). Lack of financing will likely cause some start-ups to stop their activity.

2.3 Gap Between Impacts and Response An assessment of responses to COVID-19 from governments, the private sector, development banks and the ‘third’ (or voluntary) sector show that a limited number of investments are directed towards the ocean economy, and a small For instance, cross-sectoral ocean companies are actively participating in the UN Global Compact Task Force, with aquaculture players such as Cermaq and Bakkafrost, maritime insurers such as Gard AS and maritime classification companies including Lloyd’s Register and DNV GL. 31  There has been gravitation towards a more blended sustainable approach and with considerations of environmental, social and governance factors. Social bond issuance for 2020 totalled US $11.58 billion as of 15 May, compared to just $6.24 billion in the same period of 2019, according to an International Capital Market Association analysis of the Environmental Finance database. Demand for sustainability bonds, something of a hybrid between green and social bonds, has also surged. It reached $25.62 billion in the year through 15 May, compared to $13.64 billion in the same period a year earlier. Green bond issuance, in contrast, has dropped sharply. It totalled $53.54 billion in 2020 as of 15 May, compared with $84.09 billion in the same period of 2019. 32  The fund is supported by international climate foundations including Sea Change Foundation International, the Wellspring Climate Initiative, the High Tide Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Packard Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. The supporting global philanthropies have invested an initial $10 million in SEACEF, and are seeking to attract up to $40 million in additional capital. It is expected that every dollar of high-risk venture capital–type funding deployed by SEACEF will leverage up to 50 times more in follow-on investment in the clean energy portfolio across Southeast Asia—reaching more than $2.5 billion in assets— while cultivating the local ecosystem of developers to grow the market. The initial focus will be on Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. 30 

732

subset focuses on transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy. Within the blue measures there has been more of a focus on short-term coping strategies to address the immediate impacts of the crisis, such as high unemployment, business insolvency and health risks faced by ocean economy workers. Shifting this focus to the development and implementation of longer-term resilience-building strategies will be key to preventing future shocks and responding to ongoing stressors, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. It is imperative that ocean activities and industries transition towards smarter, sustainable practices that conserve marine ecosystems and promote human well- being both now and into the future. Based on an assessment of the gap between impacts and responses, we summarise below the consequent missing action or unintended impact on local economies and the health of the ocean. To protect the livelihood of small-scale fisheries in the long term, it will be important to ensure that support policies from national governments do not encourage overfishing practices or IUU fishing that damage ocean ecosystems and deplete stocks. A number of measures have been introduced to promote the recovery of the sector and support the fishers (especially vulnerable groups) facing loss of livelihoods due to the crisis. However, while license fee waivers, measures to reduce input costs (through provision of loans at subsidised interest rates), deferrals and rollover of unused fishing quota are being used to support fishers by reducing fishing costs, this could lead to an environmental trade-off by incentivising overfishing33. Measures such as decommissioning schemes or payments for early retirement (e.g. the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund’s allowing EU member states to pay fishers and aquaculture producers for a reduction or cessation in production) could reduce oversupply of fleets. However, whether such steps lead to longer-term reductions in fishing pressure and ultimately to healthier fish stocks will depend on whether they postpone fishing effort (OECD 2020d). Measures that incentivise sectors to move towards the sustainable management of fish stocks will be key for economic recovery and equitable prosperity in the long term. It will be important to ensure that support policies and investments do not encourage overfishing practices or IUU fishing that damage ocean ecosystems and compromise the sustainability of resources, putting future resilience at risk. To help reduce seafood waste and meet long-term food security targets, continuity of investments facilitating the growth of sustainable mariculture will be key. Measures aimed at improving storage of mariculture and fisheries products will also deliver environmental benefits, reducing Input cost-reduction measures (such as the provision of fuel subsidies) tend to benefit larger fleets at the expense of small-scale fisheries. 33 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

loss and waste of fish products across the supply chain. Growth of sustainable mariculture practices will be very important for food security, and investments in sustainable mariculture will require a substantial mobilisation of capital. A number of innovative practices are being developed in the sector to support its sustainable transition (including aquafeed alternatives, industrialisation of seaweed and bivalve farming). While some of these have been driven by private investments, financing from public bodies (such as the development banks and national governments) can help mobilise private capital by building confidence and reducing risk. To help make up for declining tourism-based funding for ocean conservation, there is an immediate need for interventions that help protect vital and vulnerable marine ecosystems. While decreased tourism funding has led to an increase in alternative methods of funding for marine conservation (such as crowdfunding and donations from private foundations), these funding mechanisms are unlikely to be sustained. In addition, some marine sanctuaries have been opened to fishing, which can quickly erase the progress made on marine biodiversity recovery in these sites. The current protected area network is only receiving about one-third of the funding it needs to be effectively implemented and managed, and the shortfall is even greater in developing countries (Waldron et al. 2020). Expanding protection to at least 30% of the world’s land and ocean and effectively managing it would require an average investment of US $140 billion annually and deliver a range of benefits to society that will outweigh the costs (Waldron et al. 2020)34. For the long-term resilience of the coastal tourism sector and protection against future climate change shocks, investment must go into restoring and protecting marine environments and uplifting local communities. Most emergency and recovery measures have aimed to provide income continuity for tourism workers and business continuity for small enterprises that otherwise would be unable to survive the crisis. The international community has also mobilised funds through multilateral development banks to counteract the economic crisis in the most vulnerable countries. However, much more needs to be done to stimulate demand and ensure the sector’s long-term resilience once containment measures are lifted. Recovery following the crisis presents an opportunity to think about innovative measures where tourism businesses play an active role in uplifting local communities and protecting coastal and marine envi-

Waldron et al. (2020) state that this funding should come from a range of sources, including official development assistance, governments’ domestic budgets, climate financing directed to nature-based solutions, philanthropies, corporations and new sources of revenue or savings through regulatory and subsidy changes. 34 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

ronments. Policies and investments supporting structural transformation are needed to help build a low-carbon, less polluting, more sustainable and resilient coastal tourism economy. In addition, targeting recovery at diversification across a range of ocean activities to reduce dependency on the tourism sector will be key to building future resilience in Caribbean and Pacific islands. To ensure the long-term viability of the marine transport sector, investment and regulation needs to create the right market incentives for a sustainable transition to zero-emission vessels. While the pandemic has curtailed the shipping sector’s capacity to invest in more environmentally friendly technologies, industry is still leading a strong drive towards decarbonisation (NSA 2020b; Mærsk 2020; CMA CGM 2020). There is an important role for international organisations and governments to help keep the momentum by developing national and market incentives for decarbonising domestic and international transportation. This includes investment in green technologies, developing policy to enable the business case for the adoption by shipping of low- and zero-carbon fuels (e.g. a carbon price), develop national incentives for decarbonising domestic transportation and facilitating decarbonisation of national energy systems faster or as fast as the transition in the international fleet (Hoegh-­Guldberg et  al. 2019). Low-carbon domestic shipping and coastal marine transport can play a strong role in building coastal resilience. Shifting freight transport from road to waterways in emerging markets (like Africa, India or Latin America), where trucks alone are responsible for about 40% of transport emissions, can substantially reduce emissions and logistics costs (World Bank 2020b). Similarly, after the crisis key global partnerships will need to continue to support SIDS and least developed countries (LDCs) that face significant domestic or regional shipping decarbonisation challenges. Flexible port regulations based on screening and discretion will be needed to ensure the continuity of freight distribution and ferrying of food and essential goods so that supply chains are not hit by both low demand and supply bottlenecks (Heiland and Ulltveit-Moe 2020). To accelerate deployment of ocean-based energy systems, a stable economic and regulatory environment will be needed to help stimulate investments in these growing sectors. The vast majority of the COVID-19 relief from governments so far supports carbon-intensive industries without requiring improvements. For long-term sustainability it will be important to shift towards a green-blue recovery, where government, businesses and investors can play a role in boosting clean investment, both by promoting low-carbon supply chains and by grasping the opportunities of clean energy markets (Mojarro 2020). Governments will need to play a key role in providing a stable economic and regulatory environment to help stimulate investments required for an acceler-

733

ated deployment of ocean-based energy systems. Investment will also be needed to advance ocean renewable technologies beyond offshore wind to make them more economically attractive.

3 Roadmap for a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery Recovery and stimulus packages represent a unique opportunity to accelerate the shift to a sustainable ocean economy that delivers on global targets under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement. Mutually beneficial, no-regrets opportunities are ready to be implemented now to support affected communities and regions, while delivering significant social and environmental benefits. These opportunities respond to the immediate need for job creation in the short-term and offer opportunities for long-term economic growth and resilience. Governments can also utilise innovative financial mechanisms to incentivise progress and avoid rollbacks in progress. The investments that governments and financial institutions make over the coming months and years will have long-­term effects on the nature of economies and their resilience to future shocks. Efforts should be made now to avoid locking in high-emitting, high-polluting and inequitable pathways that limit the ability to build sustainable and resilient economic systems. Investment through recovery and stimulus packages represents a crucial lever for accelerating the shift from business as usual to a more sustainable future that delivers on global targets under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement. The ocean economy can play a vital role in this transition, and in turn this transition will be critical to securing a sustainable ocean economy for the future. Using recovery and stimulus packages to invest in, and introduce, both short-­ term and longer-term policy reform for a sustainable ocean economy can provide short-term economic relief and recovery while delivering long-term societal benefits and building economic resilience to future shocks. This report proposes that coastal and island nations have the opportunity to pursue a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’. We consider a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ to be one that advances a sustainable ocean economy predicated on three mutually reinforcing elements: effective protection of ocean ecosystems, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. A sustainable ocean economy should enable the growing global population to continue enjoying the innumerable benefits that the ocean provides. To achieve this, it is imperative that ocean activities and industries transition towards smarter, sustainable practices

734

that conserve marine ecosystems and promote human well-­ being both now and into the future. This section of the report aims to provide a roadmap for a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ from the COVID-­19 crisis. First, it proposes a set of high-level guiding principles that act as a first step for ensuring a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’. These may be helpful for governments in their initial stages of planning on how to think about the nature of their recovery after COVID-19. Second, it proposes a set of five priority opportunities that are ripe for immediate government investment through recovery and stimulus packages, what we call ‘blue stimulus’ (Sect. 3.2). For each of these opportunities, we outline the economic (short- and long-term), social and environmental benefits to be gained from investment in this opportunity and then detail a set of potential interventions for governments based on their national circumstances. We identified these five priority opportunities based on a set of guiding principles outlined in Sect. 3.1. Third, it proposes a set of additional opportunities that are more systemic in nature and oriented towards using this moment as a reset for the ocean economy to build long-term economic resilience to future shocks, what we call ‘blue transformations’ (Sect. 3.3 and Annex 1). Not all these options necessarily provide the short-term economic benefits that the five priority opportunities do, but they are equally important for securing economic recovery, resilience and prosperity over the longer term. Governments that have the capacity to introduce more systemic and long-term policy reform at this time (in addition to taking action on the five priority areas) will find this longer list of additional interventions helpful. Fourth, it looks at the potential role of financial grants and debt relief as an unprecedented opportunity to advance key reforms in areas such as sustainable fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement of protected areas and ocean data, what we call ‘blue conditionality’ (Sect. 3.4). The proposed opportunities and interventions outlined in this section are not intended to be exhaustive; they do not include everything that will be required to fully transition to a sustainable ocean economy. Resources aimed at providing the full suite of necessary interventions are contained in Annex 2 (Table 19.7). This report focuses on identifying the interventions most relevant at this unique point in time—recognising financial and capacity limitations that many countries have and the urgency of ensuring economic opportunities and health outcomes for their communities over the next few years as we recover from the COVID-19 crisis. Each country will need to carefully evaluate the full set of interventions against its national priorities, circumstances,

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

impacts and geography to ensure that the options pursued deliver the greatest benefit for its population.

3.1 Proposed Principles for a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery Given the gap between the impacts experienced by workers and sectors in the ocean economy and the early responses from governments and other stakeholders in their stimulus packages, decision-makers will need to better consider how to integrate the ocean and ocean economy into recovery measures. This report proposes three high-level guiding principles35: 1. Actively advance (through direct investment or policy) projects and programs that contribute to building a long-­ term sustainable and equitable ocean economy. 2. Identify opportunities to make public finance and debt relief conditional on advancing core national priorities for a sustainable and equitable ocean economy. 3. Assess the impact of all interventions across sectors on the health of the ocean and ocean economy and either avoid investments that will detract from this long-term goal (e.g. high-emitting, polluting terrestrial and marine industries or inequitable practices) or minimise their impact through additional conditions or requirements. Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of this report provide a set of priorities for putting principles 1 and 2 into action. The Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles provide a framework for implementing principle 3 (WWF 2018). These are voluntary principles that act as a framework to guide investment and development decisions. These principles complement existing frameworks in sustainable finance and recognise the importance of compliance, transparency and disclosure, as well as the specific challenges of investment in the context of the ocean. They are designed to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goal 14 (‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’). They are also designed to comply with the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards and the European Investment Bank’s Environmental and Social Principles and Standards (WWF 2018).

See also the UNGC Sustainable Ocean Principles for the private sector. They propose nine principles that cover three areas: ocean health and productivity; governance and engagement; and data and transparency (UNGC 2019). 35 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

3.2 Five Priority Opportunities for a Blue Stimulus

735

tatives involved in the design of recovery and stimulus packages and bilateral and multilateral funders (Fig.  19.3). We sought opportunities that provided the following:

Given the need for governments to respond to the immediate economic impacts experienced by most countries and coastal • Short-term job creation (considering a match between the communities and the short-term priority of job creation and skills needed and those available in the local workforce) income protection, we can identify five priority opportunities in the ocean sectors and communities affected by ripe for immediate intervention by governments through COVID-­19 (European Commission 2020b) recovery and stimulus efforts. These opportunities not only • Ability to build long-term resilience to future shocks offer significant short-term job creation and income protec(considering improving human, natural and physical capition potential for affected communities but also offer long-­ tal) (Hammer and Hallegatte 2020; OECD 2020e) term economic benefits in the form of catalysing sustainable • Ability to directly respond to impacts suffered (e.g. ecoocean industries for the future and increasing resilience. nomic, social or environmental) and support economic We identified these five priority opportunities through a recovery in more than one sector literature review and expert input from government represen-

Fig. 19.3  Five priorities for ensuring a sustainable and equitable blue recovery to the COVID-19 crisis

736

• Ability to direct economic benefits to affected communities and vulnerable members of society (a people-centred approach) (UN 2020b)36 • Speed and feasibility of implementation (considering supply chain blockages and capacity of local communities) (Hepburn et al. 2020)37 • Ability to catalyse progress towards a long-term sustainable and equitable blue economy (Hepburn et al. 2020) • Ability to deliver on international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement (IMF 2020b) • Relevance to multiple regions and economies (OECD 2020e) In advancing a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ it will be important to make decisions in accordance with integrated and holistic long-term plans and strategies, so that investments are made in alignment with national priorities. Such planning tools include integrated ocean management, integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning (MSP). Establishing MSP processes in addition to integrated ocean management will be essential to deal with the inherent variability of the ocean and a dynamic future shaped by climate change. Cohesive planning can facilitate optimal use and benefit from ocean resources by all users while streamlining management to improve governance and conservation of critical habitats38. Ideally, countries should develop a sustainable ocean economy plan that acts as a comprehensive strategy for advancing effective protection of ocean ecosystems, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. The UN secretary general has stressed the need to ensure that national and local response and recovery plans identify and put in place targeted measures to address the disproportionate impact of the virus on certain groups and individuals, including migrants, displaced persons and refugees, people living in poverty, those without access to water and sanitation or adequate housing, people with disabilities, women, older people, LGBTI people, children and people in detention or institutions. 37  Factors relevant to the design of economic recovery packages include the long-run economic multiplier, contributions to the productive asset base and national wealth, speed of implementation, affordability, simplicity, impact on inequality and various political considerations (Hepburn et al. 2020). 38  The value of such planning instruments at times of economic hardship is illustrated by an MSP process in Massachusetts that led to a proposed optimum arrangement with associated value, calculated at preventing more than $1 million in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale- watching sectors and generating more than $10 billion in extra value to the energy sector (White et al. 2012).

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

3.2.1 One: Invest in Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Restoration and Protection Coastal and marine ecosystem restoration can broadly be defined as activities that are aimed at moving these ecosystems (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses, kelp and seaweed forests and reefs) to healthier states, often with the goal of increasing their ability to provide ecosystem services. This includes replanting coastal mangrove forests that have been degraded, reconstructing saltmarshes that have been lost to human development and enhancing the structural complexity of damaged reefs (both coral and shellfish). The potential benefits of restoration projects are higher—often significantly higher—than the costs, making such projects prime candidates for investment as part of recovery and stimulus packages (Bayraktarov et al. 2015). Analysis indicates a potential net benefit of US $97 billion to $150 billion for mangrove restoration and $48 billion to $96 billion for mangrove conservation over 30  years (2020–50)39. This results in a benefit-cost ratio of 3:1 for both mangrove conservation and restoration (Konar and Ding 2020)40. Restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems has been identified as a priority due to its potential for job creation in the short term and significant potential in terms of avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is also a necessary precondition for protection and subsequent management and conservation efforts. Ensuring that ecosystems are placed under full or high protection and effective management is a critical element of a sustainable ocean economy and opportunities for countries to use debt for nature swaps as a means of expanding their marine areas under protection (see Box 19.7 below).

36 

The total value of net benefits for mangrove restoration over 30 years is higher than for conservation because we assume the area of mangroves restored is 10 times that of the area conserved. The conservation scenario assumes stopping the additional loss of mangroves, whereas the restoration scenario assumes replanting large areas of mangroves already lost; that is why we are doing more restoration in the scenarios analysed than conservation. The overall ratio of both conservation and restoration is calculated by adding the total present value benefits and costs of both measures. The very high restoration costs are the main factor driving the overall benefit-cost ratio for both conservation and restoration. 40  Konar and Ding’s (2020) study estimates the benefit-cost ratio for mangrove conservation to be higher (88:1) than restoration (2:1) due to a number of factors: the higher cost of mangrove restoration (due to seeding and replanting), the low survival rates following restoration and the lag in accrual of benefits from restoration. 39 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

737

et al. 2013) (see Box 19.5 for more details). By comparison, investment of $1 million in traditional energy-intensive industries have been estimated at 14.4 jobs for road and bridge developments, 6.8 jobs for coal mining, 4.2 in nuclear and 5.2 jobs in oil and gas and 8.9 for offshore oil and gas (Hurowitz 2020; Pollin et al. 2009)42. These jobs can be created in rural areas, where poverty tends to be concentrated in low- and middle-income countries.

Box 19.5 Coastal Restoration in the United States

Following the 2008–2009 global financial crisis and expenditure under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated that coastal habitat restoration projects created, on average, 17 jobs per million dollars spenta. This is similar to other conservation industries such as parks and land conservation, but much higher than other traditional industries, including coal, gas and nuclear energy generation. The study shows that the 50 ARRA projects administered by NOAA in the first year and half generated a total of 1409 jobs (Edwards et al. 2013). Many of these jobs were created in rural and regional coastal areas and offer a range of skilled and low-skilled positions, considerably enhancing economic opportunities in regional areas. Jobs were created for day labourers, administrative staff, barge operators, lawyers, accountants, engineers, helicopter pilots, fisherman, scientists, nursery workers and project managers. Longer- term employment can be created through the flow on benefits (uplift) created by an increase in productivity of coastal ecosystems and generation of wider ecosystem services benefits (for example, increased employment from improved productivity and higher tourism opportunities). The median (global) restoration cost for all coastal ecosystems (mangroves, saltmarshes, seagrasses, coral reefs and oyster reefs) was estimated to be around $80,000 per hectare (Bayraktarov et  al. 2015). Costs for restoration vary considerably within and between ecosystems and across countries (Bayraktarov et  al. 2015)b.

Why Investment Makes Sense Restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems provides short-term job creation in a number of industries at the local and regional level. Restoration works create jobs immediately through construction. Restoration projects extend to the full set of economic activities that contribute to restoration, from project planning, engineering and legal services, to intermediate suppliers of inputs, to on-the­ ground earth-moving, forestry and landscaping firms that contribute to the ecological restoration process (BenDor et al. 2015). Restoration can include a full spectrum of jobs from all skill levels and technical backgrounds, including general trades, barge drivers, engineers, transportation, scientists and hatchery staff, oyster farmers and hydrologists. The economic benefits derived from coastal and marine restoration projects are not limited to direct jobs. However, much of the economic benefit is in uplift to the service and beneficiary industries associated with increased coastal productivity, including fishing, tourism, wastewater treatment and marine equipment and boat suppliers (Appeaning Addo et al. forthcoming)41. Other estimates for coastal and marine restoration works in the United States ranged from 15 to 33 jobs per $1 million, depending on the type of activity (removal of invasive species from coral reefs generated the most jobs), but the majority of projects fall within a range from 15 to 19 jobs per $1 million of expenditure (Edwards

Estimates are based on Oregon’s restoration project, and labour intensity will depend on local factors. The model used the economic impact modelling software IMPLAN 3.0 to describe the impacts from public investments in forest and watershed restoration. It was based on an input- output analysis to describe the patterns of trade and the degree to which goods and services are sold and purchased outside the state’s economy. Based on the dependencies among different economic activities, input-output models can project the impact that changes in one sector will have on economic activity in other sectors of the economy. 41 

Multipliers were derived using IMPLAN 2.0 with 2007 data. Infrastructure multipliers and assumptions are presented in Pollin et al. (2009). The estimates are based on input-output models. Key limitations include the assumption of fixed prices (prices do not change when demand for a good, service, or input changes), fixed ratios of labour to other factors of production and fixed sectoral share of GDP over time. 42 

738

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

veillance and scientific research jobs located in the local community. For example, for the Natura 2000 network (terrestrial and marine), every €1 billion of expenditure supports almost 30,000 jobs, with 60% of these on activities directly related to site management (e.g. designation, management, conservation actions, monitoring and research) (Mutafoglu et  al. 2017). In addition, MPAs generate demand for other services, such as technology to improve surveillance and management (see Sect. 3.4 on how to digitise such efforts in a post-COVID-19 world) (EU Commission 2018). The restoration and protection of these ecosystems also directly improves the potential for ecotourism or the recovery and long-term viability of the coastal tourism sector. Studies have shown that ecotourism in marine protected areas provides 4–12 times greater economic returns than the economic returns from solely utilising the area for fishing (for example, A$5.5 billion annually and 53,800 full-time jobs in the Great Barrier Reef) (Deloitte 2017; Duarte et al. 2020). The port city of Xiamen, located on the west coast of the Taiwan Strait and one of the busiest ports in China, faced environmental degradation, sea-use conflicts and ineffective management. As a result of improving protection and advancing ecosystem restoration, the Chinese white dolphin population returned and tourist numbers increased from five million in 1996 to more than 100 million in 2019 (Winther et al. 2020). Industry has also been able to flourish, with year- on-year growth staying above 10%. New marine high-tech industries (biological pharmacy, science and education service, high-­ end equipment) have also grown (Winther et  al. 2020). Healthy coastal and marine ecosystems under full or Roncin et  al. (2008) summarise the impact of Southern high protection and effective management can deliver European MPAs on local economies44 and calculate the long-term job creation and economic growth potential in yearly local income related to services to non-resident recreecotourism and artisanal fisheries. The protection and ational users to be €640,000/year per MPA and 15 yearly effective management of coastal and marine ecosystems full-time equivalent jobs45. Lastly, MPAs and OECMs are through fully or highly marine protected areas (MPAs) critical tools to increase fisheries’ productivity, maintain fish (Carrasquila Henao and Juanes 2017) or other effective stock levels and thereby ensure ongoing economic opportuconservation-­based measures (OECMs) can deliver long-­ nities for artisanal and commercial fisheries as well as proterm economic opportunities for coastal communities. vide local food security (Brander et  al. 2015). In a Analysis has shown a benefit- cost ratio of between 3:1 and meta-analysis looking at the role of biodiversity loss on eco20:1 of expanding the MPA network, meaning that every $1 system services, data showed that post-designation, levels of invested returns up to $20 in benefits (WWF 2015). Analysis biodiversity of fully protected areas increased by an average shows that expanding protected areas to cover 30% of the of 23%, with large increases in fisheries’ productivity in planet (terrestrial and ocean) would generate higher overall areas adjacent to the MPA (known as the spillover effect) output (revenues) than non-expansion (an extra $64 billion to (Halpern et al. 2010). Fisheries in medium- to high-decline $454 billion per year by 2050). This would be in addition to gained the most from spillover from highly and fully proeconomic benefits (avoided-loss value estimated to be $170 tected MPAs (WWF 2015). Another study that looked at the billion to $534 billion per year by 2050) (Waldron et  al. combined economic benefits of MPAs found that both tour2020)43. In terms of direct job creation, coastal and marine ecosystems under protected area status generate demand for 44  Empirical evidence is based on surveys with fishermen and divers administration, conservation, management, monitoring, surThe model used to calculate these job numbers was the economic input/output software called IMPLAN (Impact Analyses and Planning) to estimate overall jobs and economic impacts. The economic data for IMPLAN come from the system of national accounts for the United States based on data collected by the U.S.  Department of Commerce, the U.S.  Bureau of Labor Statistics and other federal and state government agencies. Data are collected for 528 distinct producing industry sectors of the national economy corresponding to the Standard Industrial Categories. Industry sectors are classified on the basis of the primary commodity or service produced. Corresponding data sets are also produced for each county in the United States, allowing analyses at the county level and for geographic aggregations such as clusters of contiguous counties, individual states or groups of states. b The median restoration cost per hectare for mangroves, seagrasses, oyster reefs, coral reefs and saltmarshes is estimated to be $8961, $106,782, $165,607 and $67,128, respectively. Total project costs—calculated for projects that included both capital and operating costs—for restoring seagrass, saltmarshes and oyster reefs were two to four times higher than the median. a

The financial estimates are for both terrestrial and marine protected areas. The economic estimates only refer to forests and mangroves. 43 

(1,836 questionnaires). 45  Estimates are based on local expenditures of non-resident recreational fishers and scuba divers only. Estimates would likely be higher if expenditure of all tourists were included.

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

739

ism and neighbouring fishery profits increased within as little as five years after the reserve was established (Sala et al. 2013). Healthy coastal and marine ecosystems deliver improved health, well-being and resilience for coastal communities. Restoration of these ecosystems can deliver significant benefits for improved food security for coastal communities (TNC 2013)46, improved water quality (and the associated health benefits) and improved coastal recreation opportunities. Communities living in areas with more extensive mangrove forest experience significantly lower losses from exposure to cyclones than communities in coastal areas without mangroves (Hochard et al. 2019) and are more resilient to the effects of rising sea levels (Serrano et al. 2019). This is also true in communities bordering fringing reefs. Reef structures cause waves to break and reduce wave energy by an average of 97%, protecting the beach from possible erosion as well as reducing the number of people affected by annual flooding by more than 200,000 (Ferrario et al. 2014; Beck et al. 2018). Higher property values are associated with communities situated near restored and well-functioning coastal and marine ecosystems (Bark et  al. 2009). Studies have shown that lower-income communities living in lowlying areas are the most vulnerable to natural disasters such as flood and coastal storm surges (Winsemius et al. 2018). Utilising restoration of coastal ecosystems in these areas can dramatically improve the quality of life of these communities. For example, following the 2004 floods in Bangladesh, poor households lost more than twice as much of their total income as non-poor households (Brouwer et  al. 2007). Worldwide, low-income countries suffer 63% of all deaths from storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, even though they experienced just 12% of the global total of such events (CRED 2015). Coastal and marine ecosystem restoration and protection also offer opportunities for engagement, co-­ ownership and co-management with Indigenous communities and traditional owners—offering knowledge-sharing and capacity building for all stakeholders involved as well as the opportunity for revenue to be reinvested back in the local community (McLeod et al. 2018). Studies have shown that engagement of local communities in long-term restoration and protection is a key success factor, and lacking it is a major reason for failure (Hai et al. 2020; Suding et al. 2015). Inclusive planning processes for restoration activities have been shown to deliver a positive social impact and equitable benefits for communities.

Coastal and marine ecosystems also have significant carbon sequestration potential and can provide valuable mitigation opportunities in addition to improving local water quality and enhanced biodiversity. Analysis estimates that restoration could deliver annual global emissions reductions of between 0.20 and 0.33 GtCO2e by 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019), which is equivalent to taking approximately 4–7 million cars off the road annually47. The sequestration benefits from reducing CO2 emissions are estimated at $137 billion to $214 billion for restoration over 30 years (Konar and Ding 2020). Coastal habitats are home to a number of marine and terrestrial animals (Li et al. 2018; Rog et  al. 2016), including species important for fisheries (Carrasquila-Henao and Juanes 2017). These habitats buffer acidification (Kapsenberg and Cyronak 2019) and play an important role in wastewater treatment systems (Ouyang and Guo 2016). In addition, shellfish beds and reefs enhance habitat availability, benthic flora and marine organism populations. They act as nursery grounds for fish and other species (including crustacea), and their nutrients support the growth of seagrass and macroalgae (e.g. kelp) (Alleway et al. 2018; Hughes et al. 2018). Restoration of historic baselines in combination with bivalve mariculture can improve ecosystem health while providing a food source and employment (see Box 19.6). Bivalves are increasingly used to extract and convert pollution in the Baltic Sea (Petersen et al. 2020). In New  York, the Billion Oysters Project aims to place 1 billion oysters in the harbour to help clean up its water while providing habitat for marine species, shielding shorelines from storm damage and engaging students and the local community (75 restaurants and 70 schools as of 2018) (Charlton 2019).

In Mobile Bay, Alabama, $3.5 million has been spent on efforts to successfully restore 5.9  km of oyster reefs that have reduced wave height and energy of average waves at the shoreline by 53–91%. The reefs have also produced 6,560 kilograms of seafood per year—a weight equivalent to half the total oysters harvested in Alabama in 2015. 46 

How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures • Commit public funding to a set number of restoration projects. Direct public investment to ‘shovel ready projects’ (based on a set of criteria) through stimulus funding packages. See Box 19.5 for the example in the United States following the 2008–2009 financial crisis and Box 19.6 for an example of the suite of cross-sectoral benefits that can be derived from ecosystem restoration. • Establish national funds to mobilise private sector funding for large-scale restoration. Initial public investment is used to attract impact investors and larger private sources of funding, including from philanthropy. The nature of the fund will need to depend on national circumstances. An example is the trust fund established for the Based on the average emissions of a passenger vehicle being 4.6 metric tonnes per year, according to EPA (2018). 47 

740

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

tourist coast of Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula. A tourist tax • Ensure that the definition of ‘infrastructure’ includes is channelled into the fund to pay for both routine reef hybrid green-grey infrastructure. Ensure that investmaintenance, such as removing debris and replanting spements targeted at stimulating large-scale coastal infracies, and bigger repairs after hurricanes. structure projects enable the use of hybrid green-grey • Use debt-for-nature swaps or debt restructures. infrastructure approaches (e.g. the use of nature-based Governments could consider including restoration and/or solutions such as living reefs or mangroves in conjuncprotection of coastal and marine ecosystems under fully tion with traditional concrete or non-living structures). or highly protected MPAs or OECMs as part of debt-­ These investments can include regulatory reform, prorestructuring negotiations and debt-for- nature swaps (see curement and tender agreements and definitions for bilatBox 19.7 for further details on debt- for-nature swaps). eral aid. Hybrid solutions combine conservation and • Incentivise use of technologies such as remote electronic restoration of coastal ecosystems with conventional engimonitoring, and high-resolution vessel tracking and neering and can offer enhanced levels of coastal protecmonitoring systems and collaborative approaches with tion while also delivering the key co-benefits associated small-scale fishing fleets to enhance outcomes for marine with ecosystems. protected areas and fisheries management. Increasingly, • Invest in blue carbon projects (restoration and consermarket considerations are a compelling reason for smallvation of coastal wetlands—mangroves, seagrasses scale fishers to adopt monitoring systems. Gaining access to and tidal marshes) and accelerate the associated polexport markets would improve their incomes and help icy and regulatory reform (inclusion in national GHG develop their local economies (INFOFISH International inventories, nationally determined contributions and 2020). Governments could consider incentivising the use of market mechanisms). Blue carbon projects can bring remote electronic monitoring (REM) in key fisheries or sustainable carbon financing to the restoration and protecworking on collaborative partnerships to enhance data coltion of coastal and marine ecosystems while at the same lection in protected areas (see Sect. 3.4 for additional ideas time contributing directly to a government’s international on conditional grants). REM data enable cross-verification commitment under the Paris Agreement. Carbon financof self-reported data and can confirm vessel compliance with ing is also substantially more economically stable than regulations. This approach not only discourages violations tourism and other income streams. Sites must be carefully because all activities are monitored but also gives legitimacy selected to meet the accounting requirements under the to self-­reported catch. As an example of the potential beneParis Agreement, avoiding areas that are likely to be inunfits, providing 10% video review monitoring across the over-­ dated by sea level rise. Blue carbon projects must also be 10-­metre fleet throughout the United Kingdom would cost advanced in conjunction with social safeguards to conapproximately £5 million. This equates to roughly a quarter sider demands from local small-scale fishers and other of the money spent on more traditional systems, which stakeholders who are heavily dependent on coastal deliver less than 1% at-sea coverage (WWF 2017). Inshore resources for economic sustainability (Barbesgaard 2018; vessel monitoring systems can be undertaken by using inexBennett 2018; Friess et al. 2019). Effective local engagepensive cellular 3G/GSM/GPRS networks rather than global ment of stakeholders, ensuring their voice is heard, will satellites (see, e.g., AST 2019). be key for the success of these initiatives.

Box 19.6 Restoring Shellfish Reefs in Australia and the United States

In Australia, The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with state and Commonwealth governments, has embarked upon a national program to rebuild and restore Australia’s lost shellfish reefs. Based on the results of existing pilot projects, scaling efforts to 60 reefs nationally will provide 850 new full-time jobs for local coastal communities, divert 7000 m2 of shell waste from landfills, reduce coastal erosion and deliver the following annual benefits: • 375 kg of new fish stocks, including high-value snapper, flathead and whiting

• Filtration of two billion litres of seawater (the equivalent of the annual water use of 21,000 Australians) • Removal of 225 kg of nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorous) in coastal areas (TNC 2020) In 2011, the full suite of ecosystem services derived from natural oyster reefs in North America was conservatively estimated to be between US $5500 and $99,000 per hectare per annum, with recovery of their restoration costs in 2–14  years (Grabowski et  al. 2012). These services include job creation and economic development, fish production, water filtration, coastal protection and providing habitat for many other marine species. The largest

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

741

current initiative is the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires the oyster populations of 20 Chesapeake Bay tributaries to be restored by 2025. Three estuaries have been restored thus far, including 964 acres of restored reef at a projected total cost of $72.1 milliona. The resulting harvested biomass has the potential to contribute millions of dollars in additional sales for commercial seafood harvesters. This would be in addition to a wide range of other ecosystem services from restoring the reef (such as water purification, nitrogen sequestration and water and biogeochemical cycling), which could help recoup the cost of investment (Knoche and Ihde 2018)b. a  This project focused on the first three tributaries in Maryland chosen for restoration: Harris Creek, the Little Choptank River and the Tred Avon River. The projected

cost for achieving the total restoration acreage target was $72 million; actual costs incurred to this point have been $53 million. b   Knoche and Ihde (2018) used IMPLAN regional economic impact modelling software to calculate the economic effects for four key economic measures (output, labour income, value-added and employment). There are a number of limitations to using ecological and regional impact modelling studies. For example, the ecological model implicitly assumes that catchability is constant and also excludes key ecosystem services from oyster reefs. While the authors did not carry out a benefit-cost analysis per se, based on the estimates calculated and the missing value of the ecosystem services, we ascertain the benefits are likely to outweigh the cost of investment.

Box 19.7 Debt-for-Nature Swaps to Advance Marine Protected Areas

proceeds of the blue bond will be local communities, civil society organisations and businesses who are seeking financing for activities that can support a transition to sustainable fisheries. The bond was issued with a ceiling value of US $15 million, with a maturity of 10 years. The World Bank provided support through a partial guarantee ($5 million), and the Global Environment Facility provided a concessional loan ($5 million), which will subsidise payment of the bond coupons. These credit enhancement instruments allowed for a reduction of the price of the bond by partially de-risking the investment of the impact investors, and by reducing the effective interest rate of 6.5% for Seychelles to 2.8% by subsidising the coupons (World Bank 2018). Despite significant changes to national budgets and revenues as a result of the impacts suffered from COVID-19, the sovereign blue bond has continued to fund recovery efforts and economic diversification initiatives across Seychelles to aid in recovery efforts. This includes over $700,000  in grants for ocean conservation and management and $12 million to fund research and development for new economic opportunities. Seychelles is also undertaking extensive mapping of its seagrass ecosystems, aiming to map the entire EEZ to enable inclusion of these ecosystems and the associated adaptation blue carbon benefits for inclusion in its nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement to be submitted this year and a commitment towards integrating carbon accounting for the blue carbon ecosystems in the NDCs ahead using the Wetlands Supplement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Since 2008, when Seychelles defaulted on its national debt, the country has since sought ways to preserve its natural environment—the pillar of its economy and of its citizens’ livelihoods—without endangering financial stability. In 2015, The Nature Conservancy and its impact investing unit, NatureVest, brokered a deal to restructure a portion of Seychelles’ debt with a debt-­for-­nature swap. The deal allows the government to restructure the country’s debt with a mix of investments and grants, in exchange for designating 30% of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as a marine protected area. The agreement frees capital streams and directs debt service payments to fund climate change adaptation and marine conservation activities that will improve the management of Seychelles’ coastlines, coral reefs and mangroves. This is the first time this financing technique has been used for the marine environment (Thande 2018). The designation of the 30% of the EEZ took place during the COVID-19 crisis, on 26 March 2020, and demonstrated the continued commitment of Seychelles to marine protection as a core aspect of its long-term strategy for economic sustainability (Statehouse 2020). In 2018, the Republic of Seychelles complemented its debt restructure though the debt-for-nature swap by establishing the world’s first sovereign blue bond. The blue bond was created in partnership with impact investors (private capital) and public multilateral bodies (the World Bank and Global Environment Facility) to finance the necessary shift to sustainable management and governance of fisheries in Seychelles. The beneficiaries of the

742

3.2.2 Two: Invest in Sewerage and Wastewater Infrastructure for Coastal Communities Wastewater and sewage runoff into coastal waters (resulting in eutrophication and hypoxia) is a major contributor to human health issues, spreads water-borne diseases among coastal communities, contributes to the loss of local fish stocks (and therefore contributes to local food insecurity and loss of revenue for small-scale fishers), furthers the decline of coral (and therefore undermines opportunities for ecotourism) and results in costly beach closures for coastal communities and tourism (WWAP 2017)48. More than 80% of global wastewater flows are released without adequate treatment, with this figure as high as 95% in some least developed countries (ILO 2017). Much of this runoff comes from agricultural sources, where inefficient use of fertiliser and inadequate wastewater treatment leads to nitrogen and phosphorous loading in waterways and groundwater. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus often lead to eutrophication, harmful algal blooms and ocean hypoxia (UNEP et al. 2012). Even where treatment facilities exist, they may sometimes discharge untreated sewage into waterways and the ocean due to decayed infrastructure, facility malfunctions or heavy rainfall events that overwhelm systems using combined sewers and stormwater drains (Jambeck et  al. 2020; Malik et al. 2015).

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

The estimated rates of return on water and sanitation investments are striking, with every $1 invested in water, sanitation and hygiene having a potential return of $3–34, depending on the region and technology involved (Hutton et al. 2004). In the face of ever-growing demand for water, wastewater is increasingly seen as a reliable alternative source of water, shifting the paradigm of wastewater management from ‘treatment and disposal’ to ‘reuse, recycle and resource recovery’ and offering even greater benefits. In the context of a circular economy, whereby economic development is balanced with the protection of natural resources and environmental sustainability, wastewater represents a widely available and valuable resource (WWAP 2017). Why Investment Makes Sense The development of the infrastructure for sewage and wastewater treatment and reuse can offer immediate job opportunities for local communities in coastal areas. Analysis of stimulus packages in Latin America from the 2008–2009 financial crisis aimed at investment in public works found that investing $1 billion in water supply and sanitation network expansion could result in the creation of up to 100,000 direct jobs annually (significantly higher than the same investment in coal- powered energy) (Schwartz et al. 2009)49. In the United States, investments in sustainable water practices are estimated to generate between 10 and 15 direct, indirect and induced jobs per $1 million invested in alternative water supplies; between 5 and 20 direct, indirect and induced jobs per $1 million invested in stormwater management; between 12 and 22 direct, indirect and induced jobs per $1 million invested in urban conservation and efficiency; and between 10 and 72 direct, indirect and induced jobs per $1 million invested in restoration and remediation (Pacific Institute 2013). Investing in green infrastructure, such as riparian buffers to address agricultural runoff, could also be a cost-efficient alternative to typical grey infrastructure. When compared to the creation of a new nitrate-removal facility, the planting of a riparian buffer offered a cost savings of up to $29 million (Canning and Stillwell 2018). Reforms and incentives promoting recovery and reuse of wastewater (such Note that Schwartz et al.’s (2009) study looks across multiple countries and projects aimed at water and sanitation. The figures provided in this report were for Columbia’s expansion of its water supply and sanitation network. For the full details, including figures for other countries and types of investment, see Table 2 in Schwartz et al. (2009). The investment includes both water and sewage treatment. The direct employment- generation potential of an investment is thus highly sensitive to assumptions about wages, the division between skilled and unskilled workers, the sectoral allocation of the proposed program, the technology to be employed in each project and the potential crowding-­ out or substitution effects. Indirect job estimates are also highly sensitive to leakage created from the division between locally produced and imported inputs. 49 

Over the last 30  years, wastewater and sewage runoff has cost the global economy an estimated $200 billion to $800 billion per year (UNDP 2012).

Bacteria use up oxygen in the water as they decompose the organic material in the wastewater, and the resulting lack of oxygen in the water kills the fish. The solids in sewage cause the water to appear dark and murky, which also affects the ability of fish to breathe and see around them. 48 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

as retrofitting homes and apartment buildings for composting, collection and reuse of human waste as fertiliser) are typically much more labour-intensive than current/traditional ‘linear’ municipal wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems, leading to net job creation in both the private and public sectors. For example, as a result of concerted policy and investment, Israel now reuses 80% of its wastewater for agricultural production. This has led to a fivefold increase in the export of water technology, leading to a $2 billion industry between 2008 and 2013 (Hudson 2017). Investment in sewage and wastewater treatment and reuse can avoid long-term costs (in terms of loss of biodiversity, tourism revenues and wider recreational benefits) as a result untreated wastewater being discharged into coastal waters. The longer-term economic benefits of investment in waste and sewerage infrastructure are twofold. First, clean coastal waters will bring economic benefits to communities and businesses that rely on tourism revenue. Cleaner waters and healthier coastal ecosystems offer additional opportunities for ecotourism and revenue-generating activities. Second, such investment avoids the economic loss suffered through inaction. The degradation of coral reefs due to pollution and overfishing caused the Caribbean to lose $95 million to $140 million per year in net revenue from coral reef–associated fisheries, $100 million to $300 million per year in reduced tourism revenue and $140 million to $420 million per year in reduced coastal protection (Burke et al. 2011)50. On a more local scale are the economic losses suffered by coastal business and tourism ventures from beach closures as a result of pollution. Furthermore, the integration of green infrastructure with traditional grey infrastructure for the recovery and reuse of wastewater has been shown to offer significant improvements and long-term economic savings for local authorities. In 2007, the city of Portland, Oregon, introduced a program to spur the use of green infrastructure for urban stormwater management. As a result, service providers installed permeable pavements and bioswales throughout the city, reducing peak flow by 80–94% in target areas. Estimates indicate the initial $9 million investment in green infrastructure has yielded a savings of $224 million in stormwater costs related to repairs and maintenance (EPA 2010). A review of the U.S. water and wastewater infrastructure estimated that meeting the nation’s projected needs would

The loss of economic value from degradation of reef goes beyond the estimated tourism revenue, as it includes both use value (e.g. recreational fishing, surfing or beach-going) and non-use values. Non-use value includes the value of preserving the ecosystem for future use either by an individual (option value) or by future generations (bequest values). In addition, there is existence value, which is unrelated to the use of the resource and represents the willingness to pay for the resource to exist (e.g. willingness to pay for the protection of a beach you will never visit). Non-use value is often difficult to quantify, and hence the economic losses tend to be larger than the market values estimated. 50 

743

require an additional investment of $82 billion per year for the next 10 years, but the review also found that this investment would result in over $220 billion in total annual economic activity, approximately 1.3 million jobs and productivity savings for U.S. businesses of approximately $94 billion a year51 (Value of Water Campaign 2017). Proper wastewater treatment and reuse facilities and sewerage infrastructure will improve the health of the local community, prevent future water-borne diseases, increase water security and reduce inequalities. Improved waste management has direct gender and social equity implications, and addressing this issue would also lead to improved social equity outcomes in associated communities (Satterthwaite et  al. 2019). Targeted water investments may contribute to reaching growth and poverty alleviation goals more effectively (UN Water 2016). Globally, unsafe sanitation costs an estimated $223 billion a year in the form of high health costs and lost productivity and wages (WHO 2012). Investment in safe drinking water and basic sanitation could offer estimated economic returns of $3–3452 globally for every $1 invested, with an overall estimated gain of 1.5% in global GDP (Hutton et al. 2004). These returns include both health benefits (such economic benefits from reduction in waterborne diseases) and non-health benefits (such as time savings associated with better access). Investment in small- scale projects providing access to safe water and basic sanitation in Africa could offer an estimated economic return of about $28.4 billion a year, or nearly 5% of the continent’s GDP (UNESCO 2009). Improving employment is a good economic outcome; sound health and social equity outcomes are also important enabling conditions for resilient communities. A reduction of untreated wastewater being discharged into coastal waters will improve local water quality and reduce stressors on coral reefs and coastal ecosystems, and reuse can offer climate-mitigation benefits. Reducing the nutrient runoff will reduce a significant stressor on coral reefs and shellfish (especially bivalves that filter large quantities of water) resulting in improved and

If the water infrastructure gap is not addressed, businesses would face higher costs to procure water and wastewater services. These costs include operational and maintenance costs, higher water rates, costs of self-supply or costs of relocating to a better-served area. 52  Returns are dependent on the region and technology used (Hutton et al. 2004). The benefits also refer to improving the quality of groundwater (which we use as a proxy). The estimates refer to the following intervention: halving the proportion of people who do not have access to improved water sources and improved sanitation facilities by 2015. ‘Improved’ water supply involved better access and protected water sources (e.g. stand post, borehole, protected spring or well, or collected rainwater). Improvement does not mean that the water is safe, but it is more accessible, and some measures are taken to protect the water source from contamination. ‘Improved’ sanitation, generally involving better access and safer disposal of excreta (septic tank, pour-flush, simple pit latrine, small bore sewer or ventilated improved pit latrine). 51 

744

more resilient coastal and marine ecosystems and improved local water quality. Energy from wastewater and sewage treatment can be recovered in the form of biogas, heating and cooling, and electricity generation. Technologies exist for on-site energy recovery through sludge and biosolids treatment processes integrated into wastewater treatment plants, allowing them to transition from major energy consumers to energy neutrality, or even to net energy producers. Energy recovery can also help facilities reduce operational costs and their carbon footprint, enabling increased revenue streams through carbon credits and carbon-trading programmes (WWAP 2017). How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures • Commit public funding for decentralised, low-cost solutions and safe water reuse options in coastal areas. Large-scale centralised wastewater treatment systems may no longer be the most viable option for urban water management in many countries. Decentralised wastewater treatment systems, serving individual or small groups of properties, allow for the recovery of nutrients and energy, save freshwater and help secure access to water in times of scarcity. It has been estimated that the investment costs for these treatment facilities represent only 20–50% of conventional treatment plants, with even lower operation and maintenance costs (in the range of 5–25% of those of conventional activated sludge treatment plants) (WWAP 2017). • Commit public funding for the development of services which can collect and transport sanitation waste for safe treatment. This is often one of the main barriers to effective sanitation and can be a source of decent jobs for local and regional communities. • Establish a sustainable financing mechanism (e.g. a dedicated national fund) for sanitation. A major barrier to improved and accessible sanitation facilities is low levels of public investment in the sanitation sector. The creation of an enabling framework and dedicated fund can attract both public and private sector funding and investment for resource mobilisation and guarantee the necessary funds at a national level for investment in the sector. • Incentivise management strategies such as implementing riparian buffers or reducing inefficient fertiliser use to reduce nutrient pollution. Ecosystems can effectively provide economical wastewater treatment services, as long as these ecosystems are healthy, the pollutant load

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

(and types of contaminants) in the effluent is regulated and the ecosystem’s pollution assimilation capacity is not exceeded (WWAP 2017).

3.2.3 Three: Invest in Sustainable Community-­ Led Non-Fed Mariculture Given the changing nature of the fisheries industry in a post-­ COVID-­19 world and the increasing importance of ensuring local food security and economic diversification, investment in community-led non-fed marine aquaculture (mariculture) (e.g. shellfish and seaweed farming)53 offers considerable opportunities. Non-fed mariculture has the greatest potential to contribute to food supply and make the global food system more resilient (Costello et  al. 2019; SAPEA 2017; Duarte et  al. 2009). Such mariculture requires no feed, fertiliser inputs, insecticides or antibiotics, and it requires less water and energy than fed aquaculture, making it a self-supporting system (Roberts et al. 2015; Suplicy 2018). The development of sustainable community-led mariculture could also provide local employment and strong ecosystem services in countries with climate-driven declines in capture fisheries (Costello et al. 2019). Potentially 48 million km2 of the world’s ocean is suitable (based on nutrient availability and temperature) for seaweed cultivation54. These waters span 132 countries, of which only 37 are currently cultivating (Froehlich et al. 2019). In terms of bivalve production, Gentry et al. (2017) found that over 1.5 million km2 (roughly the area of Mongolia or Iran) of marine habitat, spanning temperate and tropical regions, are suitable for bivalve production (e.g. oysters, mussels, clams) and that developing small suitable areas can result in high production volume (e.g. they found that developing just 1% of Indonesia’s suitable area could produce over 3.9 billion individual bivalves). Investment in sustainable community-led mariculture could protect and develop mariculture with the triple goal of producing high-quality protein, accelerating a shift towards sustainable food systems, and maintaining and restoring ocean ecosystem services. Non-fed mariculture is for species that do not require human-derived feed inputs and instead extract resources from the surrounding environment (e.g. phytoplankton), primarily macroalgae and bivalves (e.g. oysters, mussels and scallops). 54  We are not suggesting that all 48 million km2 be developed, as this would amount to large-scale cultivation that would not be compatible with a community-led approach and would likely result in unintended consequences through the disruption of coastal ecosystems and their functioning. We provide the area figure to show that potential is not limited to one region or a small group of countries. 53 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

745

Community-led non-fed mariculture can support long-term economic diversification for local communities. In addition to the direct benefits for local communities, seaweed mariculture offers a sustainable and low-carbon alternative for products such as biofuels (Jiang et al. 2016)55 aquaculture and agriculture feedstocks, and plastic (Önen Cinar et al. 2020). The estimated value of micro-algae oil for people and animals from 500 million metric tonnes of seaweed is $23 billion (Bjerregaard et al. 2016). Extrapolating an estimate of 1 job per 10 dry tonnes of seaweed results in a potential direct employment of 50 million jobs; a standard seafood industry secondary-employment multiplier of 2:1 suggests 100 million jobs could be created overall (based on an estimate of 1 job created per 10 dry metric tonnes), roughly the number currently employed in marine capture fisheries (Bjerregaard et  al. 2016)56. Bivalve mariculture offers significant opportunities for the creation of a green Note that for some countries investment in developing sus- and circular local economy. Goods from provisioning sertainable feed alternatives for fed mariculture (e.g. finfish) vices include meat, worth an estimated $23.9 billion as well might be a priority over investment in developing community-­ as pearls, shell and poultry grit, with oyster shell being the based non-fed mariculture (e.g. those countries that have most important, with a global potential worth of $5.2 billion very advanced fed mariculture industries, such as Norway (Olivier et al. 2020). Shells can be used as construction mateand Chile). Important technological, nutritional and eco- rial, fertiliser, poultry grit and artistic products. Research on nomic constraints remain to feed substitution, and many sub- the potential of bivalves as medicinal and genetic resources stitutes being explored are currently too expensive to is on the rise, looking at their bioactive peptides, proteins and incorporate in large-scale production (Naylor et al. 2009). As metabolites for producing innovative pharmaceuticals and such, this has not been considered a priority applicable to nutraceutical foods. Mussel byssus—highly resistant fibre multiple regions and economies to respond to the current that combines high extensibility and harness and is the only economic crisis. Benefits associated with investment in effective glue underwater—has particularly interesting research and development for alternative feed are explored in potential applications in engineering, biological and biomedAnnex 1. ical fields, including in water-resistant adhesives, replacement of surgical sutures, bone protheses and fibre optics Why Investment Makes Sense (Zhang et al. 2020; Guo et al. 2020). Community-led non-fed mariculture creates jobs for The opportunity for community-led mariculture suplocal communities and requires comparatively less initial ports improved rural livelihoods, particularly for women, investment than larger-scale commercial mariculture. as well as cultural services for coastal communities. The The potential for job creation is significant, predominantly in expansion of seaweed farming in several continents is condeveloping and emerging economies, with a focus on eco- tributing to global food security, supporting rural livelihoods nomic opportunity for women (see Box 19.8). In Indonesia, and alleviating poverty (Cottier-Cook et  al. 2016). Some women play a significant role in seaweed farming, resulting fast-growing species can be cultivated year-round, and yield in some women becoming the main household earner despite per unit area can surpass that of terrestrial crops (Forster and previously earning little income (Neish 2013). Women relatives of seaweed farmers were also found to be instrumental 55 Marine algal biofuel is considered a promising solution for energy in tying seed (Valderrama et  al. 2013). Seaweed farmers and environmental challenges. Macroalgal biomass has the potential were shown between 2007 and 2009 to make up to $5000 per for bypassing the shortcoming of first and second generation of biomass from food crop and lignocellulosic sources. year, a 33% higher income than the national average ($3603) 56 Note that the micro-algae used as a replacement for fish oil are more (Neish 2013). As of 2019, women made up 57% of the com- likely to be cultivated in tanks in deserts with unlimited sun. All the munities engaged in mabé pearl farming in Fiji, with sales recent big investments in fish oil substitutes have been in these kind of ranging from F$735 to F$2200 (US $346–1038) per crop micro-algae, not ocean-grown macro-algae, where the promising segments are more those used for food, animal feed, fertilisers (biostimu(Southgate et al. 2019). lants) and bioplastics.

746

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Radulovich 2015). Bivalve farming also provides many cultural services for communities and visitors, including links with the marine environment, a strong connection with cultural heritage and educational centres on ecosystems (Alleway et al. 2018; McLeod and McLeod 2019). A global assessment values the global, non-food bivalve mariculture services, including cultural services, at up to $6.47 billion per year—a figure recognised as an underestimate given existing data gaps (Olivier et al. 2020). Increased community-led mariculture offers opportunities for GHG emissions reduction through the use of seaweed for alternative feed and fuel and promotion of oysters and mussels as a low-carbon alternative protein. Projections of annual global GHG emissions reductions from seaweed farming are between 0.05–0.29 GtCO2e/year by 2050. This would be equivalent to taking approximately 1–6 million vehicles off the road every year57. However, there are uncertainties in rates of expansion of the industry and the proportion of production that would be sequestered (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). It is estimated that seaweed could create a carbon-neutral mariculture sector with just 14% of current seaweed production, with seaweed culturing at a regional level more feasible from a cost perspective, especially in areas with strong climate policy, such as California (Froehlich et al. 2019)58. The addition of seaweeds to animal feed to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants may substantially increase the mitigation potential of seaweeds (Kinley et  al. 2016). Small-scale community seaweed farming projects are considered low-risk, but significant expansion would require a more complete understanding of how risks and benefits change as projects are scaled (Campbell et al. 2020), in addition to any potential trade-offs with other ecosystem values and uses. If not appropriately located, seaweed farms could also affect seagrass beds and other benthic habitats and thereby disturb the local ecology (Eklöf et al. 2005). Spatial planning, ongoing monitoring and proper management are key to mitigating these impacts and informing design of a system that promotes resilience,

local empowerment and long-term conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems. Bivalves contribute to the carbon cycle, serving as a carbon sink as their shells develop. In France, 250,000 metric tonnes of farmed shellfish (mainly oysters and mussels) sequester 9.2 metric tonnes of carbon each year, as much sequestration as is done by half of the Landes, the largest forest in the country (CNC n.d.). This benefit is not offset by carbon emissions associated with production, which remain low. Studies found that mussel farming has one of the lowest carbon footprints of any food production system, and may in fact have the lowest. It probably offers the best ratio of protein quality and climate and ecosystem benefits (SARF 2011; Suplicy 2018). Bivalve production could significantly contribute to promote low-carbon food systems and reduce meat production. A plate of mussels (approximately 500 grams in weight, which includes 150 grams of flesh) provides as much protein as two eggs and more iron than a piece of red meat while offering calcium, magnesium and daily needs in iodine (CNC n.d.). This comes with a very low environmental footprint compared to meat production (most comparisons look at beef and chicken production) and fisheries, in terms of carbon emissions, water use and non-renewable energy consumption (Alleway et al. 2018; Hughes et al. 2018; McLeod and McLeod 2019). In addition, bivalves function in a variety of ecosystems, such as estuaries, lagoons and coastal oceanic systems, while providing a multitude of services. As captured in Fig. 19.4, these include habitat and supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. As filter feeders, bivalves purify water (up to 180  L—50  gallons—of water a day for an adult oyster, 25–30 L for a mussel) while treating waste (including hydrocarbons). This function enhances water clarity and helps control excessive phytoplankton blooms (Bricker et al. 2018; Alleway et al. 2018; Ferreira et al. 2018; Hughes et al. 2018; McLeod and McLeod 2019).

Based on the average emissions of a passenger vehicle being 4.6 metric tonnes per year, according to EPA (2018). 58  Research has found that some fundamental and very significant hurdles remain to realising the potential contributions of seaweed cultivation at a global level. For example, the value of seaweed biomass needs to be improved, and the ecosystem services that seaweed farming can provide (such as in reducing coastal nutrient loads) need to be more fully considered. Additional considerations are environmental risks associated with climate change, pathogens, epibionts and grazers, as well as the preservation of the genetic diversity of cultivated seaweeds (Buschmann et al. 2017).

• Feasibility studies and associated zoning (ideally guided by an integrated ocean management or marine spatial planning process). Spatial planning approaches in which biotic, abiotic and socioeconomic factors are considered could be used to identify where the positive effects of mariculture could be maximised (Alleway et al. 2018). This initial scoping work can also be a source of short-term job creation for local universities and scientists.

57 

How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

747

Fig. 19.4  Goods and services provided by shellfish mariculture

• Streamlined and centralised permitting and regulatory processes. The purpose of streamlined permitting is not to cut corners or skip necessary environmental impact assessments for new projects but rather to ensure that local communities and applicants can access and easily navigate the government process. Otherwise this process can be a significant barrier to communities’ ability to initiate projects (even with funding). • Government grants and loans for new seaweed and/or bivalve farmers (including microloans). The high upfront costs that these production systems involve represent a barrier for community- led projects in many countries (see Box 19.8 for an exploration of how the Kenyan government has helped stimulate the creation of community-­led maricultural in partnership with the World Bank).

• Investment in communities of practice across different regions. With relatively small upfront investment, the capacity of small-scale and community-led initiatives can be accelerated by establishing regional communities of practice to share knowledge, experiences and best practice across the industry. • Creation of capacity-building and training programs for local communities. These programs and opportunities could be prioritised for those communities most affected by reduced economic opportunities from tourism and lower demand from fisheries. See also Sect. 3.3 for recommendations on investment in research and development and skills-training programs for sustainable ocean industries. • Facilitation of cooperative and co-designed sites across multiple sectors and with the private sector. Co-­

748

designed initiatives could support development across a multitude of sectors (e.g. energy, transport, communication), to co-produce ecosystem services to support the needs and interests of multiple stakeholders (Outeiro et al. 2017). For example, offshore wind farms could pro-

Box 19.8 Scaling Community Seaweed Farming in Kenya

Kenya started community seaweed farming in Kwale County on the South Coast in 2013, following feasibility studies undertaken by the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute. The initial funding was from a World Bank–funded project that targeted fishing communities along the Kenyan coast, but further funding has been provided by the Government of Kenya to build the farmers’ capacity with the aim of developing the initiative into a robust industry to create jobs and income. The main objective of supporting the establishment of this new community-led industry was to offer an alternative livelihood to local fishing communities whose livelihoods had been challenged by reduced income due to the dwindling catches from artisanal fisheries. Importantly, it was also an intervention that specifically supported the creation of new jobs and economic opportunities for women—90% of seaweed farmers in Kenya are women. To date, this support has resulted in the employment of approximately 400 seaweed farmers in Kwale County, each with his or her own individual farm generating income that flows directly to the farmer. For the women involved, this has meant financial independence from their husbands, with many using the income from their seaweed farms to educate their children up to the university level and constructing permanent houses. The sale price of the dry seaweed is agreed upon with the buyers prior to the transactions, and plans are underway to have a contract between the farmers and the buyers. The seaweed farmers welfare group has also been registered as a cooperative to improve organisation and collective bargaining power. The Government of Kenya has provided additional support to the farmers to ensure effective post- harvest management, provision of farming implements, harvesting and storage facilities, value addition and marketing. The seaweed is also being used in local food products. Support is also being provided to diversify the farmers’ income base through the development of soap and other cosmetic products, such as body creams, shampoos and hair treatment. To date, community-led seaweed farming has generated over 300 metric tonnes of dry seaweed that has generated over US $60,000 for the local village economies.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

vide a platform to which mariculture facilities could be attached, the operational costs of which might otherwise be prohibitive or the space and location required contested (Buck et al. 2018).

Some of the challenges faced in developing the initiative into a commercial entity include raising the level of production to volumes that make business sense to the potential investors and traders, particularly owing to the fact that the activity is a nontraditional economic activity, new to the farming communities. The difficulty of finding a reliable market for the produce, without economically feasible production volumes, affected the ability to reach scale. Extensive training of the communities has gotten more committed farmers and thus increased production volumes. The other major challenge has been extreme weather patterns, including very high temperatures followed by very heavy and extended rainfall, which resulted in massive die-off of seaweeds. This near complete loss of seaweed seed has been resolved by establishing new nurseries at the start of the favourable season (southeast monsoon) by bringing in seaweed from more sheltered sites. As a result of the demonstrated socioeconomic benefits of community seaweed farming in Kwale County, and the engagement of a commercial seaweed buyer, Kenya is now looking to scale the industry along the South Coast and ultimately the rest of the coast. For Kenya, the immediate socioeconomic impact of investment in community seaweed farming makes it a priority intervention for economic recovery, as its relatively low investment, quick returns and broader social and environmental benefits make its uptake and scalability more feasible than other interventions. Seaweed farming can be approached as integrated multi- trophic mariculture. Incorporating cages, bivalves and sea cucumbers optimises the productivity of a unit area of sea space and creates more employment. Additionally, seaweed helps clean coastal waters of excess nutrients that have been introduced through pollution and wastewater, making it the ideal crop for environmental sustainability. The Government of Kenya is currently supporting the selection of further suitable sites and associated environmental impact assessment to scale the initiative. Source: Information provided by the Government of Kenya, 2020.

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

3.2.4 Four: Incentivise Zero-Emission Marine Transport Global supply chains rely on marine transport to move approximately 90% of global trade. Regional and intercontinental shipping constitutes the core of the global logistical system. At any given time 50,000 vessels and 1.2 million seafarers are in operation between ports in different parts of the world. Marine transport is also the mode of long-distance transport with the lowest carbon footprint and cost (WSC 2020). The sustainability and viability of this industry is critical for ensuring the resilience of global populations to future shocks. During COVID-19 shipping has been responsible for transporting essential goods and services globally, from PPE to the core elements needed for the production of vaccines. In terms of domestic marine transport, it has been the only form of transport for food, health provisions and basic essentials between islands and atolls. Despite its central role in ensuring that global supply lines remain open, the industry has faced a significant contraction (estimates of between 25 and 35% by the end of the year) (NSA 2020a) as global trade has dropped. Recovery offers an opportunity to scale investment in the future of this industry through supporting and incentivising industry to invest in the decarbonisation of its fleets. The average lifespan of a cargo vessel is 25–30 years. To enable these vessels to be aligned with the Paris Agreement requires upfront investment over the next few years to keep highemitting ships and vessels from becoming stranded assets. Marine transport is not limited to deep-water vessels and cargo shipping, however. Domestic fleets, including fishing and mariculture fleets, vessels that form national navies and coastal passenger transport make up large proportions of a country’s transport footprint. Marine transport used in the tourism industry (cruise ships as well as coastal passenger fleets associated with hotels and resorts) stand to gain from early investment in their sustainability and decarbonisation. An ancillary effect of the global contraction is an expected increase in vessel recycling, particularly for offshore and passenger ships (NSA 2020a). This provides the opportunity for government investment to not only support and incentivise investment in replacement fleets and retrofitting but also ensure environmentally sound and sustainable ship-recycling practices. Regarding the economic, social and environmental net benefits, analysis shows that investments to decarbonise the international maritime shipping sector could deliver a net discounted benefit (average) over 30 years (2020–2050) of $1.2 trillion to $9 trillion (Konar and Ding 2020), with a benefit-cost ratio of 2:1 and 5:1 in 205059. Similar figures are not yet available for domestic fleets.

The analysis excludes military and fishing vessels and domestic transport and includes bulk carriers, oil tankers and container ships, which account for the majority (55%) of emissions in the shipping sector (Olmer et al. 2017). 59 

749

Why Investment Makes Sense Investment in the shipping industry to support efforts to retrofit or replace high-emitting vessels with low- or zero-­ emission vessels will protect jobs in the short term. Due to the contraction of the industry, market demand for new vessels is likely to decrease, threatening existing jobs. Government investment at this time would protect jobs and enable upskilling to support new zero-emission technologies. Supporting the replacement of domestic vessels with zero-carbon alternatives can create sustainable jobs, both by reducing domestic emissions and by preparing shipyards for future demand for zero-emission deep-sea vessels once demand picks up after COVID-19. Investment now will yield long-term benefits for the industry as well as other sectors, including tourism, that rely on marine transport. Zero-emission coastal transport (e.g. passenger and car ferries) can be more cost-efficient to run than its high-emitting counterparts (European Commission 2018). Shifting the demand from oil to alternative fuels and battery propulsion can be a catalyst to scale the deployment of low-carbon fuels for the broader energy transition and unlocks the market for these fuels across a range of industries and other hard- to-abate sectors (Moore 2019). This is due to shipping’s high level of fuel consumption, currently estimated to be around 250 million to 300 million metric tonnes every year, approximately 4% of the global oil demand (Christensen 2020). Decarbonising the shipping sector will increase confidence among suppliers of future fuels (e.g. hydrogen and ammonia) and offers opportunities for synergies with efforts to accelerate and scale the establishment of ocean-based renewable energy (see the preceding section). Annex 1 describes specific additional interventions that can target the establishment of these industries for alternative fuel generation. Decarbonisation of marine transport, both international and domestic, offers significant health benefits for those on board the vessel as well as coastal communities and those living near or working at the port. Prior to cleaner ship fuels, ship-related health impacts included around 400,000 premature deaths from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease and around 14 million childhood asthma cases annually. Reduced PM2.5 from marine engine combustion mitigates ship-related premature mortality and morbidity (Sofiev et al. 2018). Based on this, analysis estimates the discounted cumulative health benefits from reducing emissions from marine transport to be $1.3 trillion to $9.8 trillion over 30 years (2020–2050) (Konar and Ding 2020).

750

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short- Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures

Reducing GHG emissions from shipping vessels will help mitigate ocean acidification and contribute to domestic and global efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Ocean-based transportation could reduce operational net GHG emissions roughly 100% by changing the way it stores and consumes energy on board (e.g. use of batteries and zero-emission fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia). If the full suite of available technologies is employed, and zero-­emission vessels are available for commercial use by 2030, global GHG emissions could be reduced by between 0.9 and 1.8 GtCO2e/ year in 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). This would be equivalent to taking 19–39 million cars off the road every year60. In terms of environmental benefits, the strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal ‘hotspots’ of ocean acidification in ocean areas close to busy shipping lanes. Hotspots have negative effects on local marine ecology and commercially farmed seafood species (Hassellöv et al. 2013). Lastly, the shift to zero-emission vessels could reduce the noise impact on marine mammals. The effects of underwater noise from anthropogenic activities, including ships, on marine mammals includes behavioural responses, acoustic interference (i.e. masking), temporary or permanent shifts in hearing threshold, and stress (Erbe et al. 2019). Studies have shown that periods with a significant reduction in noise from ship traffic have been associated with a reduction in the stress of whale populations (Rolland et al. 2012). Moving to zero-emission vessels such as fuel cell and battery-powered could eliminate noise pollution (Reddy et al. 2019). Research also shows that this shift could be coupled with a 20% reduction in speeds, which would reduce underwater noise pollution by 66%, the chance of a fatal collision between a ship and a whale by 78% and CO2 emissions by 24% (Seas at Risk 2019).

Based on the average emissions of a passenger vehicle being 4.6 metric tonnes per year, according to EPA (2018). 60 

• Incentivise investment in upgrading coastal passenger transport (ferries) to zero-emission (battery- or hydrogen-­ powered) through subsidies, taxes and grants to the private sector. Investing in coastal passenger transport offers immediate health benefits for coastal communities and new opportunities to stimulate ecotourism. It also improves the resilience of coastal communities that depend on these forms of transport (e.g. between islands and atolls). • Commit to use domestic fleets to pilot and test zero-­ emission fuels and technologies, which in turn can help to de-risk and reduce costs for larger, high-seas and ocean-based transportation. Domestic fleets are populated with smaller ships and therefore better suited to small-scale and short-term pilots and tests. For many countries, the largest marine fleets are those of their navies, offering significant opportunities for domestic leadership and long-term economic resilience and benefits from early investment. • Incentivise private sector investment in replacement fleets and retrofitting by offering subsidies, tax cuts and government loans. Support for the industry (both the shipping and tourism sectors) at this time can take the form of incentives for replacement and/or retrofitting (as appropriate given the nature of the vessel and availability of technology). Note that incentives should be targeted at incentivising zero-emission vessels and not low-carbon ones (e.g. running on liquefied natural gas), since the latter do not have long-term viability for the industry transition and would therefore be only a short-term investment requiring further investment in the future to facilitate the transition to hydrogen or ammonia. • As part of stimulus funding packages for infrastructure, allocate public investment to the development of low- and zero-carbon energy production capacities, and storage and refuelling infrastructure in ports and harbours. Land-based measures will be critical to support the transition for marine transportation and ensure that a clear signal is sent to the private sector. • Invest in land-side grid infrastructure. Lack of investment in land-based infrastructure to support zero-­emission vessels is a common barrier. An example from Norway is a hybrid ferry operating between Norway and Sweden that was only able to operate at half its potential because the grid connection in Sweden was insufficient to recharge the batteries on the ferry. • Use bilateral aid to support regional partnerships, particularly in support of small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs)

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

with significant domestic or regional shipping- decarbonisation challenges, to work together on joint objectives. An example is the Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership, a joint initiative among Pacific nations and led by the Governments of Fiji and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The partnership commits to zero-carbon domestic marine transport by 2050, with a 40% reduction by 2030 (MCST n.d.). • Require or establish environmentally sound and sustainable ship-recycling practices that provide decent jobs for local communities. Ship recycling offers the most environmentally sustainable way of disposing of old vessels, with virtually every part of the hull and machine complex being reused or recycled as scrap metal. To do this properly, ships should be recycled at dry-dock ship-­ recycling facilities—not beached or exported to countries with weak regulatory systems. The nexus of ship-­ recycling yards, refurbishing shops, re-rolling mills, steel mills and second-hand shops creates a localised industry which can employ hundreds of thousands of people in semi-skilled and unskilled jobs.

751

than 1000 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity. Expansion of offshore wind in line with these projections would put the global power sector on track for full decarbonisation and enable the production of zero-emission fuels (e.g. hydrogen and ammonia) to dramatically cut emissions from sectors such as shipping (IEA 2019a, b)63. Although less advanced, other forms of ocean-based renewable energy, such as tidal, wave, sea current and ocean thermal energy conversion, will be highly valuable for many geographies that lack the geophysical requirements to support offshore wind. Stimulus funding could help fast-track private investment, resulting in job creation in the short term as well as long-­ term economic growth opportunities.

3.2.5 Five: Incentivise Sustainable Ocean-­ Based Renewable Energy What Investment Will Achieve According to the International Energy Agency (IEA 2019a, b), global offshore wind power capacity is set to increase 15-fold over the next two decades, turning it into a $1 trillion business. Only using near-shore sites could supply more than the total amount of electricity consumed worldwide today61, and moving further offshore into deeper waters (e.g. using floating turbines) could unlock enough potential to meet the world’s total electricity demand 11 times over by 204062. By 2050, the IEA forecasts that offshore wind could reach more Offshore wind’s technical potential is 3,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year for installations in water less than 60 metres deep and within 60 km of shore. Global electricity demand is currently 23,000 TWh (IEA 2019a, b). 62  Offshore wind can generate electricity during all hours of the day and tends to produce more electricity in winter months in Europe, the United States and China, as well as during the monsoon season in India—providing higher value than that of its onshore counterparts and more stable over time than that of solar photovoltaics (PV) (IEA 2019a, b). Capacity factors for onshore wind farms in the European Union average 24%, with new farms reaching 30–35%. Offshore farms have a capacity factor averaging 38%, with new farms reaching 35–55% (an increase of more than 50%; IEA 2019b). Another advantage is size of turbines. A single 10  MW offshore wind turbine, operating at 60% capacity factor, will have output of 51 GWh/year. A solar farm with 25% capacity factor, to provide same amount of power, will require ~56,000 PV panels and occupy ~60 hectares of land. The analysts forecast a 60% reduction in the costs of turbines, foundation and installations by 2040 (IEA 2019b). 61 

However, such fast-tracking must not be done at the expense of the marine environment or lead to the use of shortcuts to environmental impact assessments. Analysis shows that on average there is a net positive benefit from expanding the sector. The net present value of benefits is estimated to be $300 million to $6.8 trillion over 30 years for scaling offshore wind production. The return on investment in 2050 is significant, as shown by the benefit-­ cost ratio, estimated to be 2:1 to 17:1  in 2050 (Konar and Ding 2020). In terms of the benefit-cost ratio per unit of energy generation and transmission, analysis estimates the benefits to be $75–$300 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for 1 unit of additional energy production and the ratio range to be between 0.9:1 and 28:1 (Konar and Ding 2020). Estimates show that return on investment increases substantially as the

These IEA projections are based on expansion in six key markets: Europe, China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and India. Europe, the current market pace-setter with 20 GW installed, is forecast to continue to lead the global pack for the next two decades, with expectations of some 130 GW turning offshore by this date—though China by this point is foreseen as having at least 110 GW online and being on track to outpace Europe’s build-out by mid-century. The United States, meanwhile, is forecast to be in line for ‘substantial growth’ by 2040, with its fleet swelling to around 40 GW, while Korea, India and Japan would all see tens of GW of offshore wind turbines installed. 63 

752

costs of energy generation fall with improved technologies and as actions are taken to reduce integration costs. Why Investment Makes Sense Stimulating the creation or expansion of ocean-based renewable energy provides short-term job creation. In the early stages of exploring the feasibility of ocean- based renewable energy projects, jobs can be created for engineers, land and marine surveyors, energy specialists, researchers and providers of legal services (see Box 19.9 for an overview of the initial stages of development of Australia’s first offshore wind farm). The opportunity for job creation is generally at the regional and local levels, but the extent of the breakdown will vary by region based on the nature of the wind, tide or wave resource, as well as on the supply chain and labour force. The IEA estimates that offshore wind creates about 1.2 construction jobs per $1 million invested (for both the construction and manufacturing phases) (IEA 2020a)64. In total, the development of a typical 500 MW offshore wind farm requires around 2.1 million person-days of work (IRENA 2019). Estimates in the United States vary from 6 to 44 jobs/MW during construction periods and 0.7 to 1.7 jobs/MW for the projects’ ongoing operation (Tegen et al. 2015)65. The labour distribution is estimated as 1% for project planning, 59% for procurement and manufacturing, 0.1% for transport, 11% for installation and grid connection, 24% for operation and maintenance and 5% for decommissioning (IRENA 2019). A particular benefit of job creation through offshore wind is that the skills required may be similar to those in offshore oil and gas, enabling benefits to accrue directly to workers transitioning from declining fossil fuel industries (IRENA 2018; Scottish Enterprise 2016), which also minimises the costs of transition and the risks of structural unemployment. The expertise of workers and technicians in building support structures for offshore oil and gas sites, for example, could be leveraged when building foundations and substations for offshore wind turbines. Any such transition must ensure a transfer of benefits and comparable

Wind power is less labour-intensive than PV solar. Onshore wind power projects create about 1 job in construction and 0.5 in manufacturing per $1 million invested. Offshore wind creates about one-fifth as many construction jobs but twice the number of manufacturing jobs per unit of investment. 65  For the Southeast region, offshore wind energy development has the potential to support between 14 and 44 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs/ MW during construction periods and 1.6 and 1.7 FTE ongoing (operations phase) jobs/MW; in the Great Lakes, there could be between 6 and 27 FTE jobs/MW installed and 0.7 and 0.8 FTE jobs/MW for the projects’ ongoing operation; in the Mid-Atlantic region during construction phases, we estimated a range of 12–30 FTE jobs/MW, and the average for ongoing jobs was 1.2 FTE jobs/MW.  The Gulf of Mexico has the potential to support between 25 and 29 FTE jobs/MW during construction and 1.3 FTE jobs/MW on an ongoing basis, for operations and maintenance. 64 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

salary for comparable jobs and/or skill requirements, such as opportunities for union representation. An established ocean-based renewable energy sector creates green jobs, economic diversification into zero-­ emission fuels and opportunities to co-locate and support other offshore industries. The long-term economic benefits associated with a new or expanded ocean-based renewable energy sector include new highly skilled jobs. The OECD estimates that by 2030 the total full-time employment in offshore wind will be 435,000 (OECD 2016)66. For offshore wind, an estimated 1 million new jobs will be created by 2050, with an estimated 0.45 million in construction and installation, 0.39 million in manufacturing and 0.17 million in ongoing operations and maintenance (IRENA 2019). For other ocean-based renewables, the sector could create 680,000 jobs by 2050 (OES 2017). The interaction of the offshore wind energy industry with other economic sectors creates the potential for economic diversification and the generation of additional revenue, through both supply chain activities and induced demand for goods and services (IRENA 2018). There is the potential to unlock co-location benefits with other offshore industries; for example, ocean-­ based renewable energy could meet the increasing demand for energy-intensive desalinated seawater or support mariculture operations. Investment in any form of renewable energy supports the achievement of energy security and independence from imported fossil fuels and associated price volatilities. Lastly, it also creates the opportunity for new green industries in terms of alternative fuel generation (e.g. hydrogen), which can serve as exports or inputs to decarbonisation of other sectors of the economy (such as marine transport). Education and training, however, must be attuned to emerging needs in the ocean renewable energy industry (see Annex 1). Ocean-based renewable energy offers potential health benefits and desalination of drinking water in coastal communities facing water scarcity. The health benefits of moving to ocean-based renewable energy for power generation would be significant, particularly for regions that rely more heavily on coal and oil to generate electricity. Offshore wind in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States could produce health and climate benefits estimated at between $54 and $120 per MWh of generation, with the largest simulated facility (3000 MW off the coast of New Jersey) producing approximately $690 million in benefits (Buonocore et al. 2016). There is potential to develop ocean energy technolo-

Based on previous employment and capacity projections by the IEA (2014) and EWEA (2012), the OECD (2016) estimates that under a business-as- usual scenario, there will be an estimated 435,000 full-­ time jobs in the offshore wind industry by 2030. This estimate is based on the expectation that more countries will have multiple GW of wind power installed. 66 

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

753

gies for a range of purposes, including desalination for drinking water (OES 2011). Increasing the share of renewable energy generation and reducing the use of fossil fuels will contribute to national and global efforts to reduce GHG emissions, but efforts to scale ocean-based renewable energy must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner to reduce the impact on marine mammals and ecosystems. If ocean-­ based renewable energy technologies displace the current energy generation mix, CO2 emissions can be reduced by between 0.30 and 1.61 GtCO2e/year in 2050 in the case of offshore wind (fixed and floating), and by between 0.05 and 0.87 GtCO2e/year in 2050  in the case of ocean-based renewable energy (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019)67. Total emission reductions would amount to 0.35 to 2.48 GtCO2e/year in 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019) which is equivalent to taking approximately 35–53 million cars off the road every year68. Based on the analysis on avoided damage costs to society from mitigating climate change, we estimate the environmental benefits (net benefit) of reducing greenhouse gases by scaling offshore wind energy generation to be $344 billion to $668 billion over 30 years (Konar and Ding 2020). This estimates the costs of displacing the current energy mix with offshore wind energy in line with the projections in Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2019). Offshore wind uses no water directly, and there should be an overall reduction in freshwater use compared to generating power from fossil fuels (Macknick et  al. 2012). Offshore wind structures have positive and long-term effects on marine species because they provide new habitat in the form of artificial reefs and because fishing, mainly trawling, tends to be restricted in their vicinity (IRENA 2018; Dinh and McKeogh 2019). The risks of installing energy operations in the marine environment include potential biological invasions, noise and disturbance vibrations for marine species, collisions between birds and wind turbine rotors, and the presence of electromagnetic fields that can disrupt marine life and benthic habitats (Sotta 2012; Langhamer 2012). However, studies have shown that there is a gap between the perceived and actual risks of these technologies, with the former arising from uncertainty or lack of definitive data about the real impacts (Copping et al. 2016). The most recent analysis has revealed that the potential impacts of ocean-based energy on marine life are likely small or undetectable (Copping and Hemery 2020). Effective marine spatial planning, in combination with emerging ocean energy technologies, will be effective in mitigating potential biodiversity loss and the risk of collision with seabirds and impacts on migratory cetaceans from ocean

energy technologies and in reinforcing biodiversity co-benefits (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019; Best and Halpin 2019). Efforts must also be made to expand renewable energy (both ocean-­based and on land) in concert with efforts to improve the circular economy and reduce the reliance of renewable energy technology on rare minerals that would also undermine ocean health if mined from the seafloor (Haugan et al. 2020).

Note that higher figures were also calculated based on coal displacement. These can be found in the full report (Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019). 68  Based on average emissions of 4.6 metric tonnes per year, according to EPA (2016). 67 

How These Benefits Can Be Achieved: Short-Term Interventions That Can Be Initiated Now as Part of Stimulus Spending and Recovery Measures Investment in research, development and innovation will improve the technology and reduce costs but must be coupled with additional policy support to increase market visibility and investor security and enable the further cost reductions that come with commissioning larger commercial plants. • Streamlined permitting and clear and coordinated processes across government. Traditionally, the time from inception to completion can be 8–12  years, with 5–7 years for project development and 3–5 years for construction (Veum et al. 2011). Long lead times are caused by lengthy permitting requirements involving multiple agencies and lack of clarity of areas available for ocean-­ based renewable energy (considering competing users of the marine environment) (Crouse et  al. 2018; UK Government 2016). Reducing these obstacles would send a clear signal of intent and regulatory certainty to industry and enable the acceleration of private sector investment in this industry. Note that streamlining of permitting does not include a fast track or elimination of the need for environmental impact assessments or community and stakeholder engagement and participation in the planning and citing process. • National targets and frameworks for ocean energy. As part of the European Green Deal, the European Commission is currently developing its Offshore ­ Renewable Energy Strategy, which will outline targets for between 250 and 450 GW of offshore renewable energy installed capacity by 2050, or capacity to meet about 30% of Europe’s energy demand (EU Commission 2020c). Achieving this target will require strong public-private partnerships and alignment with national climate policies, marine spatial planning policies and technology development frameworks. The United Kingdom has set a target for installed offshore wind energy of 40 GW by 2030; as part of this target the UK government will also be supporting the development of floating wind turbines. Germany has also approved the amendment to the Offshore Wind Act (WindSeeG) to reach 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040.

754

• Suitable financial support mechanisms (e.g. subsidies and guarantees) and revenue support to stimulate industry and avoid loss leaders. A lack of financial support mechanisms (e.g. subsidies or guarantees), can drive up costs for industry and create roadblocks (Crouse et al. 2018; UK Government 2016). Governments could look to arrangements provided to stimulate early investment in land-based renewable energy, such as solar and wind subsidy schemes.

Box 19.9 Establishing Australia’s First Offshore Wind Farm

Star of the South Wind Farm is Australia’s first offshore wind farm, paving the way for a new sustainable ocean industry for Australiaa. A joint development by Australia’s Offshore Energy and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Star of the South could include up to 250 turbines, with a combined capacity of up to 2  GW.  This could supply about one-fifth of Victoria’s power needs and, through close proximity to demand centres along the Australian coast, could minimise the need for battery storage normally associated with land-­based wind and solar. Following the grant of an exploration license in March 2019 to investigate the technical feasibility of constructing wind turbines in the ocean off the south coast of Gippsland, Victoria, Star of the South is moving forward with marine surveys and engineering options in terms of land-based grid connections. It has partnered with Curtin University and Deakin University to assist with offshore site investigations, focusing on understanding marine mammals in the project area and undertaking the neces-

3.3 Additional Opportunities for a Blue Transformation As evidenced by the 2008–2009 stimulus packages, not all investments will be directed at measures that create jobs in the short term. Instead, much of the investment will be used to lay the foundation for long-term recovery and resilience through systemic transitions to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our economy and by initiating large infrastructure projects that will yield benefits over the next 10–30 years. Table 19.3 summarises a further set of opportunities for governments to consider to ensure a sustainable and equitable blue recovery from COVID-19 that will have long-lasting benefits for economic resilience and ocean health. These interventions, and their potential economic, social and envi-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

• Investment in land-based grid updates and associated infrastructure. The Netherlands government has published a roadmap for 2.5 GW of offshore wind by 2023 while also investing in a 700  MW offshore wind transformer platform to ensure that the land-based infrastructure is in place for private sector investment to support the achievement of the target.

sary seabird, seabed biodiversity and fish surveys. Both universities are working with RPS Australia Asia Pacific to collect data to inform the environmental assessments and the project’s design. DHI has also joined the project by providing a 40-year hindcast of waves and currents that serves as input for moving further with the design phase (Skopljak 2020). Preliminary surveys also include mapping the seafloor, measuring water depths and identifying any buried infrastructure, such as cables. In addition to the employment opportunities created through the above partnerships, the core development team for the project, all located locally in Melbourne, currently employs 35 people and is expected to grow to 50 by the end of 2020 (Parkinson 2020). The Australian government has also begun developing a policy framework to underpin offshore wind development off its coasts, an initiative long called for by industry (Australian Government 2020a). a  For more information on the project, see http://www. starofthesouth.com.au/.

ronmental benefits, are detailed in full in Annex 1 (Tables 19.4, 19.5, and 19.6). These interventions are organised in three categories: 1. Research and development to spur innovation and new technology 2. Regulatory reform to provide an enabling environment for a sustainable ocean economy 3. Public-private partnerships for a blue transition Just as on land, these investments have the potential to dramatically alter the course of a country’s transition to a sustainable economy that can provide long-term economic opportunities, improved health and food security, reduced emissions, enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

755

Table 19.3  Additional opportunities for a blue transformation Sector relevance Research and development to spur innovation and new technology Invest in research and development, including pilot Fisheries projects, to accelerate the development of sustainable and low-carbon alternative feed options for fed mariculture (e.g. finfish) Invest in filling data gaps on national coastal and marine ecosystems through employment schemes for surveys, modelling and mapping

Tourism, Fisheries

Invest in R&D and innovation grants to stimulate the development of new industries for generating alternative marine fuels, e.g. hydrogen and ammonia (invest in land-based infrastructure for fuel generation and supply chains as opposed to ship related investments) Establish blue economy skills-training and capacity-development programs in key ocean industries for affected communities and industries (e.g. ocean-based renewable energy, zero-emission vessels, GIS, ecotourism, restoration) Invest in research and development, including pilot projects, and incentivise emerging ocean-based renewables to accelerate their development

Transport, Energy

Economic benefits

Social benefits

Environmental benefits

SDGS

2

8

9

12

13

14

8

12

13

14

7

8

9

12

13

14

17

17

Tourism, Fisheries, Energy, Transport, Marine Conservation

4

7

8

9

12

13

14

17

Energy, Transport, Mariculture

7

8

9

12

13

14

8

12

13

14

8

12

13

Regulatory reform to provide an enabling environment for a sustainable ocean economy Establish comprehensive integrated ocean Fisheries, Tourism, management and marine spatial planning processes Energy, Shipping, to balance marine users and spaces, competition Marine for coastal resources and mitigate permitting and Conservation, siting issues for sustainable ocean industries Mariculture Initiate regulatory reform to promote best practice Fisheries in climate-­adaptive fisheries management, including through incentives for industry adoption in the form of taxes and subsidies

17 2 14

Shift harmful subsidies to more sustainable and equitable uses, including supporting small-scale and artisanal fishing, ecotourism opportunities for local communities and management and monitoring of marine protected areas Introduce levies or taxes to reinvest tourism revenue in local restoration and conservation efforts

Fisheries, Tourism, Marine Conservation

2

8

12

14

Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

8

11

12

13

14

15

Integrate ocean accounts into national accounting frameworks, or develop satellite ocean accounts, to measure and monitor the impact of recovery measures on long-term sustainability of the ocean economy Public/private partnerships for a blue transition Mobilise private sector investment in hybrid ‘green/blue/grey’ approaches (e.g. utilising living coastal infrastructure in traditional construction) for coastal infrastructure projects and ports through financial incentives such as tax exemptions and guarantees

Fisheries, Tourism, Transport, Energy, Marine Conservation, Infrastructure

8

9

12

13

14

17

8

9

11

13

14

15

Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

(continued)

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

756 Table 19.3 (continued)

Invest in port authorities to transition to ‘blue ports’ and port reception facilities

Incentivise investment in cold storage capacity through access to affordable credit, government backed loans, duty-free imports of equipment and tax exemptions

Sector relevance Transport, Tourism, Energy, Infrastructure Fisheries

Strong potential,

Potential,

Fisheries, Mariculture

Environmental benefits

SDGS

3

8

9

11

13

14

17

2

5

8

12

13

14

15

8

12

13

11 17 2 14

Minor potential

and improved resilience to climate impacts and other future shocks. For these additional opportunities, we sought ones that provided the following: • Ability to build long-term resilience to future shocks (considering improving human, natural and physical capital) (Hammer and Hallegatte 2020; OECD 2020e) • Ability to direct economic benefits to affected communities and vulnerable members of society (a people-centred approach) (UN 2020b)69

The UN secretary general has stressed the need to ensure that national and local response and recovery plans identify and put in place targeted measures to address the disproportionate impact of the virus on certain groups and individuals, including migrants, displaced persons and refugees, people living in poverty, those without access to water and sanitation or adequate housing, people with disabilities, women, older people, LGBTI people, children and people in detention or institutions. 69 

Social benefits

14

Scale parametric insurance policies for blue natural Tourism, Fisheries, capital in small island developing states, least Marine developed countries and developing countries Conservation Stimulate sustainable and environmental sensitive mariculture (e.g. integrated multi-trophic aquaculture) through financial incentives such as tax exemptions and affordable credit, and government-backed loans

Economic benefits

• Ability to catalyse progress towards a long-term sustainable and equitable blue economy (Hepburn et al. 2020) • Ability to deliver on international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement (IMF 2020b) • Relevance to multiple regions and economies (OECD 2020e) For each intervention, we identified the potential economic, social and environmental benefits based on existing literature. Note that for many of these interventions, no quantified benefits are yet available for the intervention level. The benefits highlighted are therefore intended to be a guide only and not prescriptive. As with any intervention, countries will need to go through a rigorous national process to fully quantify economic, social and environmental benefits given national or local circumstances.

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

3.4 Opportunities for Blue Conditionality to Avoid Roll-Backs in Progress

757

COVID-­19 crisis. Sharing data creates more robust supply chains for raw material. This can be achieved by making data on regional and sustainable raw materials sources available. The provision of immediate relief packages and grants to the Science-industry cooperation is vital for this process. Making private sector brings with it the opportunity to incentivise these data available could also be a condition to strengthen recipients to implement measures central to the sustainable the aquaculture industry (see the data-sharing and disclosure ocean economy agenda—but which might have been harder section below). to incentivise or promote before COVID-19 without such Consumers are also increasingly demanding more tracefinance or might be vulnerable to roll-backs as a result of ability, highlighting the added incentive for increased supply decreased traditional revenue streams. chain monitoring through digital tools. Creating alternative Although any form of ‘blue condition’ could be attached data-gathering mechanisms like apps empowers local fishers to a debt-relief agreement or government grant, we highlight to take part in data-gathering while informing consumers. two particular opportunities that take advantage of emerging OurFish, developed by Rare, is one example of an app for and innovative technologies to avoid roll-backs in progress: local fishers to record and share their catch data digitally, creating a permanent digital log of sales, expenses and inventory. 1. Digitalisation of the fishing industry to promote sustain- This app and the associated data also enable fishing commuable fisheries management and end illegal, unreported nities to monitor the value, type and local amount of fish and unregulated (IUU) fishing. caught. The information can be made available to decision-­ 2. Disclosure of ocean data to inform decision-making. makers in government and relevant stakeholder groups. Examples of measures that could be attached to grants The above measures represent opportunities to advance include requiring registration of vessels (relevant to smalllong-standing agendas in terms of improving marine biodi- scale and artisanal vessels); digital traceability—to increase versity, enhancing monitoring, ensuring fish stock recovery transparency and strengthening monitoring, control and surand responding to climate change. Both of them will have veillance; and electronic monitoring and electronic reportsignificant long-term benefits, improving ecotourism oppor- ing. Conditions can also target the publication of essential tunities, enhancing the value of existing coastal tourism and data, including vessel ownership and licenses (see the data-­ improving the economic viability of artisanal and commer- sharing and disclosure section below). cial fisheries. These industry-led measures could be supplemented by In the short term such arrangements can provide immedi- government investment in new artificial intelligence-­powered ate economic relief to the recipients (through the grant) and electronic monitoring systems, enhanced drones and satellite potential cost savings for the government. data interpreted by machine learning. Such efforts will also dramatically improve the fishing industry’s resilience to sim3.4.1 Sustainable Fisheries Management ilar future shocks. Through Digitisation The potential economic impact of such measures is sigConditions aimed at fisheries reform and digitisation of the nificant. Globally, between 8 and 14 million metric tonnes of fishing industry offer the opportunity to make progress on unreported catches are traded illicitly yearly, resulting in long-standing fisheries governance agendas while also over- gross revenues of $9 billion to $17 billion associated with coming many of the short-term impacts of COVID-19 these catches. This equates to an estimated loss (in annual restrictions and revenue losses. These include the loss of on-­ economic impact) of $26 billion to $50 billion globally, board observers and reduced capacity for marine patrols to while losses to countries’ tax revenues are between $2 billion monitor and track fishing vessels for the purposes of reduc- and $4 billion (U.R. Sumaila et al. 2020). What this means ing overfishing and IUU fishing. Traditionally, the burden for for a region is significant. For example, the Pacific experigathering such data has fallen on governments, but recovery ences an estimated loss in gross revenues to the formal econefforts offer the opportunity to engage and empower the fish- omy of $4.3 billion to $8.3 billion per year. These losses are ing industry itself to collect much of the data that underpin substantially higher when we consider the economic impact sustainable fisheries management. ($10.8 billion to $21.1 billion per year), income impact ($2.8 The digitisation of the fishing industry would have other billion to $5.4 billion per year) and tax revenue impact ($200 benefits in the face of COVID-19 and beyond fisheries gov- million–$1.6 billion per year) (Konar et  al. 2019a). ernance. Traceability and data-sharing also enhances indus- Furthermore, as a result of potential illicit trade in seafood, try robustness and resilience by strengthening aquafeed workers in the sector lose an estimated $6.8 billion to $13.3 supply chains, which have been curtailed during the billion in income annually (Sumaila et al. 2020).

758

The results of moving to digital systems, including electronic monitoring and reporting, will significantly improve information. Fishery management systems currently rely heavily on data from fishers’ daily logbooks that include locations, amount of time spent fishing, how many fish were caught and how many and what kind of fish or other species were discarded. On-board observers have been the only option to validate these logbook data, but such efforts only cover a tiny fraction of global fishing activities—likely less than 2% (Michelin et al. 2018). In most instances, electronic monitoring systems can achieve monitoring goals more cost-­ effectively than human observers and can more easily scale to cover 100% of fishing activity. Also, electronic monitoring can provide transparency in the critical first link in a supply chain that is traceable from supply to plate, giving consumers confidence when purchasing premium-priced seafood that is labelled as ‘sustainably harvested’ (for an example of how this is being done in Jamaica, see Box 19.10).

Box 19.10 Jamaica’s Focus on Improving Traceability and Monitoring of Wild Capture Fisheries

Jamaica’s 17,000 artisanal fishers all received a one-­ time grant as part of Jamaica’s initial rapid response to the impacts of COVID-19 on its fishing industry. These grants were to provide income support due to a drop in demand from Jamaica’s tourist sector (the majority of Jamaica’s fishing industry is oriented towards supplying high-end restaurants and resorts). Jamaica has made long-standing efforts to restore its fish stocks through sustainable fisheries management and improved governance. The registration of artisanal fisherman has been a challenge. Jamaica applied two main conditions to the grant: registration of the boat and mandatory GPS trackers. As a result of these conditions, Jamaica now has a much better understanding of the scale of small-scale fishing and has enabled a transition to digital information and tracking, two pillars of its existing commitment to sustainable fisheries management. Source: Government of Jamaica.

Unsustainable fishing practices, including IUU fishing, threaten local livelihoods, exacerbate poverty and heighten food insecurity. Seizing the opportunity of relief packages to address this issue will have long-term economic benefits for countries and regions, helping to improve the resilience of these communities and their fishing industries (local, artisanal and commercial) for decades to come.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

3.4.2 Improved Transparency and Decision-­ Making Through Ocean Data Vast stores of unstructured data related to the ocean economy are currently stored by governments, researchers and industry (for legal, security or proprietary purposes), making them inaccessible and unusable to inform decision-making in either the public or private sector. These data should by default be made open and available through data-tagging, federated data networks (Brett et  al. 2020). In support of SDG 14, the United Nations declared the 10-year period (2021–30) to be the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (the Decade). The Decade is dedicated to providing a common framework to encourage stronger international cooperation that can better coordinate and integrate ocean data and research into the decision- making process of stakeholders. Data on the ocean economy can spur incentives for innovation, new public-private instruments for investment and the creation of new business models as we adapt to our world’s new realities after COVID-19. Increased data-­ sharing would also add resilience to ongoing COVID-19 challenges. Having active data streams is paramount for ocean resilience in facing up to COVID-19 and could contribute significantly to safer at-sea operations (e.g. ­ through maritime track-and-trace systems using geofencing). Conditions could include a requirement that private sector organisations and financial institutions disclose or improve the accessibility of such data. Such a condition would be comparable to those being advanced to improve environmental and climate disclosure as part of recovery packages (Office of the Prime Minister, Canada 2020). Impactful requirements could include • that all users of ocean resources such as fisheries, minerals, oil and gas or coastal land be required to make their environmental data available to the public (Leape et  al. 2020); • that domestic fisheries, fishing vessels, shipping and marine transport track their GHG emissions and report annually for inclusion in national GHG inventories in accordance with the relevant guidance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; • that fishing vessels use automatic identification systems and share essential data on fisheries, including vessel ownership, licenses and tracking for all fishing vessels (this is also relevant to fisheries reform, as identified above); • that all data collected by defence and security agencies which can be shared without compromising national security be made publicly accessible (Leape et al. 2020); and

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

• that all financial institutions disclose whether their portfolios align with ocean sustainability. Companies based on, depending on or affecting the ocean should integrate relevant ocean-related risks and opportunities into corporate strategy, risk management and reporting70. In addition to conditions placed on financial grants to the private sector, governments should also provide support and training to develop appropriate data-gathering and processing capacities and systems in developing countries and coastal communities, to ensure that these nations and communities are not left behind.

4 Conclusion The importance of the ocean to a sustainable future is too important to neglect at this great moment of resetting and rebuilding. The relevance of the ocean for global economic and social recovery and future prosperity must become part of global discourse, and a greater part of measures applied to respond to the economic and social impacts of the crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted ocean industries and the livelihoods and food security of many millions of people. It has highlighted the significance of the ocean as a global workplace, its role in underpinning the modern economy and the inherent interdependencies between ocean sectors, the health of the ocean environment and human well-being. How the world rebuilds from the COVID-19 crisis is of great importance for the ocean and climate. Early responses to promote economic recovery and protect industries from further losses have included large-scale investments in sectors previously shown to be harmful to the environment, alongside the easing of environmental safeguards. Such measures risk the future health and wealth of the ocean economy with impacts for food security, livelihoods and our shared prosperity, rolling back progress made towards mitigating global biodiversity loss and climate change. Governments and financial institutions need to immediately strengthen efforts to build environmental, social and economic resilience. In tailoring support for those most affected by the COVID-­19 pandemic, greater attention must be paid to the ocean economy and its many direct and indirect beneficiaries. A sustainable and equitable blue recovery is critical not just for those who live or work near the coasts but also for the well-being and resilience of societies and economies at large. See, for example, the ocean sustainability principles followed by Norges Bank Investment Management (2020). 70 

759

This report has identified specific opportunities for the immediate investment of stimulus and recovery funds that would lead to a more sustainable and resilient ocean economy. It also has highlighted opportunities to accelerate research on and development of future sustainable ocean industries and to transition emission- and pollution-intensive industries onto more sustainable pathways in order to reach their full economic growth potential.71 This report has highlighted that investment in the interventions necessary for a sustainable and equitable blue recovery will benefit other land-based sectors, including human health, technology, agriculture, supply chains and tourism. The demonstrated interdependencies between the different ocean sectors, which has exacerbated the impacts of COVID-19 on individual industries, make a strong case for greater integration and collaboration among sectors, as a complement to traditional sectoral management, both in recovery efforts and long-term operations. Ecosystem-based, integrated ocean management and other related holistic and knowledge-based approaches to planning and managing the multitude of uses and users of ocean spaces offer an important framework to ensure that ocean industries can rebuild in a mutually reinforcing way towards a sustainable future ocean while protecting essential ocean ecosystems and functions. This report highlights growing global inequalities and the need to accelerate equitable access to ocean opportunities and sharing of benefits from ocean industries. Response measures to support women, who have been disproportionately affected, notably in the tourism and fisheries sectors, will be particularly important to ensure access to decent work opportunities and the full engagement of women in ocean activities. There is also an ongoing need to improve working conditions for vulnerable ‘key workers’ at sea to better protect fishers and seafarers, who play an essential role in maintaining global supplies of food, medicines, energy and manufactured goods across supply chains. To ensure a long-lasting economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, response measures must trigger investments and societal changes that reduce vulnerability and improve our collective resilience to future shocks (OECD 2020a). Recovery plans have so far fallen short in this regard. To this end, governments must seize the opportunity of stimulus packages to address unsustainable fisheries practices, including IUU fishing, which undermines employment and livelihoods in one of the largest sectors of the ocean economy, exacerbates global poverty and risks the food security See, for example, the ocean sustainability principles followed by Norges Bank Investment Management (2020). 71 

760

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

of over 3 billion people, including some of the world’s poorest, who rely on the ocean as their primary source of protein. Technological advances introduced during COVID-19 and innovative financial mechanisms may hold the key to advancing such action. The importance of the ocean to a sustainable future is too important to neglect at this great moment of resetting and rebuilding. The ocean’s relevance for global economic and social recovery and future prosperity must become part of global discourse, and a greater part of measures applied to respond to the economic and social impacts of the COVID-­19 crisis. The ocean-based or ‘blue’ investment opportunities detailed in this report offer a departure from business as usual in that they can deliver a more inclusive recovery, premised on a healthy and regenerative ocean to provide global benefits for the longer term. Embracing a ‘sustainable and equitable blue recovery’ in the large stimulus packages being agreed worldwide can build ocean health and sustainability into recovery and support the transition towards a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient global economy.

Mark Hemer (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)); Sebastian Troëng (Conservation International); Kristin Rechberger (Dynamic Planet); Arni Mattiesen (Food and Agriculture Organization); Kasper Sogaard (Global Maritime Forum); Suzi Heaton (Government of Australia); Betty Nyonje (Government of Kenya); Andrew Rhodes (Government of Mexico); Maria Ines Gameiro (Government of Portugal); Brandt Wagner (International Labour Organization); Chris Gilles (The Nature Conservancy); Lotta Pirttimaa (Ocean Energy Europe); Arian Steinsmeier (Rare); Angelique Pouponneau (Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust); Adrien Vincent (SYSTEMIQ); Elva Escobar (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México); Andrew Hudson (United Nations Development Programme); Ignace Beguin (United Nations Global Compact); Justin Mundy (Willis Towers Watson); Karin Kemper (World Bank); Ines Aguiar Branco, Mathilde Bouye, Lauretta Burke, Ed Davey, Helen Ding, Erin Gray, Craig Hanson, Erika Harms, Amy Hemingway, Leo Horn- Phathanothai, Norma Hutchinson, Joel Jaeger, Aman Srivastava, Kristian Teleki, Ayushi Trivedi and Arief Wijaya (World Resources Institute); and Louise Heaps (World Wildlife Fund). While we deeply appreciate the expertise brought by each of these reviewers, this report reflects the views of the authors alone. The authors would also like to acknowledge the Expert Group Co-chairs, Jane Lubchenco, Peter Haugan and Mari Pangestu for their valuable guidance and support for this report. Thank you also to Romain Warnault, Alex Martin and Jen Lockard for providing administrative, editing and design support.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people for their review, feedback and inputs on early drafts of this report:

Annex 1

Table 19.4  Research and development to spur innovation and new technology Interventions Invest in research and development (R&D), including pilot projects, to accelerate the development of sustainable and low-carbon alternative feed options for fed mariculture (e.g. finfish)

Sector relevance Fisheries

Economic benefits 19.3 million people globally engaged in aquaculture (FAO 2018a) World food fish consumption in 2030 is projected to be 20% (or 30 million metric tonnes [mmt] live weight equivalent) higher than in 2016 (FAO 2018a) The major growth in production is expected to originate from aquaculture, which is projected to reach 109 mmt in 2030, with growth of 37% over 2016 (FAO 2018a)

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

761

Table 19.4 (continued) Social benefits Improved health of local communities. A portion of 150 g of fish provides about 50–60% of an adult’s daily protein requirement. Fish proteins are essential in the diet of some densely populated countries where the total protein intake is low, and they are particularly important in diets in small island developing states and least developed countries (FAO 2018a) Alternative feed innovations could ensure an additional 364 mmt of food annually—over six times current capture and mariculture productiona. This is only possible if mariculture is not dependent on feed from fish products (Costello et al. 2019) Reduction in the diversion of forage fish from communities that rely on it for direct nutrition (Tacon and Metian 2008; Konar et al. 2019b) and protect the cultural value to Indigenous Peoples (Jones et al. 2017; Konar et al. 2019b) Innovations in feed technology could greatly enhance the potential for fed mariculture (Costello et al. 2019; Froehlich et al. 2018) Increasing ocean-based food (including aquaculture) will generate benefits nine times higher than costs (Konar and Ding 2020) Increased job creation through development of algae feed industry (Roberts and Upham 2012)

Environmental benefits The global supply of fishmeal may be near biological limits (Costello et al. 2012) Improves resilience under climate change (Gaines et al. 2019)

Interventions Invest in filling data gaps on national coastal and marine ecosystems through employment schemes for surveys, modelling and mapping

Sector relevance Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

Invest in R&D and innovation grants to stimulate the development of new industries for generating alter- native marine fuels, such as hydrogen and ammonia (invest in land-based infrastructure for fuel gener- ation and supply chains as opposed to ship-­related investments)

Transport, Energy

Establish blue economy skills training and capacity development programs in key ocean industries for affected communities and industries (e.g. oceanbased renewable energy, zero-emission vessels, geographic information systems, ecotourism, restoration)

Tourism, Fisheries, Energy, Transport, Marine Conservation

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives SDGS Increase in pollution from 1 aquaculture operations Introduction of invasive 2 species Job loss from traditional feed sources 3 8 12 13 14

Economic benefits Short-term job creation Long-term economic efficiencies in terms of data availability Potential access to carbon markets and associated on-going streams of revenue for management of ecosystems and local communities Economic growth opportunity for export of low-cost hydrogen (utilising electrolysers powered by renewable resources)b (IEA 2019a, b) and green ammonia as a maritime fuel (Ash and Scarbrough 2019) Economic diversification potential—energy storage, low-carbon heat, transport fuels and a key input in the production of fertiliser (ammonia) (Yara International 2019). Additional uses create synergies and reduce the investment risk, especially in the early phase of the transition (IEA 2020a) Job creation potential in many states and regions (Bezdek 2019). Widespread penetration could create nearly one million new jobs (highly skilled, well-paid technical and professional workers) in the United States by 2030 (ASEA and MIS 2009) Economic benefits of local developments accrue locally (Gaines et al. 2019) Local investments in renewable energy and energy- efficient technologies can improve local livelihoods and enhance local economic benefits (Gaines et al. 2019)

762

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.4 (continued) Social benefits Increased participation in ‘citizen science’ can encourage public action and improve conservation efforts (McKinley et al. 2017) Sustained ocean observations benefit many users and societal goals across society actors (Weller et al. 2019) Community ownership and understanding of natural resources Diversified economic opportunities for local communities

Potential for the creation of Environmental benefits perverse incentives Improved understanding and mapping of ecosystem extent and species diversity Basis for inclusion of ecosystems in national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories to enable mitigation for blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves, seagrass and salt marshes), and important for monitoring adaptation benefits from other marine habitats like coral reefs Increased management capabilities Reduced GHG emissions Improved air quality (based on reduced reliance on fossil fuels as a result of green fuels) Improved water quality, including deep-sea routes

SDGS 8 13 14

7 8 9 12 13 14

Diversified economic opportunities for local communities Local capacity building in ecotourism (foundation for ensuring revenue is reinvested in the local community) Increased cultural awareness by sharing traditional knowledge Increased community buy-in

Reduced emissions Improved monitoring and protection of marine protected areas and coastal and marine ecosystems Using ecotourism for conservation through programs like sea turtle watch or citizen science

7 8 9 12 13 14

Interventions Invest in research and development, including pilot projects, and incentivise emerging ocean-based renewables to accelerate their development

Sector relevance Energy, Transport, Mariculture

Social benefits Ocean-based renewable energy has the potential to generate 400,000 jobs in Europe by deploying 100 GW by 2050 (ETIP Ocean 2020). The global deployment is estimated to be 337 GW (2011), which indicates that ocean energy will generate about 1.2 million jobs globally by 2050

Economic benefits The global market of wave and tidal sectors is estimated to reach €53 billion per year by 2050 (Carbon Trust 2011)

Environmental benefits Ocean-based renewable energy can reduce GHG emissions by between 0.05 and 0.87 GtCO2e/year by 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). It can also create marine reserves and artificial reefs (Copping et al. 2016)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives

SDGS 7 8 9 11 12 13 14

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

763

 Note that this figure is based on a tripling of global production of seafood for consumption, which would necessitate dramatic shifts in consumer taste and associated demand b  Renewable hydrogen costs may fall to as low as $1.40 a kilogram by 2030 from the current range of $2.50 to $6.80, with further reductions to 80 cents by 2050, equivalent to a natural gas price of $6 per million British thermal units (Mathis and Thornhill 2019) a

Table 19.5  Regulatory reform to provide an enabling environment for a sustainable ocean economy Interventions Establish comprehensive integrated ocean management and marine spatial planning processes to balance marine users and spaces, reduce competition for coastal resources and mitigate permitting and siting issues for sustainable ocean industries Initiate regulatory reform to promote best practice in climate adaptive fisheries management, including through incentives for industry adoption in the form of taxes and subsidies

Sector relevance Fisheries, Tourism, Energy, Shipping, Marine Conservation, Mariculture

Economic benefits Potential economic growth and new economic opportunities (European Commission 2020a) Sector growth facilitated through improved framework (Jay 2017) Cost reduction through streamlining regulatory and compliance processes (European Commission 2020a)

Fisheries

More catch and profits through climate-­adaptive management than through business-­as-­usual management (Free et al. 2019) Economic diversification through providing a portfolio of options to fishers and a buffer against climate-­driven losses in any one target stock (Free et al. 2019) Economic losses of about US $83 billion in 2012, compared with the optimal global maximum economic yield equilibrium (World Bank 2017) Shift harmful subsidies to more Fisheries, Tourism, Marine 6.3% of global GDP ($4.7 trillion) was provided as fossil fuel subsidies in sustainable and equitable uses, Conservation 2015, including uninternalised externalities (Coady et al. 2019) including supporting small-scale About $35 billion in subsidies are allocated to global marine fisheries and artisanal fishing industry, alone each year, of which $22 billion are allotted to harmful subsidies ecotourism opportunities for local (R.U. Sumaila et al. 2019) communities and management and New economic opportunities for local communities through ecotourism monitoring of MPAs Job protection (or creation) for local communities in MPA management and monitoring The World Bank has estimated that reducing global fisheries overexploitation, of which subsidies are key factor, could generate an additional $53 billion to $83 billion in revenue annually (World Bank 2017) Social benefits Reduced conflict through improved stakeholder relations and engagement (European Commission 2020a) Inclusivity and recognition of Indigenous rights such as the Beaufort Sea Partnership in Canada, which works with the local Indigenous groups

Environmental benefits Streamlined management resulting in more effective governance to mitigate environmental risks posed by ocean-based activities and industries Increased stock through improved management Improved conservation of coastal and marine habitats

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives SDGS Lobbying for greater 1 influence and industry capture 2

8 12 13 14 17

764

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.5 (continued) Social benefits Local and community-based management can increase adaptive capacity by incorporating local knowledge and can improve sustainability by fostering a sense of stewardship (Gutiérrez et al. 2011) These strategies also allow fishers to generate revenues through other compatible activities, such as tourism, recreation and aquaculture (Moreno and Revenga 2014)

Subsidies that are disproportionately provided to the large industrial fishing sub-sector serve to undermine the Sustainable Development Goals by aggravating hunger, poverty and gender inequality in coastal communities worldwide (Sumaila 2020) Redirected subsidies could be used to improve gender equality by empowering female fishers (Österblom et al. 2020) Redirected subsidies could support Indigenous Peoples and local communities, many of which practice artisanal fishing, as well as the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity

Environmental benefits Ecological resilience through maintaining healthy stock sizes, age structures and genetic diversity (Free et al. 2019) Reduced impacts of climate change on fish stocks (Free et al. 2019) Thanks in part to adaptive harvest strategies fish stocks not fished beyond their biological limit and overfished stocks allowed to rebuild (Melnychuk et al. 2014) Improved biodiversity outcomes if redirected subsidies are used to fund jobs in monitoring of protected areas Improved fish stocks if redirected subsidies are used to fund incentives to improve traceability of fisheries, inclusion of women and jobs on coastal restoration works (Sumaila 2020)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives SDGS Overfishing or stock 2 decline if not linked to science 8

12 13 14

Mismanagement of funds

1 2 5 7 8 10 12 14

Interventions Introduce levies and taxes to reinvest tourism revenue in local restoration and conservation efforts

Sector relevance Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

Integrate ocean accounts into national accounting frameworks, or develop satellite ocean accounts, to measure and monitor the impact of recovery measures on long-­term sustainability of the ocean economy

Fisheries, Tourism, Transport, Energy, Marine Conservation, Infrastructure

Social benefits Reinvestment in jobs for local communities (should be done in coordination with local communities, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities and women affected by conservation efforts, to ensure buy-in)

Economic benefits Additional revenue stream Iceland’s Tourist Site Protection Fund promotes the development, maintenance and protection of tourism attractions and is funded by Iceland’s accommodations tax, enacted in 2011 (OECD 2018) Reduction of value-­added tax on tourism-­related goods and services in Ireland was followed by an increase in employment through growth in numbers of tourists (OECD 2014) Digital solutions are important to facilitate, among other things, enhanced reporting of crisis-related spending, ex post audits and procurement transparency (IMF 2020c) By tracking each budget transaction across government agencies, accounts can produce timely, reliable, accurate and meaningful information to support financial decision-­making, improve fiscal discipline, strengthen expenditure control and enhance fiscal transparency (Uña et al. 2019)

Environmental benefits Proceeds from taxes and levies secure funding for the protection of environmental areas In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Environmental Management Charge proceeds are applied directly to the management of the marine park, including through education, research, compliance patrols, site planning, public moorings, reef protection markers, information signs and maps (OECD 2014)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives Mismanagement of funds Tourism can harm local ecosystems

SDGS 8 11 13 14

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

765

Table 19.5 (continued) Social benefits Data and improved metrics to track equitable distribution of ocean wealth

Environmental benefits Data to account for natural wealth Integration of ecosystem services into decision-making

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives

SDGS 8 9 12 14 16 17

Table 19.6  Public/private partnerships for a blue transition Interventions Mobilise private sector investment in hybrid ‘green/blue/grey’ approaches (e.g. utilising living coastal infrastructure in traditional construction) for coastal infrastructure projects and ports through financial incentives such as tax exemptions and guarantees Invest in port authorities to transition to ‘blue ports’ and port reception facilitiesa

Sector relevance Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

Economic benefits Natural coastal barriers, such as mangroves, wetlands and sandbars, lower costs for grey infrastructure, such as seawalls, sea dikes and groynes. New York City saved 22%, or $1.5 billion, by combining green and grey infrastructure instead of pursuing a grey-only strategy to secure water supply for the city (Bloomberg and Holloway 2018) In Vietnam, an investment of $9 million to restore 9000 hectares of mangroves along the shores of 166 communes as well as 100 km of dike lines cut the cost of dam- ages by $80,000–$295,000 and saved an additional $15 million in avoided damages to private property and other public infrastructure (IFRC 2011) Increased ecotourism opportunities in living infrastructure (e.g. mangroves and wetlands)

Transport, Tourism, Energy, Infra-structure

Low-emission and fuel-­efficient terminal equipment will save money through reduced energy consumption Increased efficiency through improved equipment will reduce operation costs Increased investment from offshore wind tenants who may be dealing with outdated port ownership structures and inexperienced owners Synergies with zero-emission vessels and energy production Identify technical and operational innovations to reduce the high transportation costs that exist for many developing countries and other remote locations (UNGC 2020b) Incorporate climate change adaptation considerations into ‘blue ports’, as ports are at increasing risk of coastal flooding. Infrastructure inventories, higher resolution data, as well as technologies that help improve the understanding of coastal processes under climate change are needed for effective risk-assessment and adaptation planning for critical transport infrastructure, particularly in small island developing states (UNCTAD 2020c)

Social benefits Catastrophic risk reduction for loss of life in storm surges through reducing wave energy and the height of a storm surge (Beck and Lange 2016) Main operators of green infrastructure are often local communities, responsible for implementing land stewardship practices and for maintaining the project over the long term (unlike grey infrastructure that is operated and owned by a company or government entity) (Browder et al. 2019)

Environmental benefits Climate-mitigation potential (depending on ecosystem) Coastal resilience through reduced storm surges and protection of coastal communities and infrastructure from sea level rise Improved biodiversity, water quality, watershed protection (Browder et al. 2019)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives

SDGS 8 9 11 13 14 15

766

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.6 (continued) Social benefits Improved air quality Improved health and livelihood of people working or living around ports and the ‘liveability’ of the area surrounding the port Opportunities for gender equity in access to resources, services, markets, incomes and employment (FAO 2018b)

Environmental benefits Responsible fisheries management Reduction of shoreside idling (Sharma 2006) by providing shoreside power will reduce noise pollution (NoMEPorts 2008), improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption Reduced waste pollution through improved solid waste handling and recycling programs at port (Svaetichin and Inkinen 2017)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives Added ecosystem disturbance through updates

SDGS 3 8 9 11 13 14 15 17

Interventions Incentivise investment in cold storage capacity through access to affordable credit, government-backed loans, duty-free imports of equipment and tax exemptionsb

Sector relevance Fisheries

Scale parametric insurance policies for blue natural capital in SIDS, LDCs and developing countries

Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Conservation

Stimulate sustainable and environmentally sensitive mariculture (e.g. integrated multi-trophic aquaculture [IMTA]) through financial incentives such as tax exemptions and affordable credit, as well as through government-backed loans

Fisheries, Mariculture

Economic benefits Live, fresh or chilled is the preferred and highest-priced form of fish and represents the largest share of fish for direct human consumption (FAO 2018a) Resilience to future shocks. Increased demand for frozen fish since outbreak of COVID-19 (Saumweber et al. 2020) Increased yields for fishers Increased income for fishers as a result of high-quality fish Marine exports grew by 7.68% in the fiscal year following an investment package by the Government of India, which included ongoing subsidies to build large cold storages for surplus seafoodc (Narayanswami and Balan 2013) 100 m of mangrove barrier can reduce wave heights by two-thirds Building oyster reefs adjacent to shore in the United States can reduce the cost of every metre of coastal protection by over $750, compared to other engineering options (Spalding et al. 2016) In France, the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance has estimated that insured property damages will rise by 50% if no preventive measures for climate change–related effects are implemented (CCR 2018) Marine ecosystems represent natural capital and non-market flows and services. Healthy coral barriers stop the damaging effects of hurricanes and cyclones hitting the coasts The value of marine ecosystems, based on the total bundle of ecosystem services provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open ocean, is estimated at $490/year, while the value of services provided by an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs is almost $350,000/year (OECD 2016) Economic diversification Increased profitability per cultivation unit and higher income (Troell et al. 2009) Resilience to shock and market changes through product diversification. Increased yields. At sites in Canada’s Bay of Fundy, growth rates of kelp and mussels cultured in proximity to fish farms were found to be 46% and 50% higher, respectively, than at control sites (Chopin et al. 2004)

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

767

Table 19.6 (continued) Social benefits Loss or waste between landing and consumption due to a lack of refrigeration still accounts for an estimated 27% of total catch, representing a missed opportunity in terms of additional protein available for local communities and consumers (FAO 2018a; NoMEPorts 2008) Shifting to freezing could have a positive impact on women’s employment, as they constitute a high proportion of workers in the post-harvest/food processing sector (UNCTAD 2020b) Climate risk reduction measures to ensure insurance coverage for previously non-insurable situations like sea level rise and other slow-onset events

Environmental benefits Analysis has shown a net benefit in GHG emissions reduction from expanding cold storage to developing countries. In all modelling scenarios, decreased emissions from food loss and waste from cold chain expansion outpaced newly created emissions from the expansion and use of cold storage by a factor of 10, approximatelyd Coastal resilience through reduced storm surges and protection from sea level rise Improved biodiversity, water quality, watershed protection (Browder et al. 2019)

Potential for the creation of perverse incentives Fishers may be incentivised to fish further offshore or more intensely because they can now store food longer

SDGS

2 5 12 13 14 11 13 14 15

Source of employment for local communities. Increased protein yields Opportunities for regional collaboration. The Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Project, established under the guidance of the Global Environment Facility and the UN Development Programme, and in a partnership be- tween China and South Korea, is working to implement IMTA in the region

Preservation of local habitats Recycling of waste nutrients and bio-mitigation typically produced through traditional mariculture by lower trophic level crops (Troell et al. 2009)

2 8 12 13 14

‘Blue ports’ are considered to be sustainable, support the transition to decarbonised marine transport and shipping fleets through fuel supply chains, promote transparency and traceability for fisheries and utilise nature-based solutions b Any investment in cold storage by the private sector must be coupled with public investment in the supporting supply chain infrastructure. Governments should also eliminate disincentives to cold storage (such as taxes on foreign refrigeration systems) (FAO 2020b) c Other measures included the government’s exempting air-­conditioning equipment and refrigeration panels used in cold chain from excise duties and allowing duty- free import of refrigerated units used in reefer trucks (Narayanswami and Balan 2013) d In all modelling scenarios, the decrease in the food loss and waste carbon footprint from cold chain expansion clearly outweighs the newly created emissions, by a factor of 10, approximately (GFCCC 2015) a

768

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Annex 2 Table 19.7  Additional reference materials on a sustainable ocean economy Author Report Sustainable ocean economy reports UNGC, 2020 Ocean Stewardship 2030

European Commission, 2020

The EU Blue Economy Report

European Parliamentary Research Service, 2020

The Blue Economy: Overview and EU Policy Framework

Konrad Adenauer Blue Economy: Global Best Stiftung/FICCI, 2019 Practices Takeaways for India and Partner Nations

OECD, 2019

Rethinking Innovation for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

World Bank, 2019

Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Oceans of Opportunity

Africa Institute of South Africa, 2018

The Blue Economy Handbook of the Indian Ocean Region

World Bank Group, UN DESA, 2017

The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-­Term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least-­Developed Countries Reviving the Western Indian Ocean Economy: Actions for a Sustainable Future

WWF, 2017

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2016

The Blue Economy and Small States (Commonwealth Blue Economy Series, no. 1)

Global Ocean Commission, 2016

The Future of Our Ocean: Next Steps and Priorities

Summary This report offers a roadmap for how ocean-related industries and policymakers can jointly secure a healthy and productive ocean by 2030. The report describes five critical areas of success. For each area, the report suggests two ambitions and puts forward several recommendations addressing critical dimensions of public and private actions to accelerate ocean-related solutions This report highlights the need to preserve marine ecosystems to optimise potential benefits of ecosystem services and marine and maritime economic sectors This report looks into the EU policy framework and the different EU initiatives and actions taken in these areas, both by providing an overview of the crosscutting 'key enablers' of the blue economy and by providing an analysis by blue economy sector (excluding the sectors of coastal protection and maritime defence) This report systematically examines and explains the performance, projected growth in terms of size and value, challenges and precise opportunities for capacity expansion and quality enhancement, including technology and process upgrades, in the relevant sectors of India’s blue economy. The report also elaborates the global best practices relevant to India as well as innovative financing tools. The report makes several practical recommendations for an effective way forward, both for the government and businesses This report on the ocean economy emphasises the growing importance of science and technologies in improving the sustainable economic development of our seas and ocean This report discusses the importance of the maritime economy to Indonesia’s economic development and presents the challenges and opportunities the country faces in leveraging the maritime economy for greater prosperity This handbook offers insight into the various aspects and impacts of the blue economy in the Indian Ocean region. From shifting paradigms, to an accounting framework, gender dynamics, the law of the sea and renewable energy, it aims to increase awareness of the blue economy in this region and to provide evidence to help policymakers in the region make informed decisions Drafted by a working group of UN entities, the World Bank and other stakeholders, this report offers a common understanding of the blue economy. It seeks to highlight the importance of such an approach, particularly for small island developing states and coastal least developed countries; to identify some of the key challenges posed by adoption of the blue economy; and to suggest some broad next steps that are called for in order to ensure its implementation This report aims to help Western Indian Ocean countries achieve the Sustainable Development Goal plan of action for 2016–30 in the ocean sector and thus realise the vision, expressed under the regional strategic action programme, of ‘people prospering from a healthy Western Indian Ocean’ The Commonwealth Blue Economy Series presents a synthesis of information and practical advice to Commonwealth governments relating to the potential deployment of a range of policy options for different sectors and opportunities for the road ahead. In so doing, this series aims to support the development of the blue economy in Commonwealth countries by providing a high-level assessment of the opportunities available for economic diversification and sustainable growth To accelerate progress towards reversing ocean degradation and drive the global system for ocean governance, the Global Ocean Commission calls upon UN member states and all relevant stakeholders to agree a stand-alone Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for the global ocean, thus putting the global ocean front and centre on the post-2015 UN development agenda

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

769

Table 19.7 (continued) Author OECD, 2016

World Bank, 2016

UNEP, 2015

WWF, 2015

WWF, 2015 California Environmental Associates, 2015 Global Ocean Commission, 2014 UNCTAD, 2014

Blue Ribbon Panel, 2013

UNEP, 2012

Sector-specific UNCTAD, 2019

World Bank, 2017

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2016

Report The Ocean Economy in 2030

Summary This report explores the growth prospects for the ocean economy, its capacity for future employment creation and innovation, and its role in addressing global challenges. Special attention is devoted to the emerging ocean-based industries in light of their high growth and innovation potential, and their possible contribution to addressing challenges such as energy security, environment, climate change and food security Toward a Blue Economy: A Promise This report serves as a guide to help Caribbean policymakers plan a successful for Sustainable Growth in the transition to a blue economy and to socially equitable ‘blue growth’. This report Caribbean attempts to quantify the current value of the ocean economy in the region and to summarise projections about where we may find new pockets of sustainable growth Blue Economy: Sharing Success This report shares stories that illustrate how economic indicators and Stories to Inspire Change development strategies can better reflect the true value of such widespread benefits and potentially even build on them Reviving the Ocean Economy: The This report analyses the ocean’s role as an economic powerhouse and outlines the Case for Action threats that are pushing it toward collapse. This report presents an eight-point action plan that would restore ocean resources to their full potential Living Blue Planet This report provides a science-based analysis of the health of our planet and the impact of human activity upon it Ocean Prosperity Roadmap: This report collects research designed to inform decision-makers, including Fisheries and Beyond governments and investors, about effective ocean and coastal resource management strategies to maximise economic, conservation and societal benefits From Decline to Recovery: A This report outlines a set of eight practical proposals to address the five drivers of Rescue Package for the Global decline, reverse high seas degradation and improve the system of governance, Ocean monitoring and compliance The Oceans Economy: This report is a joint effort by a team of experts from the UN Conference on Opportunities and Challenges for Trade and Development and the Commonwealth Secretariat to better understand Small Island Developing States the implications of the nascent and evolving concept of the ocean economy. It underlines the importance of sustainable oceanic activities for the development of small island developing states (SIDS) and other coastal states. The report identifies both opportunities and challenges for SIDS in existing and emerging trade-related sectors such as sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, ocean-based renewable energy, marine bio-­prospecting, maritime transport and marine and coastal tourism Indispensable Ocean: Aligning This report by the Blue Ribbon Panel (composed of 21 global leaders in Ocean Health and Human government, industry, conservation and academia) identifies five high-level Well-­Being principles to guide the selection and prioritisation of initiatives aimed at aligning ocean health and human well-being Green Economy in a Blue World: This report analyses how key sectors that are interlinked with the marine and Synthesis Report coastal environment can make the transition towards a green economy. It covers the impacts and opportunities linked with shipping and fisheries to tourism, marine-based renewable energies and agriculture ‘Advancing Sustainable Development Goal 14: Sustainable Fish and Sea-­food Value Chains, Trade and Climate’ The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries Capture Fisheries (Commonwealth Blue Economy Series, no. 3)

This background note reviews current trends and projections of fish and seafood trade, and recent work undertaken to support implementation of the trade-related activities of SDG 14, with a focus on the work of UNCTAD, FAO and UN Environment This report builds on The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform, a 2009 study published by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, but with a deeper regional analysis This report presents recommendations that could be implemented by small island developing states (SIDS) to protect and sustainably develop their capture fisheries within a blue economy model. The report describes some of the challenges faced in managing capture fisheries, the potential for a blue economy approach to making improvements, some suggestions for strategies and activities that could be undertaken by SIDS to further these aims and a number of case studies illustrating positive actions that have been taken by SIDS and their outcomes

770

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Table 19.7 (continued) Author FAO, 2014

Aquaculture UNGC, 2020

TNC, 2019

FOA, 2018

Commonwealth Secretariat, 2016 FOA, 2015

World Bank, 2013 Tourism IDDRI, 2019

UNWTO, 2016

EU Commission, 2016

UNWTO, 2013

Shipping IRENA, 2019

UK Department of Transportation, 2019

Report Global Blue Growth Initiative and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

Summary This report identifies fish and fisheries as the mainstay of food security and the wealth of most small island developing states (SIDS). Many SIDS are heavily dependent on their oceanic and coastal fisheries resources for economic growth and development, as well as food security and livelihoods, and are vulnerable to any change in the state of these resources

This report defines a vision for an upscaled, responsible and restorative seaweed industry, playing a globally significant role in food security, climate change mitigation and support of the marine ecosystem, as well as contributing to job creation and poverty alleviation. The Seaweed Manifesto explores the challenges and barriers to responsible development of the industry Towards a Blue Revolution: This report seeks to articulate the full scale and potential of the aquaculture Catalyzing Private Investment in sector to catalyse investment in projects and companies that can deliver targeted Sustainable Aquaculture Production financial returns and improved environmental performance over business-asSystems usual production ‘Achieving Blue Growth’ This paper presents the Blue Growth Initiative and the three pillars of sustainable development—social, economic and environmental—that can enable fisheries and aquaculture to contribute to the 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals. The Blue Growth Initiative is a strategic approach to improving the use of aquatic resources and achieving better social, economic and environmental outcomes Aquaculture (Commonwealth Blue This volume explores the potential for the development of a blue economy Economy Series, no. 2) mariculture industry, as well as specific enabling conditions for economic opportunity Fisheries and Aquaculture in the This report looks at the current situation of fisheries and aquaculture in the Context of Blue Economy context of the blue economy or blue growth and its relevance for African coastal countries Fish to 2030: Prospects for This report presents global prospects for fisheries and aquaculture and analyses Fisheries and Aquaculture future trends out to 2030 Seaweed Manifesto

Sustainable Blue Tourism

Sustainable Cruise Tourism Development Strategies: Tackling the Challenges in Itinerary Design in South-­East Asia Study on Specific Challenges for a Sustainable Development of Coastal and Maritime Tourism in Europe

Sustainable Tourism Governance and Management in Coastal Areas of Africa

Navigating the Way to a Renewable Future: Solutions to Decarbonise Shipping Reducing the Maritime Sector’s Contribution to Climate Change and Air Pollution

This report explores the ecological impacts of coastal and marine tourism in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Northeast Atlantic, the South Pacific Ocean and the Western Indian Ocean, the major global marine regions, in order to disseminate lessons from the field and develop common policy recommendations for policymakers, tourism stakeholders and other relevant institutional and civil society actors This report issues a call to action at a critical juncture in Southeast Asian development. It seeks to further awareness of sustainable development in cruise tourism, catalyse collaboration across the region and stimulate the strategic implementation of best practices and innovations This report first presents the findings on specific challenges and innovative response strategies for sustainable development of coastal and maritime tourism, including challenges related to island connectivity (Part A) and innovative practices for marina development (Part B). It then presents findings related to innovative strategies for a more competitive nautical tourism sector, including marina development This report presents the results of the research carried out within the framework of the Collaborative Actions for Sustainable Tourism (COAST) project. It builds on Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers, published by the UN World Tourism Organization and UN Environment, assessing how to apply sustainability principles and policy instruments for coastal tourism development in Africa This report explores the impact of maritime shipping on CO2 emissions, the structure of the shipping sector and key areas that need to be addressed to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint This report provides a framework for assessing current and future economic opportunities in the design, development and commercialisation of technologies and low-emission fuels to reduce UK shipping emissions

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

771

Table 19.7 (continued) Author EU Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, 2017 Sustainable Shipping Initiative, 2016 WWF, 2011

Coastal ecosystems OECD, 2019

World Bank Group, 2016

Center for American Progress and Oxfam America, 2014

Blue finance reports UNGC, 2020

Report Study on Differentiated Port Infrastructure Charges to Promote Environmentally Friendly Maritime Transport Activities and Sustainable Transportation Progress to 2015: A Future for Sustainable Shipping Global Sustainable Shipping Initiatives: Audit and Overview 2011

Summary This study assesses existing schemes for differentiating port infrastructure charges according to environmental or sustainability criteria

Responding to Rising Seas

This report reviews how countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development can use their national adaptation planning processes to meet the challenge of rising sea levels. Specifically, the report examines how countries approach shared costs and responsibilities for coastal risk management and how this encourages or hinders risk-reduction behaviour by households, businesses and different levels of government This guidance note offers recommendations for how to measure and value the protective services of mangroves and coral reefs to support planning for development, disaster risk and coastal zone management

‘Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Coral Reef’ The Economic Case for Restoring Coastal Ecosystems

‘Blue Bonds: Reference Paper for Investments Accelerating Sustainable Ocean Business’

Friends of Ocean Action, 2020

The Ocean Finance Handbook

Credit Suisse, 2020

Investors and the Blue Economy

IIED, 2019

‘Navigating Ocean Investments’

Wildlife Conservation Finance Tools for Coral Reef Society and Conservation: A Guide Conservation Finance Alliance, 2018

This progress report details the efforts and key achievements of SSI members to drive debate on and inspire change within the shipping sector This report updates research conducted in 2004 and highlights the fundamental changes to sustainable shipping initiatives since then. It identifies drivers of these changes and shifts in opinion regarding the best methods of delivering global, sustainable shipping

This report explores the economic contributions provided by healthy, restored coastal ecosystems such as wetlands, seagrass beds and oyster reefs. An analysis of three federally funded projects reveals that well-­designed coastal restoration can be highly cost-effective, returning significantly more than the cost of the restoration project This paper outlines the opportunities for the environmental, social and governance bond market to secure capital for ocean-related projects and companies that have made, or are planning to make, significant contributions to the Sustain- able Development Goals This handbook provides an up-to-date overview of the investment landscape in the blue economy. It seeks to formulate a common understanding of sustainable blue economy financing for all stakeholders This study assesses investor perspectives on the ocean, bringing together views on and awareness of the sustainable blue economy among asset owners and managers worldwide This briefing considers a business model that could bridge the marine conservation funding gap This working guide to financial tools available for coral reef conservation highlights 13 of the most compelling finance mechanisms

About the Authors Eliza Northrop is the Policy Lead for the Secretariat for the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy and Senior Associate for the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Ocean Initiative. Contact: Eliza.Northrop@wri. org

Manaswita Konar is the Lead Ocean Economist for the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Ocean Initiative. Contact: [email protected] Nicola Frost is the Deputy Head of Secretariat for the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. Contact: [email protected] Elizabeth Hollaway is the Research Assistant for the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Ocean Initiative. Contact: [email protected]

772

References African Development Bank (2020) Egypt: African Development Bank approves 225 million Euros budget support loan for electricity sector to bolster economic resilience and sustainability amid COVID-19. 17 June. https://www.afdb.org/en/news-­and-­events/press-­releases/ egypt-­a frican-­d evelopment-­b ank-­a pproves-­2 25-­m illion-­e uros-­ budget-­support-­loan-­electricity-­sector-­bolster-­economic-­resilience-­ and-­sustainability-­amid-­covid-­19-­36237 Alleway H, Gillies C, Bishop M, Gentry R, Theuerkauf S, Jones R (2018) The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing benefits to people and nature. BioScience 69(December):59–68. https:// doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy137 Ambrose J (2020) Offshore wind energy investment quadruples despite Covid-19 slump. The Guardian, 13 July. https://www.theguardian. com/environment/2020/jul/13/offshore-­wind-­energy-­investment-­ quadruples-­despite-­covid-­19-­slump ANI (Asian News International) (2020) ADB, ESCAP to help Asia Pacific in addressing COVID-19 crisis. Big News Network, 3 June. https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/265333621/ adb-­escap-­to-­help-­asia-­pacific-­in-­addressing-­covid-­19-­crisis Anthem P (2020) Risk of hunger pandemic as coronavirus set to almost double acute hunger by end of 2020. World Food Programme Insight (blog), 28 May. https://insight.wfp.org/covid-­19-­will-­almost-­ double-­­people-­in-­acute-­hunger-­by-­end-­of-­2020-­59df0c4a8072 Appeaning Addo K, Steven A, Thanh CV (Forthcoming) Coastal development: managing resilience, restoration and infrastructure of coastlines. Blue Paper. https://oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/coastal-­­ development-­managing-­resilience-­restoration-­and-­infrastructure-­ coastlines Aquafeed (2020) Coronavirus pandemic to hit the aquaculture industry hard. http://www.aquafeed.com/af-­article/9459/ Coronavirus-­pandemic-­to-­hit-­the-­aquaculture-­industry-­hard/ Arquiza Y (2019) Reaping rewards from responsible fishing and savings clubs. https://rare.org/story/reaping-­rewards-from-responsiblefishing-­and-­savings-­clubs/ ASEA (American Solar Energy Association), MIS (Management Information Services) (2009) Defining, estimating, and forecasting the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in the U.S. and in Colorado. Report Ash N, Scarbrough T (2019) Sailing on solar: could green ammonia decarbonise international shipping? Environmental Defense Fund. https://europe.edf.org/file/399/download?token=agUEbKeQ Asian Development Bank (2019) ADB launches $5 Billion Healthy Oceans Action Plan. 2 May. https://www.adb.org/news/ adb-­launches-­5-­billion-­healthy-­oceans-­action-­plan AST (2019) iVMS: inshore vessel monitoring systems. https://www.theastgroup.com/uk/solutions/remote-­asset-­tracking-­monitoring-­control/ ivms/ Australian Government (2020a) Offshore clean energy infrastructure: proposed framework. January. https://consult.industry.gov.au/ offshore-­exploration/offshore-­clean-­energy-­infrastructure/ Australian Government (2020b) Fisheries and COVID-19. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, May. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/coronavirus/fisheries#victoria Barbesgaard M (2018) Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? J Peasant Stud 45(1):130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.20 17.1377186 Bark RH, Osgood DE, Colby BG, Katz G, Stromberg J (2009) Habitat preservation and restoration: do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol Econ 68(5):1465–1475. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.005 Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2015) The cost and feasibility of

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074. https://doi. org/10.1890/15-­1077 Beck MW, Lange G-M (2016) Managing coasts with natural solutions: guidelines for measuring and valuing the coastal protection services of mangroves and coral reefs. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/ publication/documents-­reports/documentdetail Beck MW, Losada IJ, Menéndez P, Reguero BG, Díaz-Simal P, Fernández F (2018) The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nat Commun 9(1):2186. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-­018-­04568-­z BenDor T, Lester TW, Livengood A, Davis A, Yonavjak L (2015) Estimating the size and impact of the ecological restoration economy. PloS One 10(6):e0128339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0128339 Bennett NJ (2018) Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable oceans. Mar Policy 97(November):139–146. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.001 Bennett NJ, Finkbeiner EM, Ban NC, Belhabib D, Jupiter SD, Kittinger JN, Mangubhai S et  al (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic, small-­ scale fisheries and coastal fishing communities. Coast Manag 48:336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1766937 Best BD, Halpin PN (2019) Minimizing wildlife impacts for offshore wind energy development: winning tradeoffs for seabirds in space and cetaceans in time. PloS One 14(5):e0215722. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215722 Bezdek RH (2019) The hydrogen economy and jobs of the future. Renew Energy Environ Sustain 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1051/ rees/2018005 Bjerregaard R, Brummett R, Hansen S, Valderrama D, Radulovich R, Diana J, Capron M et al (2016) Seaweed aquaculture for food security, income generation and environmental health in tropical developing countries. World Bank, Washington, DC Blasiak R, Wynberg R, Grorud-Colvert K, Thambisetty S et al (2020) The ocean genome: conservation and the fair, equitable and sustainable use of marine genetic resources. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/ocean-­­ genome-­c onservation-­a nd-­f air-­e quitable-­a nd-­s ustainable-­u se-­ marine-­genetic Bloomberg M, Holloway C (2018) NYC green infrastructure plan: executive summary. http://www.circleofblue.org/ wp-­c ontent/uploads/2011/12/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ ExecutiveSummary.pdf Bluedorn J, Chen W (2020) Making economies more resilient to downturns. IMF Blog, 18 May. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/05/18/ making-­economies-­more-­resilient-­to-­downturns/ BMU (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) (2020) Global green recovery and the International Climate Initiative. Bmu.De (blog), 17 July. https:// www.bmu.de/PM9147-­1 Bowlin N (2020) Hunting and fishing provide food security in the time of COVID-19. 29 April. https://www.hcn.org/articles/covid19-­­ hunting-­and-­fishing-­provide-­food-­security-­in-­the-­time-­of-­covid-­19 Brander L et al (2015) The benefits to people of expanding marine protected areas. Final report. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/25951/25951. pdf?download=true&_ga=2.227198557.1167454837.1558640107­1857028723.1558640107 Brett A, Leape J, Abbott M, Sakaguchi H, Cao L, Chand K, Golbuu Y et al (2020) Ocean data need a sea change to help navigate the warming world. Nature 582(7811):181–183. https://doi.org/10.1038/ d41586-­020-­01668-­z Bricker SB, Ferreira JG, Zhu C, Rose JM, Galimany E, Wikfors G, Saurel C et  al (2018) Role of shellfish aquaculture in the reduction of eutrophication in an urban estuary. Environ Sci Technol 52(1):173–183. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03970

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, Haque E (2007) Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: a case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal 27(2):313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-­6924.2007.00884.x Browder G, Ozment S, Bescos IR, Gartner T, Lange G-M (2019) Integrating green and gray: creating next generation infrastructure. https://www.wri.org/publication/integrating-­green-­gray Buck BH, Troell MF, Krause G, Angel DL, Grote B, Chopin T (2018) State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA). Front Mar Sci 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fmars.2018.00165 Buonocore JJ, Luckow P, Norris G, Spengler JD, Biewald B, Fisher J, Levy JI (2016) Health and climate benefits of different energy-­ efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nat Clim Change 6(1):100–105. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2771 Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A (2011) Reefs at risk—revisited. https://files.wri.org/s3fs-­public/pdf/reefs_at_risk_revisited.pdf Buschmann AH, Camus C, Infante J, Neori A, Israel Á, HernándezGonzález MC, Pereda SV et al (2017) Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur J Phycol 52(4):391–406. https://doi.org/10.10 80/09670262.2017.1365175 Campbell S, Jakub R, Valdivia A, Setiawan H, Setiawan A, Cox C, Kiyo A et  al (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on small-scale coastal fisheries of Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21203/ rs.3.rs-­39895/v1 Canning JF, Stillwell AS (2018) Nutrient reduction in agricultural green infrastructure: an analysis of the Raccoon river watershed. Water 10(6):749. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10060749 Carbon Trust (2011) Accelerating marine energy. https://prod-­ drupal-­files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/ Accelerating%20marine%20energy%20-­%20REPORT.pdf Carey y Cía (2020) Subsecretary of fishing and aquaculture establishes the suspension of term, procedures and other measures. 9 April. https://www.carey.cl/en/subsecretary-­of-­fishing-­and-­aquaculture-­­ establishes-­t he-­s uspension-­o f-­t erm-­p rocedures-­a nd-­o ther-­ measures/ Carr S (2020) How the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting marine ecosystems, part 1: fisheries and aquaculture. Skimmer, 30 April. https://meam.openchannels.org/news/skimmer-­marine-­ecosystems-­and-­management/ how-­covid-­19-­pandemic-­affecting-­marine-­ecosystems-­part Carrasquila-Henao M, Juanes F (2017) Mangroves enhance local fisheries catches: a global meta-analysis. Fish Fish 18(January):79–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12168 Casey J (2020) Norway announces $384.5m clean energy fund to aid in Covid-19 recovery. Power Technology, 9 June. https://www.power-­­ technology.com/news/norway-­announces-­384-­5m-­clean-­energy-­ fund-­to-­aid-­in-­covid-­19-­recovery/ CCR (Caisse Centrale de Réassurance) (2018) Conséquences du changement climatique sur le coût des catastrophes naturelles en France à horizon 2050: Septembre 2018—Catnat. https:// catastrophes-­n aturelles.ccr.fr/-­/ consequences-­d u-­c hangement-­­ climatique-­sur-­le-­cout-­des-­catastrophes-­naturelles-­en-­france-­a-­ horizon-­2050-­septembre-­2018 CFFA (Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements) CAPE (2020) RSA: dialogue between fishers and authorities eases lockdown restrictions. 16 April. https://www.cffacape.org/coronavirus-­crisis-­impacts-­on-­ african-­artisanal-­fisheries/south-­africa-­dialogue-­between-­artisanal-­ fishers-­and-­authorities-­helps-­ease-­lockdown-­restrictions Chambers S (2020a) Thirteen countries sign crew change pact. Splash 247 (10 July). https://splash247.com/12-­countries-­sign-crew-change-pact/ Chambers S (2020b) UN Secretary-General calls for shipping bailouts to be tied to the Paris Agreement. Splash 247 (10 July). https:// splash247.com/un-­secretary-­general-­calls-­for-­shipping-­bailouts-­to-­ be-­tied-­to-­the-­paris-­agreement/

773 Charlton E (2019) How oysters are cleaning New York’s polluted harbor. World Economic Forum, 25 January. https://www.weforum. org/agenda/2019/01/how-­oysters-­are-cleaning-new-yorks-pollutedharbor/ Chopin T, Robinson S, Sawhney M, Bastarache S, Belyea E, Shea R, Armstrong W, Fitzgerald P (2004) The AquaNet integrated multitrophic aquaculture project: rationale of the project and development of kelp cultivation as the inorganic extractive component of the system. Bull Aquacult Assoc Can 104(January):11–18 Christensen J (2020) Decarbonizing shipping could unlock a global energy transition. World Economic Forum, 22 January. https://www.weforum. org/agenda/2020/01/decarbonizing-­shipping-­global-­energy-­transition/ Circulate Capital and GA-Circular (2020) Safeguarding the plastic recycling value chain: insights from South and Southeast Asia. Webinar Clavelle T (2020) Global fisheries during COVID-19. Global Fishing Watch (blog), 12 May. https://globalfishingwatch.org/data-­blog/ global-­fisheries-­during-­covid-­19/ CMA CGM (2020) The CMA CGM Group Heads towards Carbon Neutrality by 2050. https://www.cma-­cgm.com/news/3143/ the-­cma-­cgm-­group-­heads-­towards-­carbon-­neutrality-­by-­2050 CNC (Comité National de la Conchyliculture) (n.d.) Les statistiques. https://coquillages.com/les-­statistiques/. Accessed 21 Aug 2020 Coady D, Parry I, Le N-P, Shang B (2019) Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/ WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-­Fossil-­F uel-­S ubsidies-­R emain-­ Large-­An-­Update-­Based-­on-­Country-­Level-­Estimates-­46509 Coke-Hamilton P (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on tourism in small island developing states. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (blog), 24 April. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2341 Copping AE, Hemery LG (2020) State of the science report: environmental effects of marine renewable energy development around the world. Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/ state-­of-­the-­science-­2020 Copping A et  al (2016) Annex IV, 2016 State of the science report: environmental effects of marine renewable energy development around the world. Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/ publications/state-­of-­the-­science-­2016 Corporate Citizenship (2020) Sustainable funds are outperforming their peers during the pandemic, according to BNP Paribas. Corporate Citizenship Briefing (blog), 25 June. https://ccbriefing.corporate-­­ citizenship.com/2020/06/25/sustainable-­funds-­are-­outperforming-­ their-­peers-­during-­the-­pandemic-­according-­to-­bnp-­paribas/ Costello C, Ovando D, Hilborn R, Gaines SD, Deschenes O, Lester SE (2012) Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338(6106):517–520 Costello C, Gao L, Gelcich S et al (2019) The future of food from the sea. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel. org/sites/default/files/2019-­11/19_HLP_BP1%20Paper.pdf Cottier-Cook E, Nagabhatla N, Campbell M, Chopin T, Hewitt C, Hoon G, Kema G et al (2016) Safeguarding the future of the global seaweed aquaculture industry. https://www.sams.ac.uk/t4-­media/sams/ pdf/globalseaweed-­policy-­brief.pdf CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) (2015) The human cost of natural disasters. A global perspective. https:// www.cred.be/node/1355 Crouse EC, Endemann BB, Greer LA, Hinckley EB, Hattery DP, Holmes WH (2018) 2018 Offshore wind handbook. https:// www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-­Lavalin/documents/ publications/o-­g-­offshore-­wind-­brochure_en.pdf Deloitte (2017) At what price? The economic, social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef. Report. Deloitte Access Economics. http:// elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/3205

774 Dinh V-N, McKeogh E (2019) Offshore wind energy: technology opportunities and challenges—energy and geotechnics. In: Lecture notes in civil engineering, pp  3–22. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­2306-­5_1 Dreaver C (2020) Budget 2020: what you need to know. Radio New Zealand, 14 May. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/budget-­2020/416634/ budget-­2020-­what-­you-­need-­to-­know Duarte C, Holmer M, Olsen Y, Soto D, Marba N, Guiu J, Black K, Karakassis I (2009) Will the oceans help feed humanity? BioScience 59(December):967–976. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.8 Duarte CM, Agusti S, Barbier E, Britten GL, Castilla JC, Gattuso J-P, Fulweiler RW et  al (2020) Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580(7801):39–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-­020-­2146-­7 Eckhouse B, Martin C (2020) Coronavirus crushing global forecasts for wind and solar power. Bloomberg, 27 March. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-­0 3-­2 7/ global-­solar-­wind-­growth-­will-­be-­erased-­this-­year-­rystad-­says Edwards P, Sutton-Grier A, Coyle G (2013) Investing in nature: restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Mar Policy 38(March):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2012.05.020 Eklöf J, Torre-Castro M, Adelsköld L, Jiddawi N, Kautsky N (2005) Differences in macrofauna and seagrass assemblages in seagrass beds with and without seaweed farms. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 325(May):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2004.11.014 Energy Choice Coalition (2020) Wood Mackenzie, industry associations report coronavirus impact on energy transition. 17 April. https://www.energychoicecoalition.org/blog/2020/4/17/wood-­­ mackenzie-­industry-­associations-­report-­coronavirus-­impact-­on-­ energy-­transition EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2010) Green infrastructure case studies: municipal policies for managing stormwater with green infrastructure. August. https://toolkit.climate.gov/reports/ green-­infrastructure-­case-­studies-­municipal-­policies-­managing-­ stormwater-­green EPA (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions from a typical passenger vehicle. Overviews and Factsheets, 12 January. https://www.epa.gov/ greenvehicles/greenhouse-­gas-­emissions-­typical-­passenger-­vehicle EPA (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions from a typical passenger vehicle. Green Vehicle Guide. Last updated 18 May. https://www.epa. gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-­gas-­emissions-­typical-­passenger-­­ vehicle#:~:text=A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20 emits,of%20miles%20driven%20per%20year Erbe C, Marley SA, Schoeman RP, Smith JN, Trigg LE, Embling CB (2019) The effects of ship noise on marine mammals: a review. Front Mar Sci 6:606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606 ESCA (European Community Shipowners’ Associations) (2020) ECSA COVID-19 survey May 2020. https://www.ecsa.eu/sites/default/ files/publications/ECSA%20COVID19%20Survey%20Report.pdf ETIP Ocean (European Technology and Innovation Platform for Ocean Energy) (2020) Strategic research and innovation agenda for ocean energy. https://www.oceanenergy-­europe.eu/wp-­content/ uploads/2020/05/ETIP-­Ocean-­SRIA.pdf EU Commission (2018) Study on the economic benefits of MPAs. Final report. Publications Office of the European Union. http:// op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/dbe3d250-­b0b511e8-­99ee-­01aa75ed71a1/language-­en/format-­PDF EU Commission (2020a) State aid: coronavirus: €20 million Portuguese scheme. April. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ en/IP_20_609 EU Commission (2020b) State aid to Italy, coronavirus. April. https:// ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_712 EU Commission (2020c) EU strategy on offshore renewable energy. 24 June. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-­energy/ eu-­strategy-­offshore-­renewable-­energy_en

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan EU Commission (2020d) Communication from the commission guidelines concerning the exercise of the free movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Official Journal of the European Union CI 102/12 (March). https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/? uri=CELEX:52020XC0330(03) EU Parliament (2020) Shipping industry must contribute to climate neutrality, say MEPs. News—European Parliament, 7 July. https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-­room/20200703IPR82633/ shipping-­industry-­must-­contribute-­to-­climate-­neutrality-­say-­meps European Commission (2018) More efficient design makes new generation electric ferries cheaper to run. https://cordis.europa.eu/ article/ id/254141-­more-­efficient-­design-­makes-­new-­generation-­electric-­ ferries-­cheaper-­to-­run European Commission (2020a) Study on the economic impact of maritime spatial planning: final report: abridged version. Publications Office of the European Union. 24 June. http://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­ detail/-­/ publication/254a6ac4-­b 689-­1 1ea-­b b7a-­0 1aa75ed71a1/ language-­en European Commission (2020b) The EU Blue Economy Report. https:// ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/2020_06_ blueeconomy-­­2020-­ld_final.pdf EWEA (European Wind Energy Association) (2012) The European offshore wind industry key 2011 trends and statistics. http://www. ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA_ stats_offshore_2011_02.pdf FAO (2018a) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018: sustainability in action. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en FAO (2018b) The Port Bleu project equips fishermen from Haouaria with quality labels and technological solutions for fisheries products. 28 March. http://www.fao.org/neareast/news/view/en/c/1112028/ FAO (2020a) Summary of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the fisheries and aquaculture sector: addendum to the state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9349en/ CA9349EN.pdf FAO (2020b) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020: sustainability in action. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en. FAO (2020c) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Sustainability in action. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en Farrell P, Thow AM, Tutuo Wate J, Nonga N, Vatucawaqa P, Brewer T, Sharp MK et  al (2020) COVID-19 and Pacific food system resilience: opportunities to build a robust response. Food Secur 12(4):783–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-­020-­01087-­y Ferrario F, Beck MW, Storlazzi CD, Micheli F, Shepard CC, Airoldi L (2014) The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nat Commun 5(1):3794. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms4794 Ferreira JG, Corner RA, Moore H, Service M, Bricker SB, Rheault R (2018) Ecological carrying capacity for shellfish aquaculture: sustainability of naturally occurring filter-feeders and cultivated bivalves. J Shellfish Res 37(4):709–726. https://doi. org/10.2983/035.037.0404 Finnish Government (2020) Government reaches agreement on fourth supplementary budget proposal for 2020. 2 June. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-­/10616/hallitus-­paatti-­vuoden-­2020-­neljannesta-­lisatal ousarvioesityksesta Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020) Minister Jordan announces the fish harvester benefit and fish harvester grant to open on August 24th. https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-­oceans/news/2020/08/ minister-­j ordan-­a nnounces-­t he-­fish-­h arvester-­b enefit-­a nd-­fish-­ harvester-­grant-­to-­open-­on-­august-­24th.html Forster J, Radulovich R (2015) Seaweed and food security 2015. In: Seaweed sustainability: food and non-food applications, pp  289– 313. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­418697-­2.00011-­8 Free CM, Mangin T, Molinos JG, Ojea E, Costello C, Gaines SD (2019) Realistic fisheries management reforms could mitigate the impacts

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis

775

of climate change in most countries. bioRxiv, October, 804831. https://doi.org/10.1101/804831 Friess D, Rogers K, Lovelock C, Krauss K, Hamilton S, Lee S, Lucas R et al (2019) The state of the world’s mangrove forests: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Env Resour 44(August):1–27. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-­environ-­101718-­033302 Froehlich HE, Runge CA, Gentry RR, Gaines SD, Halpern BS (2018) Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-­ dominant world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115(20):5295–5300. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801692115 Froehlich HE, Afflerbach JC, Frazier M, Halpern BS (2019) Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr Biol 29(18):3087–93.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2019.07.041 Gaines S, Cabral R, Free C, Golbuu Y, Arnason R, Battista W, Bradley D et al (2019) The expected impacts of climate change on the ocean economy. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https:// www.oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­12/expected-­impacts-­ climate-­change-­on-­the-­ocean-­economy-­executive-­summary.pdf Gentry RR, Froehlich HE, Grimm D, Kareiva P, Parke M, Rust M, Gaines SD, Halpern BS (2017) Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1(9):1317–1324. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41559-­017-­0257-­9 GFCCC (Global Food Cold Chain Council) (2015) Assessing the potential of the cold chain sector to reduce GHG emissions through food loss and waste reduction. October. http://naturalleader.com/ wp-­content/uploads/2016/04/coldchainGHGemissionstudy.pdf Government of Canada (2020) Canada’s COVID-19 economic response plan. Financial material. 30 June. https://www.canada.ca/ en/department-­­finance/economic-­response-­plan.html Grabowski JH, Brumbaugh RD, Conrad RF, Keeler AG, Opaluch JJ, Peterson CH, Piehler MF et al (2012) Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience 62(10):900– 909. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.10 Greenfield P, Muiruri P (2020) Conservation in crisis: ecotourism collapse threatens communities and wildlife. The Guardian, 5 May. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/ conservation-­­in-­crisis-­covid-­19-­coronavirus-­ecotourism-­collapse-­ threatens-­communities-­and-­wildlife-­aoe GSI (IISD Global Subsidies Initiative) (2020) Fisheries negotiations slow down due to COVID-19. 16 April. https://www.iisd.org/gsi/ news-­events/fisheries-­negotiations-­covid Guo Q, Chen J, Wang J, Zeng H, Yu J (2020) Recent progress in synthesis and application of mussel-inspired adhesives. Nanoscale 12(3):1307–1324. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9NR09780E Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334):386– 389. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09689 Hai NT, Dell B, Phuong VT, Harper RJ (2020) Towards a more robust approach for the restoration of mangroves in Vietnam. Ann For Sci 77(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-­020-­0921-­0 Halpern BS, Lester SE, McLeod KL (2010) Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(43):18312–18317. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0908503107 Hammer S, Hallegatte S (2020) Planning for the economic recovery from COVID-19: a sustainability checklist for policymakers. World Bank Blogs, 14 April. https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/ planning-­economic-­recovery-­covid-­19-­coronavirus-­sustainability-­ checklist-­policymakers Harper S, Adshade M, Lam VWY, Pauly D, Sumaila UR (2020) Valuing invisible catches: estimating the global contribution by women to small-scale marine capture fisheries production. PloS One 15(3):e0228912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228912 Harrabin R (2020) Make Covid-19 recovery green, say business leaders. BBC News, 1 June. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-­52851185

Harvey F (2020) Covid-19 relief for fossil fuel industries risks green recovery plans. The Guardian, 6 June. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/06/ covid-­19-­relief-­for-­fossil-­fuel-­industries-­risks-­green-­recovery-­plans Hassellöv I-M, Turner D, Lauer A, Corbett J (2013) Shipping contributes to ocean acidification. Geophys Res Lett 40(June):2731–2736. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50521 Haugan PM, Levin LA, Amon D, Hemer M, Lily H, Nielsen FG (2020) What role for ocean-based renewable energy and deep seabed minerals in a sustainable future? World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. www.oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/ ocean-­energy-­and-­mineral-­sources Heiland I, Ulltveit-Moe K-H (2020) An unintended crisis: COVID-19 restrictions hit sea transportation. Vox EU, 17 May. https://voxeu. org/article/covid-­19-­restrictions-­hit-­sea-­transportation Henriksen S, Selwyn M (2020) How to protect global supply chains under threat from the COVID-19 pandemic. World Economic Forum (blog), 5 May. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/ global-­supply-­chains-­are-­under-­imminent-­threat-­from-­the-­covid-­ 19-­pandemic/ Hepburn C, O’Callaghan B, Stern N, Stiglitz J, Zenghelis D (2020) Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxford Rev Econ Policy 8:graa015. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015 Hochard JP, Hamilton S, Barbier EB (2019) Mangroves shelter coastal economic activity from cyclones. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(25):12232–12237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820067116 Hockings M, Dudley N, Elliott W, Napolitano Ferreira M, MacKinnon K, Pasha MKS et  al (2020) Editorial essay: COVID-19 and protected and conserved areas. Parks J (4). https://parksjournal.com/ wp-­c ontent/uploads/2020/06/Hockings-­e t-­a l-­1 0.2305-­I UCN. CH_.2020.PARKS-­26-­1MH.en_-­1.pdf Hoegh-Guldberg O, Caldeira K, Chopin T, Gaines S, Haugan P (2019) The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https:// oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­10/HLP_Report_Ocean_ Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf Holmyard N (2020) WSI: COVID-19 crisis will deepen gender inequalities in seafood sector. Seafood Source (blog), 13 April. https:// www.seafoodsource.com/news/business-­finance/wsi-­covid-­19-­­ crisis-­will-­deepen-­gender-­inequalities-­in-­seafood-­sector Hudson A (2017) Restoring and protecting the world’s large marine ecosystems: an engine for job creation and sustainable economic development. Environ Dev 22(June):150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envdev.2016.10.003 Hughes BB, Lummis SC, Anderson SC, Kroeker KJ (2018) Unexpected resilience of a seagrass system exposed to global stressors. Glob Chang Biol 24(1):224–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13854 Hurowitz, G. 2020. “The Jobs Are in the Trees.” Grist, 4 February. https:// grist.org/article/2010-02-01-the-jobs-are-in-the-trees/. Hutton G, Haller L, World Health Organization (2004) Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level. Water, Sanitation and Health Team. https://apps.who. int/iris/handle/10665/68568 ICS (2020a) ICS overview of the impact of COVID-19 on the shipping industry and summary of containment and mitigation measures. 12 March. https://www.ics-­shipping.org/docs/default-­source/ Submissions/Other/ics-­s ubmission-­t o-­e uropean-­c ommission-­ concerning-­the-­impact-­of-­covid-­19.pdf ICS (2020b) Global shipping body addresses the health concerns of seafarers during the COVID-19 pandemic. 28 May. https://www. ics-­s hipping.org/news/press-­r eleases/view-­a rticle/2020/05/28/ global-­shipping-­body-­addresses-­the-­health-­concerns-­of-­seafarers-­ during-­the-­ covid-­19-­pandemic ICS (2020c) Industry and Unions set out a 12-step solution for governments to free seafarers from COVID-19 lockdown. 6 May. https://

776 www.ics-­shipping.org/news/press-­releases/2020/05/06/industry-­­ and-­unions-­set-­out-­a-­12-­step-­solution-­for-­governments-­to-­free-­ seafarers-­ from-­covid-­19-­lockdown IEA (2014) World Energy Outlook 2014. https://www.iea.org/reports/ world-­energy-­outlook-­2014 IEA (2019a) The future of hydrogen: analysis. June. https://www.iea. org/reports/the-­future-­of-­hydrogen IEA (2019b) World Energy Outlook. https://www.iea.org/topics/ world-­energy-­outlook IEA (2020a) Global energy review 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/ global-­energy-­review-­2020 IEA (2020b) World energy investment 2020. https://www.iea.org/ reports/world-­energy-­investment-­2020 IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2011) Mangrove plantation in Viet Nam: measuring impact and cost benefit. https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/ disasters/reducing_risks/Case-­study-­Vietnam.pdf IKI (International Climate Initiative) (2020) Corona package response: working together towards a sustainable recovery. https://www. international-­­climate-­initiative.com/en/coronaresponse ILO (2017) Wastewater and jobs: the decent work approach to reducing untreated wastewater. Working paper. http://www.ilo.org/sector/ Resources/publications/WCMS_548129/lang%2D%2Den/index. htm ILO (2018) Women and men in the informal economy: a statistical picture, 3rd edn. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/%2D%2D-­dgreports/%2D%2D-­dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_626831.pdf ILO (2020a) COVID-19 and maritime shipping & fishing. Briefing note. http://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/publications/WCMS_742026/ lang%2D%2Den/index.htm ILO (2020b) COVID-19 and employment in the tourism sector: impact and response in Asia and the Pacific. Briefing note. http:// www.ilo.org/asia/publications/issue-­b riefs/WCMS_742664/ lang%2D%2Den/index.htm ILO (2020c) COVID-19 and the world of work, 4th edn. Briefing note. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-­and-­ responses/WCMS_745963/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association) (2020) IMCA and industry group target governments on a global basis on behalf of offshore workers. https://www.imca-­int.com/news/2020/05/29/ imca-­and-­industry-­group-­target-­governments-­on-­a-­global-­basis-­ on-­behalf-­of-­offshore-­workers/ IMF (2020a) World economic outlook update, June 2020. https:// www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/06/24/ WEOUpdateJune2020 IMF (2020b) Greening the recovery. Special series on fiscal policies to respond to COVID-19. https://www.un-­page.org/ Greening-­the-­Recovery IMF (2020c) Pacific islands threatened by COVID-19. 27 May. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/05/27/na-­05272020pacific-­islands-­threatened-­by-­covid-­19 IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2020) FAQ on crew changes and repatriation of seafarers. 16 June. http://www.imo. org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/FAQ-­on-­crew-­changes-­and-­­ repatriation-­of-­seafarers.aspx INFOFISH International (2020) Protecting and monitoring small-scale fisheries. CLS Fisheries, 4 May. https://fisheries.groupcls.com/ protecting-­and-­monitoring-­small-­scale-­fisheries/ IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) (2018) Renewable energy benefits: leveraging local capacity for offshore wind. https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/May/ Leveraging-­Local-­Capacity-­for-­Offshore-­Wind IRENA (2019) Future of wind: deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects. https://www.irena.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Oct/IRENA_ Future_of_wind_2019.pdf Jambeck J, Moss E, Dubey B (2020) Leveraging multi-target strategies to address plastic pollution in the context of an already stressed ocean. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-­06/Addressing%20Ocean%20 Pollutants%20Full%20Report%20Final.pdf Jay S (2017) Marine spatial planning: assessing net benefits and improving effectiveness. Issue note. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Jiang R, Ingle KN, Golberg A (2016) Macroalgae (Seaweed) for liquid transportation biofuel production: what is next? Algal Res 14(March):48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.01.001 Jigeesh AM (2020) Distressed fisheries sector demands immediate support. Hindu Business Line, 13 April. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-­business/distressed-­fisheries-­sector-­­ demands-­immediate-­support/article31332857.ece John H (2020) Fish meal and fish oil industries pose threat to the fishing sector in India. Mongabay-India (blog), 2 January. https://india. mongabay.com/2020/01/fish-­meal-­and-­fish-­oil-­industries-­pose-­­ threat-­to-­the-­fishing-­sector-­in-­india/ Jones R, Rigg C, Pinkerton E (2017) Strategies for assertion of conservation and local management rights: a Haida Gwaii Herring Story. Mar Policy 80:154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.031 Jordan P (2020) Clean energy employment initial impacts from the COVID-19 economic crisis, March 2020. BW Research Partnership (blog), 14 April. https://e2.org/wp-­content/uploads/2020/04/Clean-­­ Energy-­Jobs-­Initial-­COVID-­19-­Memo-­Final.pdf Kapsenberg L, Cyronak T (2019) Ocean acidification refugia in variable environments. Glob Chang Biol 25(10):3201–3214. https://doi. org/10.1111/gcb.14730 Kinley RD, de Nys R, Vucko MJ, Machado L, Tomkins NW (2016) The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis is a potent natural antimethanogenic that reduces methane production during in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid. Anim Prod Sci 56(3):282–289. https:// doi.org/10.1071/AN15576 Knoche S, Ihde TF (2018) Estimating ecological benefits and socioeconomic impacts from oyster reef restoration in the Choptank River Complex, Chesapeake Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. https://www.morgan.edu/ Documents/ADMINISTRATION/pearl/ORES_Impacts_Knoche_ Ihde%20(1).pdf Konar M, Ding H (2020) A sustainable ocean economy for 2050: approximating its benefits and costs. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-­07/ Ocean%20Panel_Economic%20Analysis_FINAL.pdf Konar M, Thuringer L, Sumaila RU (2019a) The scale of illicit trade in pacific ocean marine resources. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.wri.org/publication/ scale-­illicit-­trade-­pacific-­ocean-­marine-­resources Konar M, Qiu S, Tougher B, Vause J, Tlusty M, Fitzsimmons K, Barrows R, Cao L (2019b) Illustrating the hidden economic, social and ecological values of global forage fish resources. Resour Conserv Recycl 151(December):104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2019.104456 KPMG (2020) Jamaica: government and institution measures in response to COVID-19. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/ insights/2020/04/jamaica-­government-­and-­institution-­measures-­in-­ response-­to-­covid.html Kroner RG (2020) Rolling back environmental protections under cover of the pandemic. Sci Am, 28 June. https://www.scientificamerican. com/article/rolling-­back-­environmental-­protections-­under-­cover-­ of-­the-­pandemic/ Kummu M, de Moel H, Salvucci G, Viviroli D, Ward PJ, Varis O (2016) Over the hills and further away from coast: global geospatial patterns

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis of human and environment over the 20th–21st centuries. Environ Res Lett 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/11/3/034010 Laidlaw J (2020) Social bond surge appears here to stay as COVID19 crisis shifts funding needs. S&P Global Market Intelligence, 19 May. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-­­ insights/latest-­news-­headlines/social-­bond-­surge-­appears-­here-­to-­ stay-­as-­covid-­19-­crisis-­shifts-­funding-­needs-­58602191 Langhamer O (2012) Artificial reef effect in relation to offshore renewable energy conversion: state of the art. ScientificWorldJournal 23:386713. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/386713 Leape J, Abbott M, Sakaguchi H (2020) Technology, data and new models for sustainably managing ocean resources. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://oursharedseas.com/oss_downloads/technology-­data-­and-­new-­models-­for-­sustainably-­managing-­ ocean-­resources/ Leonard G, Mallos N (2020) What we know—and don’t know— about plastics and the coronavirus pandemic. Ocean Conservancy (blog), 16 April. https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2020/04/16/ know-­dont-­know-­plastics-­coronavirus-­pandemic/ Li X, Bellerby R, Craft C, Widney SE (2018) Coastal wetland loss, consequences, and challenges for restoration. Anthropocene Coast 1(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-­2017-­0001 Love DC, Allison EH, Asche F, Belton B, Cottrell RS, Froehlich HE, Gephart JA et al (2020) Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the 2 seafood system. https:// doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/x8aew Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC (2012) Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ Res Lett 7(4):045802. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-­9326/7/4/045802 Mærsk (2020) New research center will lead the way for decarbonizing shipping. https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2020/06/25/ new-­research-­center-­will-­lead-­the-­way-­for-­decarbonizing-­shipping Malik NKA, Abdullah SH, Manaf LA (2015) Community participation on solid waste segregation through recycling programmes in Putrajaya. Proc Environ Sci 30:10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proenv.2015.10.002 Mathis W, Thornhill J (2019) Hydrogen’s plunging price boosts role as climate solution. Bloomberg, 21 August. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-­0 8-­2 1/cost-­o f-­h ydrogenfrom-­renewables-­to-­plummet-­next-­decade-­bnef McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, Bonney R, Brown H, Cook-Patton SC, Evans DM et  al (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208(April):15–28. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 McKinsey (2020) A low-carbon economic stimulus after COVID-19. 27 May. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-­functions/sustainability/our-­insights/how-­a-­post-­pandemic-­stimulus-­can-­both-­create-­ jobs-­and-­help-­the-­climate McLeod DA, McLeod C (2019) Review of the contribution of cultivated bivalve shellfish to ecosystem services. Crown Estate Scotland. https://www.crownestatescotland.com/maps-­a nd-­p ublications/ download/416 McLeod I, Schmider J, Creighton C, Gillies C (2018) Seven pearls of wisdom: advice from traditional owners to improve engagement of local indigenous people in shellfish ecosystem restoration. Ecol Manage Restor 19(2):98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12318 MCST (Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport) (n.d.) Pacific blue shipping partnership. https://mcst-­rmiusp.org/index.php/projects/current-­projects/pacific-­blue-­shipping-­partnership. Accessed 19 Aug 2020 Melnychuk M, Banobi J, Hilborn R (2014) The adaptive capacity of fishery management systems for confronting climate change

777 impacts on marine populations. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24(June):561– 575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-­013-­9307-­9 Michelin M, Elliott M, Bucher M (2018) Catalyzing the growth of electronic monitoring in fisheries. https://www.nature.org/content/ dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Catalyzing_Growth_of_Electronic_ Monitoring_in_Fisheries_9-­­10-­2018.pdf Mojarro N (2020) Here’s why COVID-19 is a game-changer for renewable energy. World Economic Forum, 16 June. https:// www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/covid-­19-­is-­a-­game-changerfor-­renewable-­energy/ Monfort MC (2015) The role of women in the seafood industry. Globefish Research Programme, vol 119. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Moore R (2019) Norway’s first hydrogen-powered car ferries take shape. Riviera, 16 July. https://www.rivieramm.com/news-­content-­ hub/news-­content-­hub/norwayrsquos-­first-­hydrogen-­powered-­car-­ ferries-­take-­shape-­55559 Moore E, Cooley H, Christian-Smith J, Donnelly K, Ongoco K, Ford D (2013) ‘Sustainable water jobs: A national assessment of water-related green job opportunities’. Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. URL: https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ sust_jobs_full_report.pdf Moreno A, Revenga C (2014) The system of territorial use rights in fisheries in Chile. The Nature Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/ media/chile/system-­of-­TURFs-­in-­Chile.pdf Morris D (2020) Vietnam’s renewable energy industry amid COVID19: facts, force majeure and (patchy) government support. Lexology, 10 April. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail. aspx?g=37c4c382-­1bf0-­4773-­a36b-­dcb68f76dbc7 MPA News (2009) How the global financial crisis could affect MPAs, and what practitioners are doing to prepare for it. 7 May. https:// mpanews.openchannels.org/news/mpa-­news/how-­global-­financial-­­ crisis-­c ould-­a ffect-­m pas-­a nd-­w hat-­p ractitioners-­a re-­d oing-­ prepare Mutafoglu K, ten Brink P, Schweitzer J-P, Underwood E, Tucker G, Russi D, Howe M et al (2017) Natura 2000 and Jobs. Institute for European Environmental Policy. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/natura2000/pdf/Natura2000_and_jobs_main%20report.pdf Narayanswami S, Balan C (2013) The food wastage and cold storage infrastructure relationship in India: developing realistic solutions. Emerson Climate Technologies Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M, Farrell AP, Forster I et  al (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(36):15103. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0905235106 Neish IC (2013) Social and economic dimensions of Carrageenan seaweed farming in Indonesia. In: Social and economic dimensions of Carrageenan seaweed farming. FAO, Rome, pp 61–89. http://www. fao.org/3/a-­i3344e.pdf Nguyen T (2020) First-of-its-kind clean energy investment initiative for Southeast Asia. Vietnam Invest Rev, 1 July. https://www.vir.com.vn/ first-­of-­its-­kind-­clean-­energy-­investment-­initiative-­for-­southeast-­ asia-­77465.html Nikel, D. 2020. Norway proposes NOK 3.6bn green investment package. Life in Norway (blog), 29 May. https://www.lifeinnorway.net/ norway-­proposes-­nok-­3-­6-­billion-­green-­investment-­package/ NOAA (U.S.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2020) NOAA fisheries coronavirus (COVID-19) update. 11 August. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/noaa-­fisheriescoronavirus-­covid-­19-­update NoMEPorts (2008) Good practice guide on port area noise mapping and management. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showFile&rep=file&fil= NoMEports_GPG_PANMM1.pdf

778 Norges Bank Investment Management (2020) Ocean sustainability. https://www.nbim.no/en/the-­fund/responsible-­investment/ principles/expectations-­to-­companies/ocean-­sustainability/ NSA (2020a) 1/4th of turnover lost due to Covid-19. Blog, 21 April. https://rederi.no/en/aktuelt/2020/hver-­f jerde-krone-­t apt-somfolge-­av-­korona/ NSA (2020b) Null Utslipp i 2050. https://rederi.no/en/aktuelt/2020/ norwegian-­shipping-­climate-­neutral-­by-­2050/ OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2014) OECD tourism trends and policies 2014. https://www.oecd-­ilibrary. org/industry-­­and-­services/oecd-­tourism-­trends-­and-­policies-­2014/ taxation-­and-­tourism_tour-2014-­6-­en OECD (2015) Green growth in fisheries and aquaculture. https://www. oecd-­ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264232143-­en OECD (2016) The ocean economy in 2030. https://www.oecd.org/environment/the-­ocean-­economy-­in-­2030-­9789264251724-­en.htm OECD (2018) OECD tourism trends and policies 2018. https://www. oecd-­i library.org/urban-­r ural-­a nd-­r egional-­d evelopment/oecd-­­ tourism-­trends-­and-­policies-­2018_tour-­2018-­en?itemId=/content/ component/tour-­2018-­21-­en&_p_=96e3bdda0ee5511a9fceb9fd28f ad50a&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=chapter OECD (2020a) Building back better: a sustainable, resilient recovery after COVID-19. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/ policy-­r esponses/building-­b ack-­b etter-­a -­s ustainable-­r esilient-­ recovery-­after-­covid-­19-­52b869f5/#blocknotes-­d7e1362 OECD (2020b) Tourism policy responses to the coronavirus (COVID19). 2 June. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-­responses/ tourism-­policy-­responses-­to-­the-­coronavirus-­covid-­19-­6466aa20/ OECD (2020c) Economic outlook, Volume 2020, Issue 1: Preliminary Version. https://www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/sites/0d1d1e2e-­en/index. html?itemId=/content/publication/0d1d1e2e-­en OECD (2020d) Development co-operation profiles. June. https://doi. org/10.1787/5e331623-­en OECD (2020e) The territorial impact of COVID-19: managing the crisis across levels of government. https://read.oecd-­ilibrary.org/ view/?ref=128_128287-­5agkkojaaa&title=The-­territorial-­impact-­ of-­covid-­19-­managing-­the-­crisis-­across-­levels-­of-­government OECD (2020f) Sustainable ocean for all: harnessing the benefits of sustainable ocean economies for developing countries. https://www. oecd.org/environment/sustainable-­ocean-­for-­all-­bede6513-­en.htm OES (Ocean Energy Systems) (2011) Annual report. https://tethys. pnnl.gov/publications/oes-­annual-­report-­2011 OES (2017) An international vision for ocean energy, 2017. https://testahemsidaz2.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/oes-­international-­vision. pdf Office of the Prime Minister, Canada (2020) Prime Minister announces additional support for businesses to help save Canadian jobs. 11 May. https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-­releases/2020/05/11/ prime-­minister-­announces-­additional-­support-­businesses-­help-­save Olmer N, Comer B, Roy B, Mao X, Rutherford D (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013–2015. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC. https://theicct. org/publications/GHG-­emissions-­global-­shipping-­2013-­2015 Önen Cinar S, Chong ZK, Kucuker M, Wieczorek N, Cengiz U, Kuchta K (2020) Bioplastic production from microalgae: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(May):3842. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17113842 Orlowski A (2020) Small-scale fishermen suffering significantly from COVID-19 pandemic. SeafoodSource, 27 April. https://www. seafoodsource.com/news/supply-­t rade/small-­s cale-­fishermen-­­ suffering-­significantly-­from-­covid-­19-­pandemic Österblom H, Wabnitz C, Tladi D, Allison E, Arnaud-Haond S, Bebbington J, Bennett N et al (2020) Towards ocean equity. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.oceanpanel.org/ sites/default/files/2020-­04/towards-­ocean-­equity.pdf

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Outeiro L, Ojea E, Rodrigues JG, Himes-Cornell A, Belgrano A, Liu Y, Cabecinha E et al (2017) The role of non-natural capital in the co-production of marine ecosystem services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 13(3):35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/215137 32.2017.1415973 Ouyang X, Guo F (2016) Paradigms of mangroves in treatment of anthropogenic wastewater pollution. Sci Total Environ 544:971– 979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.013 Paris C (2020) Coronavirus toll on shipping reaches $350 million a week. Wall Street J (blog), 10 February. https://www.wsj.com/ articles/coronavirus-­t oll-­o n-­s hipping-­r eaches-­3 50-­m illion-­a -­ week-­11581366671 Parkinson G (2020) Australia’s first offshore wind project says it can cover early exit of Yallourn. Renew Econ (blog), 4 June. https:// reneweconomy.com.au/australias-­first-­offshore-­wind-­project-­says-­ it-­can-­cover-­early-­exit-­of-­yallourn-­74304/ PCAF (Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries) (2020) PCAF initiatives during COVID-19 ECQ: fisheries and aquaculture private stakeholders meeting. http://www.pcaf.da.gov.ph/index. php/2020/05/14/pcaf-­initiatives-­during-­covid-­19-­ecq-­fisheries-­and-­ aquaculture-­private-­stakeholders-­meeting/ Peszko G (2020) Plastics: the coronavirus could reset the clock. World Bank Blogs, 7 April. https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/ plastics-­coronavirus-­could-­reset-­clock Petersen J, Taylor D, Bergström P, Buer A-L, Darecki M, Filippelli R, Gren I-M et al (2020) Policy guidelines for implementation of mussel cultivation as a mitigation measure for coastal eutrophication in the Western Baltic Sea. April. https://doi.org/10.11581/dtu:00000079 Plastic Cities (2020) Waste management guidance during COVID19 pandemic. https://plasticsmartcities.org/blogs/media/ waste-­management-­guidance-­during-­covid-­19-­pandemic Pollin R, Heintz J, Garrett-Peltier H (2009) How infrastructure investments support the U.S. economy: employment, productivity and growth. Alliance for American Manufacturing. https://www. americanmanufacturing.org/research/entry/how-­i nfrastructure-­ investments-­­support-­the-­u.s.-­economy-­employment-­producti Polo G (2020) When nets catch more than fish. Rare, 5 May. https:// rare.org/story/when-­nets-­catch-­more-­than-­fish/ Queensland Government (2020) Queensland’s economic recovery plan. https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-­actions/ our-­economic-­recovery-­strategy Ratha DK, De S, Kim EJ, Plaza S, Seshan GK, Yameogo ND (2020) COVID-19 crisis through a migration lens. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/ documents-­reports/documentdetail Reddy NP, Zadeh MK, Thieme CA, Skjetne R, Sorensen AJ, Aanondsen SA, Breivik M, Eide E (2019) Zero-emission autonomous ferries for urban water transport: cheaper, cleaner alternative to bridges and manned vessels. IEEE Electrif Mag 7(4):32–45. https://doi. org/10.1109/MELE.2019.2943954 reNews (2020) Offshore wind ‘Investment Jumps 319%’. 13 July. https://renews.biz/61638/offshore-­wind-­investment-­jumps-­319/ Resilience (2020) COVID 19 and our food supply. 3 April. https://www. resilience.org/stories/2020-­04-­03/covid-­19-­and-­our-­food-­supply/ Richens J, Koehring M (2020) A sustainable ocean economy in 2030: opportunities and challenges. The Economist Group: World Ocean Initiative. https://woi.economist.com/ sustainable-­ocean-­economy-­2030/ Riedmiller S (2020) This challenge is likely to be harder than any before. MPA News (blog), 7 May. https://mpanews.openchannels. org/news/mpa-­news/mpas-­covid-­19-­and-­coming-­financial-­crisis-­­ what-­impacts-­are-­practitioners-­already Roberts T, Upham P (2012) Prospects for the use of macro-algae for fuel in Ireland and the UK: an overview of marine management issues. Mar Policy 36(5):1047–1053

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis Roberts CA, Newton RW, Bostock JC, Prescott SG, Honey DJ, Telfer TC, Walmsley SF et al (2015) A risk benefit analysis of mariculture as a means to reduce the impacts of terrestrial production of food and energy. Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum. https://dspace. stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/23422/1/232492-­618987.sarf106.pdf Rog SM, Clarke RH, Cook CN (2016) More than marine: revealing the critical importance of mangrove ecosystems for terrestrial vertebrates. Divers Distrib 23(2):221–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ddi.12514 Rolland RM, Parks SE, Hunt KE, Castellote M, Corkeron PJ, Nowacek DP, Wasser SK, Kraus SD (2012) Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci 279(1737):2363–2368. https:// doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429 Roncin N, Alban F, Charbonnel E, Crec’hriou R, de La Cruz Modino R, Culioli J-M, Dimech M et al (2008) Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: how much do they impact the local economy? A Southern Europe perspective. EconPapers. https://econpapers. repec.org/paper/haljournl/hal-­00353110.htm Runyon J (2020) The COVID-19 consequences for clean tech startups could be catastrophic for the Renewable Energy World, 22 April. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2020/04/22/the-­covid-­19-­ consequences-­for-­clean-­tech-­startups-­could-­be-­catastrophic-­for-­ the-­planet/#gref Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Woelm F (2020) The sustainable development goals and COVID-19: sustainable development report 2020. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Sala E, Costello C, Dougherty D, Heal G, Kelleher K, Murray JH, Rosenberg AA, Sumaila R (2013) A general business model for marine reserves. PloS One 8(4):e58799. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0058799 SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) (2017) Food from the oceans: how can more food and biomass be obtained oceans in a way that does not deprive future generations of their benefits? https://www.sapea.info/wp-­content/uploads/ FFOFINALREPORT-­1.pdf SARF (Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum) (2011) Carbon footprint of Scottish suspended mussels and intertidal oysters. http://www. sarf.org.uk/cms-­assets/documents/43896-­326804.sarf078 Satterthwaite D, Beard VA, Mitlin D, Du J (2019) Untreated and unsafe: solving the urban sanitation crisis in the global south. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.wri.org/ wri-­citiesforall/publication/untreated-­and-­unsafe Saumweber W, Lehr AK, Loft T (2020) Covid-19 at sea: impacts on the blue economy, ocean health, and ocean security. CSIS (blog), 10 April. https://www.csis.org/analysis/covid-­19-­sea-­impacts-­blue-­­ economy-­ocean-­health-­and-­ocean-­security Schwartz JZ, Andres LA, Dragoiu G (2009) Crisis in Latin America: infrastructure investment, employment and the expectations of stimulus. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers. https://doi. org/10.1596/1813-­9450-­5009 Scottish Enterprise (2016) Offshore wind. Oil and gas “Seize the Opportunity” guides. https://www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/ media/1116/sesdi-­oil-­and-­gas-­div-­guide-­offshore-­wind.pdf Seas at Risk (2019) The multi-issue mitigation potential of reducing ship speeds. https://seas-­at-­risk.org/images/pdf/publications/Multi_ issue_speed_report.pdf Serrano O, Kelleway JJ, Lovelock C, Lavery PS (2019) Conservation of blue carbon ecosystems for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In: Perillo GME, Wolanski E, Cahoun DR, Hopkinson CH (eds) Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp  965–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-­0-­444-­63893-­9.00028-­9 Sharma DC (2006) Ports in a storm. Environ Health Perspect 114(4):A222–A231

779 Skopljak N (2020) Australia’s first offshore wind project expands survey team. Offshore Wind (blog), 7 May. https://www.offshorewind. biz/2020/05/07/australias-­first-­o ffshore-­w ind-­p roject-­expands-­ survey-­team/ Sofiev M, Winebrake JJ, Johansson L, Carr EW, Prank M, Soares J, Vira J et  al (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nat Commun 9(1):406. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-­017-­02774-­9 Sotta C (2012) Documentary summary of the environmental impact of renewable marine energy. Marine Energy in Far Peripheral Island Communities (MERiFIC). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/merific-­321-­documentary-­summary-­environmental-­impact-­ renewable-­­marine-­energy Southgate PC, Kishore P, Sharma S, Simos T (2019) Empowering women through pearl industry-based livelihoods in Fiji. Women in Fisheries, no. 29. https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/ women-­in-­fisheries/492 Spalding M, Brumbaugh RD, Landis E (2016) Atlas of ocean wealth. The Nature Conservancy. https://oceanwealth.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2016/07/Atlas_of_Ocean_Wealth.pdf Statehouse (2020) Seychelles designates 30% of its EEZ as marine protected area. 26 March. http://www.statehouse.gov.sc/news/4787/ seychelles-­designates-­30-­of-­its-­eez-­as-­marine-­protected-­area SUBPESCA (2020a) SUBPESCA extiende hasta septiembre vigencia de permisos para más de 80 productores de choritos en Los Lagos. 11 May. http://www.subpesca.cl/sitioprensa/614/w3-­­ article-­107741.html SUBPESCA (2020b) Más de 500 pescadores de distintas regiones obtienen cupos para capturar reineta. 3 June. http://www.subpesca. cl/sitioprensa/614/w3-­article-­107852.html SUBPESCA (2020c) Apoyo frente a contingencia: Medida de SUBPESCA permite que pescadores sigan trabajando en casi 500 áreas de manejo. 11 June. http://www.subpesca.cl/sitioprensa/614/ w3-­article-­107899.html SUBPESCA (2020d) Apoyo a pescadores del Biobío: Desde un camión frigorífico hasta paneles solares para bajar gastos en electricidad. 3 July. http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/617/w3-­ article-­108043.html Suding K, Higgs E, Palmer M, Callicott J, Anderson C, Baker M, Gutrich J et al (2015) Conservation: committing to ecological restoration. Science 348(May):638–640. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4216 Sumaila RU (2020) COVID-19 is our chance to end harmful fishing subsidies. World Economic Forum. 19 May. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/covid-­19-­is-­a-­chance-­to-­end-­harmful-­ fishing-­subsidies-­heres-­why/ Sumaila RU, Ebrahim N, Schuhbauer A, Skerritt D, Li Y, Kim HS, Mallory TG et al (2019) Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Mar Policy 109(November):103695. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695 Sumaila UR, Zeller D, Hood L, Palomares MLD, Li Y, Pauly D (2020) Illicit trade in marine fish catch and its effects on ecosystems and people worldwide. Sci Adv 6(9):eaaz3801. https://doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.aaz3801 Suplicy FM (2018) A review of the multiple benefits of mussel farming. Rev Aquacult 12(1):204–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12313 Svaetichin I, Inkinen T (2017) Port waste management in the Baltic sea area: a four port study on the legal requirements, processes and collaboration. Sustainability 9(5):1–17 Tacon AGJ, Metian M (2008) Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285:146–158 Tegen S, Keyser D, Flores-Espino F, Miles J, Zammit D, Loomis D (2015) Offshore wind jobs and economic development impacts in the United States: four regional scenarios. Technical report.

780 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. https://www. nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/61315.pdf Teh LCL, Sumaila UR (2013) Contribution of marine fisheries to worldwide employment. Fish Fish 14(1):77–88. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2011.00450.x Tenenbaum L (2020) The amount of plastic waste is surging because of the coronavirus pandemic. Forbes, April. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauratenenbaum/2020/04/25/ plastic-­waste-­during-­the-­time-­of-­covid-­19/ Thande G (2018) Seychelles preserves swathes of marine territory in debt-for-nature deal. Reuters, 22 February. https://www.reuters. com/article/us-­seychelles-­environment-­idUSKCN1G61M5 The Fish Site (2020) Women set to bear the brunt of the COVID19 pandemic. 7 April. https://thefishsite.com/articles/ women-­set-­to-­bear-­the-­brunt-­of-­the-­covid-­19-­pandemic Thomson J (2020) Fisheries and oceans Canada pulls at-sea observers from fishing boats due to coronavirus pandemic. The Narwhal (blog), 8 April. https://thenarwhal.ca/fisheries-­oceans-­canada-­pulls-­ at-­sea-­observers-­fishing-­boats-­coronavirus-­covid-­19/ TNC (The Nature Conservancy) (2013) Building a case for green infrastructure. June. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/ how-we-work/working-with-companies/transforming-business-practices/building-a-case-for-green-infrastructure/ TNC (2020) Rebuilding Australia’s lost shellfish reefs. 1 June. https:// www.natureaustralia.org.au/what-­w e-­d o/our-­p riorities/oceans/ ocean-­stories/restoring-­shellfish-­reefs/ Torgler B, Bickley SJ, Macintyre A (2020) Sink or swim: the COVID19 impact on environmental health, fish levels and illicit maritime activity. Behav Social Sci Nat Res, 21 April. http://socialsciences. nature.com/users/376755-­benno-­torgler/posts/66594-­sink-­or-­swim-­ the-­c ovid-­1 9-­i mpact-­o n-­e nvironmental-­h ealth-­fish-­l evels-­a nd-­ illicit-­maritime-­activity Troell M, Joyce A, Chopin T, Neori A, Buschmann AH, JianGuang F (2009) Ecological engineering in aquaculture: potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297(1/4):1–9 UK Government (2016) Cutting red tape: review of the energy sector. 3 March. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ energy-­sector-­cutting-­red-­tape-­review UK Government (2020) New international commitment to improve seafarers’ rights. 9 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ new-­international-­commitment-­to-­improve-­seafarers-­rights UN (2020a) Shared responsibility, global solidarity: responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. https://www.un.org/sites/ un2.un.org/files/sg_report_socio-­economic_impact_of_covid19. pdf UN (2020b) COVID-19 and human rights: we are all in this together. Policy brief. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un_policy_ brief_on_human_rights_and_covid_23_april_2020.pdf UN (2020c) Innovation for a sustainable ocean amid the COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on Kenya’s marine and coastal environment. Blog, 8 June. https://www.un.org/en/un-­chronicle/innovation-­sustainable-­ ocean-­a mid-­c ovid-­1 9-­p andemic-­i mpacts-­kenya%E2%80%99s-­ marine-­and-­coastal UN DESA (2020a) Responses to the COVID-19 catastrophe could turn the tide on inequality. Policy brief no. 65, 1 May. https://www. un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-­desa-­policy-­brief-­ 65-­responses-­to-­the-­covid-­19-­catastrophe-­could-­turn-­the-­tide-­on-­inequality/ UN DESA (2020b) The COVID-19 pandemic puts small island developing economies in dire straits. Policy brief 64. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/dpad/wp-­content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ PB_64.pdf UN Water (2016) Water and Jobs: The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. https://www.unwater.org/publications/ world-­water-­development-­report-­2016/

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan Uña G, Allen R, Botton N (2019) How to design a financial management information system: a modular approach. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/ HowToNotes/HowToNote1903.ashx UNCTAD (2020a) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global FDI and GVCs: updated analysis. Investment Trends Monitor. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeiainf2020d3_en.pdf UNCTAD (2020b) The COVID-19 pandemic and the blue economy: new challenges and prospects for recovery and resilience. https:// unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2717 UNCTAD (2020c) Climate change impacts and adaptation for coastal transport infrastructure: a compilation of policies and practices. Transport and Trade Facilitation. https://sidsport-­climateadapt.unctad.org/compilation-­of-­practices/ UNDP (UN Development Programme) (2012) Transforming markets to restore and protect the global ocean. Vol. 1 of Catalysing Ocean Finance. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/ environment-­energy/water_governance/ocean_and_coastalareagovernance/catalysing-­ocean-­finance.html UNEP (UN Environment Programme), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), IMO (International Maritime Organization), UNDP (UN Development Programme), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), World Fish Center and GRID (Global Resource Information Database)-Arendal (2012) A green economy in a blue world. https://www.undp.org/content/ undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-­energy/water_governance/ ocean_and_coastalareagovernance/a-­green-­economy-­in-­a-­blue-­ world.html UNESCO (2009) Water in a changing world. United Nations world water development report 3. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ natural-­s ciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3-­2 009/ downloads-­wwdr3/ UNESCO (2020) COVID-19 and marine world heritage: a pathway for a resilient ocean. UNESCO World Heritage Centre (blog), 20 May. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2118/ UNGC (UN Global Compact) (2019) Sustainable ocean principles. https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/publications%2FSustai nable+Ocean+Principles.pdf UNGC (2020a) COVID-19 task force on geopolitical risks and responses. https://ungc-­communications-­assets.s3.amazonaws. com/docs/publications/Call-­To-­Action_Imminent-­Threats-­to-­the-­ Integrity-­of-­Global-­Supply-­Chains.pdf UNGC (2020b) Ocean stewardship 2030. https://unglobalcompact.org/ library/5742 UNGC (2020c) Over 150 global corporations urge world leaders for net-zero recovery from COVID-19. 18 May. https://unglobalcompact.org/news/4535-­05-­18-­2020 UNWTO (UN World Tourism Organization) (2019) Global report on women in tourism, 2nd edn. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420384 Valderrama D, Cai J, Hishamunda N (2013) Social and economic dimensions of Carrageenan seaweed farming. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper 580. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-­i3344e.pdf Value of Water Campaign (2017) The economic benefits of investing in water infrastructure. http://thevalueofwater.org/sites/default/files/ Economic%20Impact%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20 Infrastructure_VOW_FINAL_pages.pdf van der Schatte Olivier A, Jones L, Vay LL, Christie M, Wilson J, Malham SK (2020) A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aquaculture. Rev Aquacult 12(1):3–25. https://doi. org/10.1111/raq.12301 Veum K, Cameron L, Huerta Hernandes D, Korpaas M (2011) Roadmap to the deployment of offshore wind energy in the Central and Southern North Sea (2020–2030). July. http://inis.iaea.org/Search/ search.aspx?orig_q=RN:42093900 Victoria State Government (2020) Victorian Government Stimulus Package. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning,

19  A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis 10 July. https://www2.delwp.vic.gov.au/media-­centre/home/ delwp-­stimulus-­package Vivid Economics (2020) Green Stimulus Index. Finance for biodiversity initiative. https://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-­content/ uploads/2020/05/200518-­Stimulus-­Green-­Index-­v2_shared.pdf Vyawahare M (2020) COVID-19 will hurt Madagascar’s conservation funding: Q&A with Minister Vahinala Raharinirina. Mongabay Environmental News, 24 April. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/04/covid-­19-­will-­hurt-­madagascars-­conservation-­ funding-­­qa-­with-­minister-­vahinala-­raharinirina/ Waldron A, Adams V, Allan J, Arnell A, Asner G, Atkinson S, Baccini A et al (2020) Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications. https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/ files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf Weller RA, Baker DJ, Glackin MM, Roberts SJ, Schmitt RW, Twigg ES, Vimont DJ (2019) The challenge of sustaining ocean observations. Front Marine Sci 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00105 Wheatley J, England A, Politi J (2020) G20 agrees debt relief for low income nations. 15 April. https://www.ft.com/ content/5f296d54-­d29e-­4e87-­ae7d-­95ca6c0598d5 White C, Halpern BS, Kappel CV (2012) Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(12):4696–4701. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114215109 WHO (World Health Organization) (2012) Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to reach the MDG target and universal coverage. https://www.who.int/water_ sanitation_health/publications/2012/globalcosts.pdf Wilson C, Tisdell C (2003) Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies. Hum Dimens Wildl 8(1):49–58. https://doi. org/10.1080/10871200390180145 Winsemius HC, Jongman B, Veldkamp TIE, Hallegatte S, Bangalore M, Ward PJ (2018) Disaster risk, climate change, and poverty: assessing the global exposure of poor people to floods and droughts. Environ Dev Econ 23(3):328–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X17000444 Winther J-G, Dai M et  al (2020) Integrated ocean management. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. www.oceanpanel.org/ blue-­papers/integrated-­ocean-­management World Bank (2012) Hidden harvest: the global contribution of capture fisheries. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/ documents-­reports/documentdetail World Bank (2017) The Sunken billions revisited: progress and challenges in global marine fisheries. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24056 World Bank (2018) Seychelles launches world’s first sovereign blue bond. October. 10/29/seychelles-­launches-­worlds-­first-­sovereign-­blue-­bond World Bank (2020a) The economy in the time of Covid-19. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33555

781 World Bank (2020b) Earth Day 2020: Could COVID-19 be the tipping point for transport emissions? Feature story. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/04/22/earth-­day-­2020-­could-­covid-­­ 19-­be-­the-­tipping-­point-­for-­transport-­emissions World Maritime News (2020) Sea intelligence: COVID-19 impact pushes carriers’ revenue loss to USD 1.9 Bln. Offshore Energy (blog), 3 March. https://www.offshore-­energy.biz/sea-­intelligence-­ covid-­19-­impact-­pushes-­carriers-­revenue-­loss-­to-­usd-­1-­9-­bln/ WSC (World Shipping Council) (2020) Benefits of liner shipping. http://www.worldshipping.org/benefits-­of-­liner-­shipping/ efficiency WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) (2020) Recovery scenarios 2020 and economic impact from COVID-­19. https://wttc.org/ Research/Economic-­Impact/Recovery-­Scenarios-­2020-­EconomicImpact-from-­COVID-­19 WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) (2017) Wastewater, the Untapped Resource. United Nations World Water Development Report. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-­ sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2017-­w astewaterthe-­untapped-­resource/ WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2015) Marine protected areas: smart investments in ocean health. http://ocean.panda.org/media/ WWF_Marine_Protected_Areas_LR_SP.pdf WWF (2017) Remote electronic monitoring. https://www.wwf. org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-­1 0/Remote%20Electronic%20 Monitoring%20in%20UK%20Fisheries%20Management_WWF. pdf WWF (2018) The sustainable blue economy finance principles. 2 March. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/sustainable-­b lue-­e conomyfinance-­principles Xu X, Joyce R (2020) Sector shutdowns during the coronavirus crisis: which workers are most exposed? Institute for Fiscal Studies briefing note, 6 April. https://doi.org/10.1920/BN.IFS.2020.BN0278 Yara International (2019) Yara and ENGIE to test green hydrogen technology in fertilizer production. 13 February. https://www.yara.com/ news-­and-­media/news/archive/2019/yara-­and-­engie-­to-­test-­green-­ hydrogen-­technology-­in-­fertilizer-­production/ Zakai D, Chadwick-Furman NE (2002) Impacts of intensive recreational diving on reef corals at Eilat, Northern Red Sea. Biol Conserv 105(2):179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0006-­3207(01)00181-­1 Zarrilli S, Aydiner-Avsar N (2020) COVID-19 puts women working in SIDS tourism industry at risk. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (blog), 13 May. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2370 Zhang W, Wang R, Sun Z, Zhu X, Zhao Q, Zhang T, Cholewinski A et al (2020) Catechol-functionalized hydrogels: biomimetic design, adhesion mechanism, and biomedical applications. Chem Soc Rev 49(2):433–464. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9CS00285E

Open Access  This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

1 How to Use This Report This report can be read like a book, ‘cover to cover’—the reader will follow a narrative arc which balances hope and concern, present and future states, concrete examples and more abstract ideas. However, it is more probable that this report will be used like a readily accessible compendium of the latest scientific insights, frameworks and ideas that allow readers to find specific facts, messages or concepts and dive deeper on selected sections of the report. This report aims at answering three core questions: • WHY: Why do we need a sustainable ocean economy and why now? (Sect. 4) • WHAT: What would a sustainable ocean economy look like? What would be the main economic components and the interlinkages between them? What would be the benefits to expect for the economy, the people and the planet? (Sect. 5) • HOW: How should such a complex socioeconomic transition be apprehended? How should a 10-year transformation agenda be structured? How should we get started? (Sect. 6) Readers looking for arguments about the need for a sustainable ocean economy and reasons for hope about the possibility of one should read the Prologue and Sect. 4. Readers who want to understand what a sustainable ocean could look like in 2050, and the expected associated benefits, should read Sect. 5.

Originally published in: Stuchtey, M., A.  Vincent, A.  Merkl, M.  Bucher et  al. 2020. “Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. www.oceanpanel.org/ocean-­solutions. Reprint by Springer International Publishing (2023) with kind permission. Published under license from the World Research Institute.

20

Ocean practitioners already familiar with the concept of a sustainable ocean economy are invited to go straight to Sect. 6 to discover a fresh and practical approach to guide the transition to a sustainable ocean economy. In particular, Sect. 6.3 presents an ‘ocean action agenda’ that could be used as a handbook to help decision-makers structure their sustainable ocean economy program, be it at a state or a company level. This handbook identifies a number of key actions for each area of focus, covering both cross-cutting enablers and ocean-based sectors. Finally, Sect. 6.4 suggests some very concrete ideas that could be implemented immediately to start or accelerate the implementation of the more holistic, 10-year, ocean action agenda.

2 Executive Summary: The New Ocean Narrative Billions of people have personal connections to the ocean. For many people living in coastal communities, the ocean is not only a source of food and livelihoods, it is an intrinsic part of their culture and heritage. For the millions of people who earn their living from the ocean, it is a source of income and a way of life. For the 40% of the world’s population that live within 150 km of the coast and the hundreds of millions of others who visit it, the ocean is central to their lives.1 The ocean plays an essential and usually unrecognised role in the daily lives of all of the planet’s inhabitants. Indeed, breathing itself would be impossible without the ocean, which produces half of the earth’s oxygen.2

UN Atlas of the Oceans. n.d. “Human Settlements on the Coast.” http://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/114/. Accessed 13 August 2020. 2  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). n.d. “How Much Oxygen Comes from the Ocean?” https://oceanservice. noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html. Accessed 13 May 2020. 1 

© The Author(s) 2023 J. Lubchenco, P. M. Haugan (eds.), The Blue Compendium, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16277-0_20

783

784

The ocean is also an enormous economic asset. Around 90% of the world’s goods are traded across the ocean.3 Hundreds of millions of people work in fishing and mariculture, shipping and ports, tourism, offshore energy, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics—all of which rely on resources a healthy ocean can offer the ocean.4 By some estimates, the ocean economy directly contributes more than $1.5 trillion a year to the global economy.5 Putting a resource this critical at risk is reckless. But the world has not handled the ocean with care. Poor management has damaged many of the ocean’s assets and reduced the ocean’s natural ability to restore itself. Ocean health is on a downward spiral, preventing humanity from reaping the riches a healthy ocean could produce and jeopardising the future. The ocean is becoming warmer, more acidic, stormier, higher, more oxygen-depleted, less predictable and less resilient—and neither the problems it is facing nor the wealth it yields are distributed equitably. Climate change is disproportionately affecting vulnerable and marginalised people, many of whom depend on the ocean for nutrition, identity and income. As they battle a warming ocean and rising sea level, they increasingly face depleted and shifting fish stocks without the ability to change gear or travel further to fish or seek other sources of livelihood. For years, the overarching view was that the ocean is so vast that it is simply too big to fail. The folly of this approach is now evident. The new dominant narrative is that the problems are so complex that the ocean is simply too big to fix. This view is also incorrect. The ocean’s problems are real, but action is already taking place to solve them. A new way of thinking has immense potential to open the door to a sustainable ocean economy. This approach abandons the false choice between economic development and environmental protection. In contrast to a ‘conservation philosophy’ of minimising destruction or an ‘extractive approach’ of maximising the resources that can be extracted from the ocean, the new approach seeks to achieve the integration of the ‘three Ps’ of effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. This approach does not Olmer, N., B.  Comer, B.  Roy, X.  Mao and D.  Rutherford. 2017. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping, 2013–2015.” Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transport. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-­ emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf; International Chamber of Shipping. n.d. “Shipping and World Trade.” Accessed 18 August 2020. https://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/ shipping-and-world-trade. 4  Teh, L.C.L., and U.R.  Sumaila. 2013. “Contribution of Marine Fisheries to Worldwide Employment.” Fish and Fisheries 14 (1): 77–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00450.x. 5  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/environment/the-ocean-economy-in2030-­9789264251724-en.htm. 3 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

mean just leaving the ocean alone; it means proactively managing human activities to use the ocean wisely rather than using it up, in order to help build a much richer future in which people have more wealth and better health, nature thrives and resources are distributed more equitably. Realising the new vision requires an integrated, rather than a sectoral, approach that is based on five building blocks: • Using science and data to drive decision-making • Engaging in goal-oriented ocean planning • De-risking finance and using innovation to mobilise investment • Stopping land-based pollution • Changing ocean accounting so that it reflects the true value of the ocean Putting these building blocks in place would enable change across the entire ocean economy, not just in specific sectors or locations. Over time, sustainable ocean management could help the ocean produce as much as 6 times more food and generate 40 times more renewable energy than it currently does,6 contribute one-fifth of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to keep the world within the 1.5  °C temperature rise limit set by the Paris Agreement goals by 2050,7 help lift millions of people out of poverty, improve equity and gender balance, increase economic and environmental resilience, build the industries of the future and provide low-carbon fuel and feed for activities on land. Investments in a sustainable ocean economy are not just good for the ocean. They represent an excellent business proposition. Investing $2.8  trillion today in just four ­ocean-­based solutions—offshore wind production, sustainable ocean-based food production, decarbonisation of international shipping, and conservation and restoration of mangroves—would yield a net benefit of $15.5  trillion by 2050, a benefit-cost ratio of more than 5:1.8 The ocean is so vast, and its role in the global economy and the lives of the world’s people so fundamental, that it can be difficult to know where to start in creating a sustainable ocean economy. Fortunately, pragmatic solutions are already being implemented, albeit not at the scale needed. These Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/future-food-sea; IEA and ETP. 2017. “International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.” www.iea.org/etp2017. 7  Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/ HLP_Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf. 8  Konar, M., and H.  Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/Economicanalysis. 6 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

785

efforts could jump-start progress on a much larger scale, putting the world on a trajectory that would vastly increase prosperity in the coming decade and the longer term. These approaches embrace a philosophy in which stakeholders— including direct users of the ocean (fishers, shippers, energy producers and beach lovers, among others) as well as policymakers, governments, businesses and others—accept the new paradigm and work together to achieve the same goal of a healthy, productive ocean. Some of the most promising efforts include empowering communities and modifying incentives to align economic and conservation outcomes. In the Philippines, for example, a network has been created that grants fishing communities clear, exclusive rights to fish in certain areas. In communities that organised to manage ‘their’ fishing areas and protected zones, boats and fishers are registered, the catch is recorded, regulations are respected and fishers participate in management. By embracing sustainability, participating communities increased their food and financial security and gained access to new markets and sources of capital—improving their own well-being while protecting the ocean. Complementary global trends are also emerging. Open data networks are making it easier to track and detect illegal fishing vessels. Governments are starting to tackle plastic pollution, and financiers are starting to recognise the value of investing in the ocean. Practical solutions that can be implemented at a modest scale as well as high-level actions could create a sustainable ocean economy, underpinned by the three Ps of effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. Implementing them requires political will at all levels, including the very top. The ocean is not too big to fail, and it is not too big to fix. But it is too big to ignore. The more we learn about the ocean, the more we see that it is central to improving the health, wealth and well-being of people. It holds the answers to the most pressing challenges facing humanity, including climate change and food security. It is time to shift away from thinking of the ocean as a victim toward seeing it as an essential part of the solution to global challenges. New partnerships need to be forged that will take action now to achieve a sustainable ocean and a sustainable future. The choice is not between ocean protection and production. Together they can help build a healthy and prosperous future.

ginalised groups; and making the world a better place to live for all, even people living far from the ocean. A sustainable ocean economy is obviously important for the traditional ocean sectors, such as fisheries and shipping. But its value goes well beyond the lives of people whose income comes directly from the sea. Because of the interconnectedness of the global economy, what happens in the ocean affects not only fishers in Fiji but also farmers in Zimbabwe, whose imported tools may have travelled to Africa in a container ship and whose air quality and climate are affected by what happens in the ocean. The ocean provides a wide variety of vital benefits, many of which are often overlooked:

2.1 The Health, Wealth and Well-Being of the World and Its People Depend on the Ocean Maintaining a healthy ocean is vital to improving global health and increasing global prosperity for everyone; expanding opportunities for all people, including women and mar-

• It helps make the planet liveable and is critical to managing the effects of climate change. The ocean produces half of the planet’s oxygen, absorbs 93% of the world’s anthropogenic heat and moderates the earth’s temperature by reducing the heat differential between the poles and the Equator.9 Without the ocean’s regulation of the earth’s climate, much more carbon dioxide would be trapped in the atmosphere, exacerbating global climate change.10 • The global economy and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people depend on the ocean. The modern global economy could not exist without the ocean. Around 90% of all internationally traded goods travel by ship.11 The ocean economy directly contributes an estimated $1.5 trillion to the global economy.12 The ocean food sector alone provides up to 237  million jobs, including in fishing, mariculture and processing.13 Millions of people also work in other ocean sectors, including shipping, ports, energy and tourism—and many more are indirectly connected to the ocean economy. • The ocean provides billions of people with nutritious food, with a much smaller environmental footprint than land-based food production. More than three billion people rely on food from the sea as a source of proStocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels et al. 2013. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). n.d. “How Much Oxygen Comes from the Ocean?” https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ ocean-oxygen.html. Accessed 13 May 2020. 10  Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 11  Olmer, N., B.  Comer, B.  Roy, X.  Mao and D.  Rutherford. 2017. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping, 2013–2015”; International Chamber of Shipping. n.d. “Shipping and World Trade.” 12  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. 13  Teh, L.C.L., and U.R.  Sumaila. 2013. “Contribution of Marine Fisheries to Worldwide Employment.” 9 

786

tein and key nutrients, including omega-3 fatty acids and iodine.14 • Coastal habitats, such as mangroves, provide protection for hundreds of millions of people, nurture biodiversity, detoxify pollutants flowing off the land, and provide nursery areas for fisheries, increasing the supply of food and providing livelihoods. They are also a source of revenue. Coral reefs alone contribute $11.5 billion a year to global tourism, benefitting more than 100 countries and providing food and livelihoods to local people.15 • The ocean provides a sense of wonder, solace and connection to the natural world and is deeply woven into the cultural and spiritual lives of billions of coastal dwellers. It also gives pleasure to the hundreds of millions of people a year who visit it.16 • The ocean may store unknown treasures. In addition to its known benefits, it may be the home of undiscovered resources—including medical ones—and new knowledge.

2.2 Its Potential Is Enormous, But the Ocean Is in Trouble

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

top. Ocean warming affects circulation, stratification, oxygen content and sea level. By 2100, as many as 630  million people could be at risk of coastal flooding caused by climate change.17 Sea level rise also affects agriculture, by submerging land, salinising soil and groundwater, and eroding coasts. It will also erode and submerge tourism infrastructure and beaches. In the Caribbean, for example, sea level rise of 1 m is projected to endanger up to 60% of resorts, damage or cause the loss of 21 airports and severely flood 35 ports.18 Rebuilding the region’s resorts alone is projected to cost the Caribbean $10–$23 billion in 2050.19 • Habitats are being destroyed, biodiversity is declining and the distribution of species is changing—all of which reduce the benefits that ocean ecosystems provide. Coastal habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate. Global mangrove cover declined by 25–35% between 1980 and 2000, largely as a result of land development and conversion to unsustainable mariculture ponds and rice paddies.20 The loss of coastal habitats and coral reefs is eroding natural coastal protection, exposing 100–300  million people living within coastal 100-year flood zones to increased risk of floods and hurricanes.21 Kulp, S.A., and B.H.  Strauss. 2019. “New Elevation Data Triple Estimates of Global Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.” Nature Communications 10 (1): 4844. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z. 18  Pachauri, R.K., L.  Mayer and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. 2015. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_ SynthesisReport.pdf. 19  Nicholls, M. 2014. “Climate Change: Implications for Tourism: Key Findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.” University of Cambridge. https://www.cisl.cam. ac.uk/business-action/low-carbon-transformation/ipcc-climate-­ science-­business-briefings/pdfs/briefings/ipcc-ar5-implications-fortourism-­briefing-prin.pdf. 20  Polidoro, B.A., K.E. Carpenter, L. Collins, N.C. Duke, A.M. Ellison, J.C.  Ellison, E.J.  Farnsworth et  al. 2010. “The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern.” Edited by D.M.  Hansen. PLOS ONE 5 (4): e10095. doi: https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010095; Valiela, I., J.L.  Bowen and J.K.  York. 2001. “Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical Environments. At Least 35% of the Area of Mangrove Forests Has Been Lost in the Past Two Decades, Losses That Exceed Those for Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs, Two Other Well-­ Known Threatened Environments.” BioScience 51 (10): 807–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0 .CO;2; Thomas, N., R. Lucas, P. Bunting, A. Hardy, A. Rosenqvist and M. Simard. 2017. “Distribution and Drivers of Global Mangrove Forest Change, 1996–2010.” Edited by S.  Joseph. PLOS ONE 12 (6): e0179302. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179302. 21  Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 17 

Human stressors affect virtually the entire ocean, making it more difficult for the ocean to sustain human life on earth. Climate change, overfishing, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, excessive nutrient loads, pollution and other problems are damaging the ocean’s health. • Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are having multiple effects on the ocean. The ocean is becoming warmer and more acidic, putting pressure on plants and animals from the base of the ocean food web to the FAO, ed. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/ I9540EN/i9540en.pdf; World Health Organization. n.d. “3. Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends.” https://www.who. int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index2.html. Accessed 6 May 2020. 15  Masson-Delmotte, V., P.  Zhai, H.O.  Pörtner, D.  Roberts, J.  Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani et al., eds. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5  °C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/ SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf. 16  Allison, E., J.  Kurien and Y.  Ota. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/relationship-betweenhumans-and-their-ocean-planet. 14 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

787

Coral reefs—virtually all of which will be lost at 2 °C warming—are declining rapidly as a result of compounding pressures from rising ocean temperatures, overfishing and nutrient pollution.22 The biodiversity of the open ocean declined by up to 50% over the past 50 years,23 and the relative abundance of different species has shifted in favour of species that are more tolerant of low-oxygen conditions, such as microbes, jellyfish and some squid.24 • Plastic, other land-based pollutants and discharge from ships contaminate the ocean. Because of the common belief that ‘the solution to pollution is dilution’, the ocean has long been used as a repository for sewage, nutrient run-offs, heavy metals, nuclear waste, persistent toxicants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other noxious items. More than 80% of all marine pollution originates on land.25 Millions of metric tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean every year, entangling, sickening and contaminating at least 700 species of marine life.26 Untreated ballast water from ships is discharged into foreign ports, creating one of the principal vectors of potentially invasive alien species.27 • Overfishing is depleting fish stocks and harming wildlife. The ‘tragedy of the ocean commons’ open access that characterises fishing in many parts of the ocean means that too many boats pursue too few fish, at the expense of overall system health and productivity. Exacerbated by subsidies that increase the capacity of the fishing fleet and by illegal, unreported and unregulated

(IUU) fishing, fishing has become the number one driver of extinction risk for marine vertebrates (excluding birds).28 If overfishing continues, annual yield is projected to fall by over 16% by 2050, threatening global food security.29

Masson-Delmotte et al. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Worm, B., M.  Sandow, A.  Oschlies, H.K.  Lotze and R.A.  Myers. 2005. “Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans.” Science 309 (5739): 1365–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1113399. 24  Gaines, S., R. Cabral, C.M. Free, Y. Golbuu, R. Arnason, W. Battista, D. Bradley et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/expected-impacts-climatechange-ocean-economy. 25  Ocean Conservancy. n.d. Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean. https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2020. 26  Gall, S.C., and R.C.  Thompson. 2015. “The Impact of Debris on Marine Life.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 92 (1): 170–79. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041. 27  Global Environment Facility–UN Development Programme  – International Maritime Organization (GEF-UNDP-IMO) GloBallast Partnerships Programme and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2010. “Economic Assessments for Ballast Water Management: A Guideline.” GloBallast Monograph Series no. 19. London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland: GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Partnerships, IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/ documents/2010-075.pdf. 22  23 

A single stressor, such as overfishing or pollution, can do considerable damage. Worse still, individual stressors locally compound one another, with enormous consequences for ecosystems. Without action, these problems could cost the global economy more than $400 billion a year by 2050. By 2100, the annual cost could reach $2 trillion.30 Neglect and abuse of the ocean and the effects of global climate change will make life worse for everyone. But historically underrepresented and underserved communities— including women—will bear a disproportionately large share of the burden. These groups are most vulnerable to food insecurity, loss of livelihoods and sea level rise. They are also the most likely to suffer from the many crimes and human rights violations that take place on the ocean, including human trafficking and smuggling, slave labour and peonage (debt slavery) systems.

2.3 A New Relationship with the Ocean Is Needed: One That Creates a Healthy Ocean and a Sustainable Ocean Economy In contrast to a conservation philosophy of minimising destruction and an extractive approach that focuses on exploiting the ocean to create wealth, a sustainable ocean economy brings diverse stakeholders together to achieve common goals—the three Ps of effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity. In this new paradigm, groups work together by adopting integrated and balanced management of the ocean in which each of the three Ps contributes to the others. Sustainable production based on regenerative practices (such as climate-ready, ecosystem-based fisheries management or seaweed farming) along with fully protected areas, for example, can help Rogers, A., O.  Aburto-Oropeza, W.  Appeltans, J.  Assis, L.  T. Ballance, P. Cury, C. Duarte et al. 2020. “Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/criticalhabitats-and-biodiversity-inventory-thresholds-and-­governance. 29  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 30  Pörtner, H.O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, K.  Poloczanska, K.  Mintenbeck et  al., eds. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers.” In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf. 28 

788

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

restore ocean health. The result is a triple win for nature, people and the economy and a world where prosperity is greater and more equitably distributed than it is today (Fig. 20.1).

2.3.1 Protect Effectively Protecting the ocean doesn’t mean just leaving it alone—it means managing human activity wisely, in order to preserve biodiversity and critical habitats, allow the ocean to sustain-

Fig. 20.1  A sustainable ocean economy can create a triple win for people, nature and the economy. Note: MPAs: Marine protected areas. GHG: Greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: Authors, drawing on the following sources: OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https:// www.oecd.org/futures/Policy-­Note-­Ocean-­Economy.pdf; Konar, M., and H.  Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs.” Washington, DC: World

Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/Economicanalysis; Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/future-­food-­sea; Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­1 0/HLP_Report_ Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf)

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

789

ably yield greater benefits and preserve the ocean’s cultural and spiritual value. In some areas, significantly scaling back or prohibiting human activities will be necessary to allow ecosystems to recover and regenerate. In most areas, sustainable practices will be needed that both allow the ocean to produce and maintain ocean health. Far from holding back production, restoring and maintaining the ocean’s health represents the best way to generate ocean-based wealth and make the most of the ocean’s unique resources. This new way of thinking is also marked by a shift from incremental improvement to ecosystem-based integrated management and from a narrow focus on gross domestic product (GDP) alone to one that takes account of both the monetary and nonmonetary benefits and assets of the ocean.

boost the productivity of fisheries in areas surrounding MPAs through the spillover of fish.33

A Sustainable Ocean Economy Would Help Protect the Ocean by Reducing the Carbon Dioxide Emissions That Are Threatening It Ocean-based activities could provide one-fifth of the carbon mitigation needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals by 2050, reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4  billion  tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030 and up to 11 billion tonnes in 2050, according to research commissioned by the Ocean Panel.31 Emission reductions of this magnitude are equivalent to the annual emissions from 2.5 billion cars or all of the world’s coal-fired power plants. Protecting Coastal Habitats and the Ocean’s Biodiversity Would Help the Ocean Continue to Provide the Ecosystem Services Humanity Depends on A restored and protected ocean would help mitigate the impact of storm and sea level rise, saving lives and livelihoods, and would reduce economic costs of damage and recovery. Healthy coral reefs, for example, reduce wave energy by up to 97%, potentially protecting up to 100 million coastal inhabitants from storm risks.32 By reducing wave heights, mangroves reduce flooding of coastal areas and contribute to biodiversity. Marine protected areas (MPAs) that are fully protected from extractive and destructive activities can rebuild and safeguard biodiversity, mitigate climate change (by preventing emissions from the disturbance of sediment carbon by bottom trawling) and

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.” 32  Ferrario, F., M.W. Beck, C.D. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C.C. Shepard and L. Airoldi. 2014. “The Effectiveness of Coral Reefs for Coastal Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation.” Nature Communications 5(1): 3794. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4794. 31 

Protecting the Ocean from Pollution Could Catalyse Deeper Reform of Contaminating, Wasteful Material Management Practices on Land The problem of ocean pollution starts on land. Plastic— along with numerous other pollutants, including pharmaceuticals and excess nutrients—enters the ocean because systems for their proper disposal on land are inadequate. The most effective way of stopping pollutants from entering the ocean is to tackle the root causes of pollution on land. Shifting to a ‘circular economy’—a system in which resources are designed to be used continually and at their highest possible value added and recovered or regenerated as efficiently as possible at the end of their service—would yield enormous benefits for the ocean economy. Agricultural regulations aimed at reducing ocean dead zones could result in farmers adopting precision agriculture practices to reduce runoff, which would also improve the health of the soil and the quality of water in rivers and streams.

2.3.2 Produce Sustainably When the ocean is managed effectively, it can produce more and its production can be more sustainable. A shift to a sustainable ocean economy would increase food and energy production without putting extra pressure on marine ecosystems. The Volume of Food Production from the Ocean Could Soar, Helping Increase Food Security for Almost Ten Billion People in 2050 The ocean’s ability to sustainably produce food is vastly under-realised. Managed better and sustainably, the ocean could produce up to six times more food than it does today— and it could do so with a low environmental footprint.34 Most fishing today is not economically or ecologically optimised. Too many boats pursue too few fish in ways that are short-sighted and destructive. Too much seafood value is lost to poor handling. Too many non-target species are accidentally caught. If this approach continues, the yield in 2050 is expected to be around 16% lower than it is today.35 In contrast, if all stocks currently exploited were fished at the maximum sustainable economic yield, production could increase

da Silva, I.M., N.  Hill, H.  Shimadzu, A.M.V.M.  Soares and M.  Dornelas. 2015. “Spillover Effects of a Community-Managed Marine Reserve.” PLOS ONE 10 (4): e0111774. doi: https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111774. 34  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 35  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 33 

790

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

by 20% over current production levels and by 40% over the catch forecast under a business-as-usual scenario.36 The mariculture story is even more promising. The potential to expand finfish mariculture is significant if farms avoid adversely affecting surrounding ecosystems and use fish feed that is not made from wild caught fish. Unfed mariculture also holds great promise. Bivalves (such as oysters and mussels) and seaweed can substantially increase the production of nutritious food and feed, with little negative impact on the marine environment. In some cases, this kind of mariculture could actually enhance wild fisheries by creating artificial habitats and nursery grounds for fish. About 35% of fish and seafood is currently wasted in the value chain. Reducing this wastage could boost consumption without increasing production.37

The Ocean Can Provide a Virtually Limitless Supply of Clean, Renewable Energy Offshore wind turbines could generate 23 times more power than the present total global electricity consumption.38 Other potential sources of ocean-based renewable energy—producing energy from waves and tides, salinity and temperature gradients, and floating solar photovoltaic panels, for example—are still in their infancy but hold promise.

Fig. 20.2  Sustainable ocean-based interventions have very high benefit–cost ratios and could yield trillions of dollars of benefits. Note: Average benefit-cost (B-C) ratios have been rounded to the nearest integer and the net benefits value to the first decimal place. The B-C ratio for mangroves is the combined ratio for both conservation- and restoration-­based interventions. The average net benefits represent the

average net present value for investments and are calculated over a 30-year horizon (2020–2050). (Source: Konar, M., and H. Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/Economicanalysis)

Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” FAO. 2017. “FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia: Losses in Fisheries and Aquaculture Tackled at Global Fishery Forum.” 14 September. http://www.fao.org/europe/news/detail-news/ en/c/1037271/.

Investments in the Ocean Are Highly Cost-Effective Investment of $2.8 trillion today in four sustainable ocean-­ based solutions—conservation and restoration of mangroves, decarbonisation of international shipping, sustainable ocean-­ based food production and offshore wind production— would yield net benefits of $15.5 trillion by 2050.39 All four interventions have high benefit-cost ratios (Fig. 20.2).

36  37 

IEA. n.d. “Data & Statistics”; Haugan et  al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 39  Konar and Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050.” 38 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

791

2.3.3 Prosper Equitably Left unmanaged, a growing ocean economy could exacerbate economic inequality, as strong, elite incumbents capture the benefits of the ocean while vulnerable and marginalised groups become increasingly exposed to economic, social and cultural impacts, including displacement. Inequality is a structural feature of the current ocean economy. Women, for example, represent just 2% of the world’s formal maritime workers.40 Poor, vulnerable and marginal communities are bearing—and will continue to bear—the worst effects of global climate change. A sustainable ocean economy would not only create greater wealth, it would also create a world in which resources are distributed more evenly and where all ocean users have an opportunity to have a voice in critical decisions.

mass and size of the target species has risen.42 Similar approaches have met with great success in many fisheries, recovering depleted fisheries and enabling them to thrive.43

A Sustainable Ocean Economy Would Create New and Better Jobs By some estimates, it could create 12  million net jobs.41 Some sectors, particularly fisheries, will need to shed jobs. Support schemes will be needed to manage the transition to lower capacity and more sustainable management of fish stocks. Other sectors will grow significantly. Thousands of new jobs will be created in engineering, information technology, applied science and related areas. The number of jobs in mariculture and offshore wind is projected to soar, and the increase in seaborne cargo volume and the expansion of ports are expected to create millions of jobs. Decarbonising shipping will be critical to ensure that this expansion does not come at the cost of the ocean’s health. The New Agenda Would Empower Local Fishers The yields of millions of artisanal fishers are far lower than they used to be, partly because of the open-access model of much of the ocean, which has resulted in overfishing. A better-­managed approach would benefit many of them. Empowering fishers by granting them access rights in exchange for sustainably managing their resource is one of the levers of the sustainable ocean economy. Doing so has already proven effective. In the territorial use rights fisheries (TURFs) that Chile created, for example, catches by artisanal fisheries have surpassed industrial catches, and the bio-

IMO. n.d. “Women in Maritime: IMO’s Gender Programme.” http:// w w w. i m o . o rg / e n / O u r Wo r k / Te c h n i c a l C o o p e r a t i o n / P a g e s / WomenInMaritime.aspx. Accessed 11 May 2020. 41  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https://www.oecd.org/ futures/Policy-Note-Ocean-Economy.pdf. 40 

International Collaboration and Transparent Supply Chains Could Significantly Reduce Maritime Crime IUU fishing is estimated to account for 20% of the world’s catch (up to 50% in some areas).44 Illegal fishing is also often an indicator of other types of crime at sea, including labour and human rights violations, money laundering and tax fraud. Acting Sustainably Would Help Preserve the Cultural Importance of the Ocean The ocean is more than just a source of economic wealth. It also has spiritual, cultural and recreational value to billions of people.45 For many Indigenous peoples, it is a key aspect of their culture. Well-designed marine protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures can help preserve pristine ocean areas and culturally important ocean areas (such as sacred sites, historic wrecks and sea graves).

2.3.4 The Ocean Should Be a Key Part of the Massive Global Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Contraction COVID-19 has temporarily halted economic activity in the ocean economy, causing significant income and revenue losses to tourism, fisheries and mariculture, and shipping; adversely affecting the ocean’s health; and exacerbating gender and income inequalities. The disruptions have led to cascading and interrelated impacts. The decline in tourism, for example, forced some communities to turn back to unsustainable fishing as a food source, putting pressure on coastal fisheries and reefs.

Swilling, M., M. Ruckelshaus, T.B. Rudolph, P. Mbatha, E. Allison, S. Gelcich and H. Österblom. 2020. “The Ocean Transition: What to Learn from System Transitions.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/ocean-transitionwhat-learn-system-transitions. 43  Costello, C., D.  Ovando, T.  Clavelle, C.K.  Strauss, R.  Hilborn, M.C. Melnychuk, T.A. Branch et al. 2016. “Global Fishery Prospects under Contrasting Management Regimes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (18): 5125–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1520420113. 44  Widjaja, S., T. Long, H. Wirajuda, A. Gusman, S. Juwana, T. Ruchimat and C. Wilcox. 2020. “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/HLP%20Blue%20 Paper%20on%20IUU%20Fishing%20and%20Associated%20Drivers. pdf; Witbooi et al. 2020. “Organized Crime in the Fisheries Sector.” 45  Inniss, L., A.  Simcock, A.Y.  Ajawin, A.C.  Alcala, P.  Bernal, H.P. Calumpong, P.E. Araghi et al. 2016. “The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment.” New York: United Nations. https://www.un.org/ Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/WOACompilation.pdf. 42 

792

A key objective of the massive recovery from the COVID contraction will be to restore economic activity without simply restoring old patterns of environmental degradation, instead creating a more sustainable and more resilient future. The ocean economy can play a critical role in this process. Investment in five areas—coastal and marine ecosystem restoration and protection, sewage and waste infrastructure, sustainable unfed mariculture, zero-emission marine transport and sustainable ocean-based renewable energy—could create jobs and spur economic growth in the immediate term.46 Investments made over the coming months and years will have long-term effects on the nature of the world’s economies and their resilience to shocks. Efforts must be made now to avoid locking in high-emitting, high-polluting and inequitable pathways and locking out regenerative and sustainable futures. The opportunity to reset and rebuild a stronger, more equitable, more resilient and sustainable ocean economy should not be missed.

2.4 The Challenges Are Great, But a Pragmatic Action Agenda Offers Solutions to Meet Them A world in which effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity go hand in hand is possible. But it will not happen if business as usual continues. Without action, ocean planning will continue to be largely ad hoc, fish stocks will continue to decline and land-based polluters will continue to use the ocean as a liquid dump. Political and business decisions made now and over the next 30 years could change this trajectory. With action, more systematic, ecosystem-based, inclusive spatial planning would become the norm. Access rights for specific ocean resources would be clarified, eliminating conflicts over resources and ensuring that the wealth of the ocean is equitably distributed. Wild fish stocks would recover, and significant increases in sustainable mariculture would provide nutritious food for billions of people, ensuring food security. Polluters would be subject to legal and political actions that would limit their ability to pollute the ocean.

2.4.1 Maintaining a Healthy Ocean Will Require Action on Many Fronts and Across Multiple Sectors Delivering effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity is an inspiring and feasible vision that is backed by science. The transition to a sustainable ocean Northrop, E., M.  Konar, N.  Frost and E.  Hollaway. 2020. “A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 46 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

economy will require a realignment of incentives, in-depth reforms of how the ocean is used and managed, and the empowerment of ocean users who are vested in enhancing ocean health. Governments and businesses can take hundreds of sector-­ specific actions to improve ocean sectors, from supporting ocean-based renewable energy to create jobs in the wake of the COVID-19 contraction to supporting ecotourism and banning pollutants. These efforts are important, but without getting the fundamentals right, it will not be possible to transform the entire ocean system towards the desired sustainable model. Five building blocks can set the foundation for a sustainable ocean economy (Fig. 20.3). These building blocks put the conditions in place for wider change across various ocean sectors. With these foundations in place, sector-­ specific reforms, innovations and research can be implemented and accelerated. Using Data to Drive Decision-Making Technologies for sensing, simulating, forecasting, tracking, managing and sharing data on open-access platforms have the potential to transform the ocean economy. New technologies can be used to register ocean-related rights and contracts, facilitating rights-based management.47 Product tracking throughout the supply chain can help brands embrace sustainable practices and small producers connect to global supply chains. Applications can help manage fishing areas and quotas, adjust shipping traffic and avoid endangered species bycatch. In the near future, every ship’s journey—and the nature of its business at sea—will be public information. Lawbreakers such as illegal fishers, polluters, smugglers and labour law violators will literally be on the public radar and subject to arrest. Some of these technologies are already being used on a limited scale. The POSEIDON model, for example, ­simulates the feedback loop between fishery policies, fishing fleets and ocean ecosystems, allowing policy alternatives to be compared.48 But barriers stand in the way of fully harnessing the power of science and data. Collecting data is very expensive, with most sensors custom-built for narrow and specific scientific

Nyborg, K., J.M.  Anderies, A.  Dannenberg, T.  Lindahl, C.  Schill, M.  Schlüter, W.N.  Adger et  al. 2016. “Social Norms as Solutions.” Science 354 (6308): 42–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aaf8317; Leape et  al. 2020. “Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources.” 48  Bailey, R.M., E.  Carrella, R.  Axtell, M.G.  Burgess, R.B.  Cabral, M.  Drexler, C.  Dorsett et  al. 2019. “A Computational Approach to Managing Coupled Human-Environmental Systems: The POSEIDON Model of Ocean Fisheries.” Sustainability Science 14 (2): 259–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0579-9. 47 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

793

Fig. 20.3  Five building blocks are key to creating a sustainable ocean economy. (Source: Authors)

missions.49 Technological innovation in the ocean has therefore been driven largely by governments and large-scale commercial interests. Data are fragmented into national, corporate and academic domains. Access to data is limited, and data can be difficult to use. Tools designed for marine managers, for example, are often so technical that only programmers are able to use them. Poorer countries and ocean users have little or no access to data that could help them adopt sustainable practices.

Key Actions

Overcoming these and other barriers requires the creation of global data networks that provide broad and automated access to ocean data. Governments can lead the way by mandating these standards and helping create data networks that aggregate decentralised data into a common, searchable database. They can require

OECD. 2019. Rethinking Innovation for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311053-en. 49 

that data sharing be a non-negotiable condition of access to public resources—whether the resources are fish stocks and mineral deposits or funds for coastal management or for research. To achieve or improve accountability, governments can prioritise technology-­ forcing regulations governing the real-time monitoring of fishing, seafood imports, shipping emissions, mining, coastal development and pollution.

Engaging in Goal-Oriented Ocean Planning The sector-by-sector assortment of regulations for some ocean activities, coupled with an open-access model for others has contributed significantly to today’s decline in ocean health and cannot continue. The shortcomings of the system are evident. Open-access fisheries almost always fail.50 Uncoordinated ocean development creates operational ­inefficiencies, conflicts over use and environmental degradation that undermines future productivity. Unrestricted industrial, nutrient and carbon-related pollution is changing the

Costello, C., S.D. Gaines and J. Lynham. 2008. “Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?” Science 321 (5896): 1678–81. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.1159478. 50 

794

ocean’s chemistry and affecting its biology and economic potential. Given the interconnectedness of the ocean’s sectors, it does not make sense to manage them separately. Ecosystem-­ based management, science-based marine spatial planning and integrated ocean management are tools that can be used to facilitate more systematic and equitable management of the ocean’s resources and services. Some locales are already using ecosystem-based management tools that are science-­ based and grounded in broad stakeholder engagement and focus on achieving a healthy and resilient ocean ecosystem—with excellent results. Xiamen, China, for example, has seen a 40% improvement in socioeconomic benefits from its marine sectors since it adopted integrated ocean management in 1994.51 A variety of barriers has held back the widespread uptake of goal-oriented planning. Standards and practices for planning, accountability, transparency and legal rights or protections in the ocean remain a century or more behind their land-based equivalents—partly because businesses fear that integrated planning is a way for conservationists to pursue an antibusiness agenda. Top-down planning processes have failed to engage all users, resulting in inefficient processes and a lack of buy-in and implementation. To be successful, ocean plans must find a balance between the requirements of different ocean users, between the needs of the ocean and the needs of the coast and its people. Growing evidence from countries in which integrated ocean planning has been used shows how the agendas of ecosystem health, food and energy security, local prosperity and coastal protection can reinforce one another. Scientific and local knowledge are key to understanding co-benefits and navigating the trade-offs. Ocean planning needs to provide inclusive, equitable access by and recognition of local communities. Local fishers must have access to traditional fishing grounds, cultural sites must be protected and viewsheds must be preserved. Representatives of all types of ocean users must be involved in planning. Resource owners, lessees and access holders must be given secure titling and reliable and effective legal recourse against polluters, trespassers and other violators.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

tion, using a process that is science-based, inclusive, participatory and adapted to the local context. Doing so is crucial to balancing protection and production and ensuring equitable access and rights for local users.

De-risking Finance and Using Innovation to Mobilise Investment Current investment in sustainable ocean industries, biodiversity and conservation is grossly inadequate. It needs to quadruple to restore and sustainably maintain ocean health.52 Investment is limited for a variety of reasons. The fact that externalities such as the effects of ocean sector activities on global climate change, pollution and human rights are not reflected in the prices producers receive means that ecologically unsustainable businesses can thrive. Harmful subsidies—typically supporting the expansion of large-scale industrial fishing fleets and fossil-fuel extraction—distort the ocean economy. In some cases, investing in sustainability is a long-term proposition. Rebuilding fish stocks and fishing sustainably can make business sense in the long run, for example, but can be costly in the short to medium run. As a result, opportunities are missed. Governments could help solve the problem by providing resources to mitigate transition challenges—by, for example, repurposing subsidies and implementing fishery reforms that prevent overfishing and help ensure a strong return on investment. Key Actions

Countries that establish sustainable ocean development as a national priority can hope to attract investment from sovereign wealth funds and development finance institutions. Through their own and other public or philanthropic funding sources, private investment capital can be de-risked, catalysing private investment in novel industries and business models like sustainable fisheries (reforms), or MPAs financed by tourism fees. This bending of public and private capital can be especially catalytic in increasing investments in developing nations. Governments can also help stimulate the pipeline of sustainable ventures and projects by providing grants or other forms of support to early-stage innovation, as Norway has done to support next-generation

Key Actions

To ensure that goal-orientated planning becomes a reality, countries should establish, fund and implement ocean plans for 100% of the areas under their jurisdic-

Sumaila, U.R., C.M. Rodriguez, M. Schultz, R. Sharma, T.D. Tyrrell, H.  Masundire, A.  Damodaran et  al. 2017. “Investments to Reverse Biodiversity Loss Are Economically Beneficial.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 29 (December): 82–88. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.007. 52 

Peng, B., H. Hong, X. Xue and D. Jin. 2006. “On the Measurement of Socioeconomic Benefits of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM): Application to Xiamen, China.” Ocean & Coastal Management 49 (3): 93–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.02.002. 51 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

offshore aquaculture and the European Union has done to support offshore wind generation. In the offshore energy sector, governments could support renewable energy by providing low-cost infrastructure, setting feed-in tariffs and providing subsidies for sustainable activities. They could also reduce risk—by ensuring regulatory certainty, providing insurance and providing offtake/demand guarantees, particularly for capitalintensive offshore investments such as wind energy and large-scale mariculture.

Stopping Land-Based Pollution Virtually every pollutant present on land is also present in the ocean, with compounding and significant deleterious impacts on ecosystem health. Plastics, nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), pesticides and parasiticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, oil and gas, heavy metals, toxins, medical waste, e-waste and other types of debris are diverted to the ocean with very few financial consequences for the polluter. These materials end up in the ocean because waste management and sewerage infrastructure in many countries, especially Asia and Africa, are inadequate. Waste collection is largely unprofitable because few consumer products are recyclable. Addressing the ocean pollution challenge has been complicated by the difficulties of attribution (many pollutants come from more than one source) and the overwhelming asymmetry of the situation: When heavily protected land-­ based private interests clash with the interest of a weakly defended common pool resource like the ocean, the ocean loses. A growing number of governments and industries are taking action. Measures such as banning plastic bags are welcome, but their effect will be insufficient. Current commitments on plastics, for example, are likely to reduce annual plastic leakage into the ocean by only 7% by 2040.53

Key Actions

To stop the leakage of plastics into the ocean, a diverse and more ambitious set of solutions is needed that includes reducing unnecessary plastics, recycling materials and safely disposing of waste. Recycled materials must become cheaper than virgin plastic. Companies must be held accountable for how much

Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution”; Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave. 53 

795

plastic they use and whether they use recycled content, recyclable product designs and plastic substitutes. Massive investment must be made in waste collection and recycling technology and infrastructure, particularly in developing countries, where such infrastructure is weak. Tackling the underlying cause could also help reduce other pollutants. Adopting precision agriculture on land could help reduce nutrient runoff into the ocean, for example.

Changing Ocean Accounting So That It Reflects the True Value of the Ocean Traditional measures of the economy, such as GDP, ignore externalities, such as the effect of production on pollution or global climate change. They also fail to place a value on natural resources and ignore the way benefits are distributed. Measuring only the GDP generated by ocean-based sectors does not capture the true value of the ocean—and can reward unsustainable practices. The ocean’s broader value must be fully accounted for and used in decision-making, based on a holistic set of metrics that includes measurements of infrastructure assets, such as ports; natural assets, such as fish populations and coral reefs; and indicators of benefits to people, such as measures of income and well-being.

Key Actions

To measure the value of the ocean more accurately, national statistical offices, in partnership with other agencies, need to develop complete sets of national ocean accounts. Interactive dashboards should be created to allow users to explore the data by aggregating and disaggregating sectors and groups of people.

Having these five building blocks in place will enable change in key ocean economy sectors such as sustainable food from the ocean, renewable energy from the ocean and sustainable tourism. These sectors will also need targeted and sector-specific actions in terms of policies, technology and finance innovation, and scientific research, but having these building blocks in place will set governments and other stakeholders on the right path and lay the groundwork for the achievement of a prosperous and sustainable ocean economy.

796

2.4.2 This New Way of Thinking About and Managing the Ocean Is Gaining Traction The ocean is moving up the policy agenda. Coastal countries, especially small island states, are advocating for socially equitable and environmentally sustainable growth. Civil society is increasingly recognising the decline in the ocean and favouring government action to protect the ocean. The action agenda is ambitious but entirely feasible. Progress in building the foundations for change is already evident: • The data revolution has begun. Sensors and satellites are increasingly being deployed to monitor the ocean. Data on invasive species in bilge water and nutrients in river deltas, for example, provide actionable information in near real time—the holy grail of adaptive management. Sound fishery management digital tools, including vessel tracking, fishery simulation, and registry and enforcement systems, are widely available. • Several regions have replaced siloed management practices with more integrated marine spatial planning. For example, the Baltic Sea states have coordinated across borders and sectors to implement a science-based planning strategy and have been rewarded with the return of predators and birds as well as restored fish stocks.54 • Sustainable ocean investments are on the rise. In a recent survey, 72% of investors classified the sustainable ocean economy as investable.55 Thousands of sustainable ocean ventures are emerging across all continents. • Together, the United States, Europe and Asia adopted 95 policies and pieces of legislation limiting plastic packaging between 2010 and 2019. • A growing number of countries are adopting more holistic accounting techniques. China, for example, is using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to steer its transition towards inclusive, green growth.56 Similar trends can be observed at the ocean sector level. Backed by industry, support is growing for green shipping, the development of new technologies and practices that reduce the impact of mariculture on ecosystems, and community-led programs restoring fish stocks, to name just a few Reusch, T.B.H., J.  Dierking, H.C.  Andersson, E.  Bonsdorff, J. Carstensen, M. Casini, M. Czajkowski et al. 2018. “The Baltic Sea as a Time Machine for the Future Coastal Ocean.” Science Advances 4(5): eaar8195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8195. 55  Responsible Investor Research and Credit Suisse. 2020. Investors and the Blue Economy. https://www.esg-data.com/reports. 56  Ouyang, Z., C.  Song, H.  Zheng, S.  Polasky, Y.  Xiao, I.  Bateman, J.  Liu et  al. 2020. “Using Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) to Value Nature in Decision-Making.” https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/ handle/10871/120272. 54 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

emerging changes. Inspiring success stories, such as the reform of fisheries in the United States, demonstrate that sound ocean management can simultaneously restore fish stocks and benefit fishers and coastal communities.57 To achieve a sustainable ocean economy, change needs to happen faster and at a bigger scale than is currently happening. Actions at the local and national level can help accelerate change.

2.4.3 Targeted Actions Can Help Accelerate Progress The huge scale of the challenge and the high stakes involved mean that acting quickly and effectively is crucial. Delivering immediate gains can help demonstrate the long-term benefits of pursuing a sustainable ocean economy, spurring stakeholders to take action. Creating sustainable ocean economic zones and forming national task forces are concrete actions than can move the agenda forward right away. Sustainable Ocean Economic Zones Can Illustrate the Benefits of a Sustainable Ocean Economy at a Small Scale Special economic zones (SEZs) are areas within a country that the government sets aside to attract direct investment in particular economic activities. These zones typically offer low rents, taxes, utilities and infrastructure costs; relief from bureaucratic procedures; and loan guarantees to market-rate investors. They range in size from small neighbourhood zones to entire cities. Taking inspiration from the success of the SEZ concept in a country’s exclusive economic zone (the ocean zone over which a coastal state has special rights with respect to marine resources) could be a powerful catalyst for accelerating a sustainable ocean economy. Sustainable ocean economic zones (SOEZs) could provide a test bed for systemic experimentation and innovation, where incentives could be tested, results monitored and adapted to, and risks managed. In the process of designing and implementing these zones, the classic hurdles to ocean management—free access, lack of planning, conflicts over use and externalities—can be addressed in the context of real business, rather than as abstract policy. SOEZs are a way for countries to support and evaluate the sustainable ocean economy model at a scale they are comfortable with. Biological conditions, existing industries and stakeholders, and local needs determine which activities take place in an SOEZ (Fig. 20.4). One locale might use a SOEZ to attract and test high-technology models combining energy

Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Earthjustice, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and Pew Charitable Trusts. 2018. “How the Magnuson-Stevens Act Is Helping Rebuild U.S.  Fisheries.” https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/magnuson-­ stevens-­act-rebuild-us-fisheries-fs.pdf. 57 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

Fig. 20.4  Sustainable ocean economic zones can be test beds for experimentation and innovation. (Source: Authors)

797

798

generation, shipping and large-scale mariculture. Another might combine carbon-financed restoration, coastal protection, tourism and fishery enhancement. Whatever activities take place within the zone, all SOEZs share several common elements. The entire zone is managed according to a plan, a dense networks of sensors allows scientific monitoring of the zone and efforts are made to ensure that benefits are redistributed equitably to communities and women. National Ocean Task Forces Can Accelerate the Shift Towards a Sustainable Ocean Economy Establishment of a sustainable ocean task force at the (ocean) ministerial or head of state level with a mandate to adapt the sustainable ocean agenda to the national context could accelerate change. Such a task force could perform several important functions: • Conduct a comprehensive marine resource mapping of 100% of the country’s exclusive economic zone. • Support and facilitate an inclusive, participatory process to develop a plan that ensures a streamlined and efficient regulatory process, avoids conflicts over spatial use and protects and sustains key oceanic systems. • Bring together relevant ministries and the head of state on the steps required to accelerate the transition towards a sustainable ocean economy, including financial guarantees and risk-reduction measures, policy and regulations, and international coordination. • In coordination with relevant organisations, academic institutions and civil society groups, lead special initiatives, such as the design of networks of marine protected areas and SOEZs and efforts to control land-based pollutants. National task forces can be a way to highlight the relevance of the ocean economy to national priorities like food security, international trade and tourism.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

2.5 The Ocean Is Not Too Big to Fail, and It Is Not Too Big to Fix, But It Is Too Big and Too Central to the Planet’s Future to Ignore Effective ocean protection, sustainable ocean production and equitable human prosperity are inseparable and compatible. When integrated into a sustainable ocean economy, they can change the current downward trajectory of ocean health, producing positive outcomes for people and nature. Setting the foundations within which the three Ps can be achieved and transforming key ocean sectors will not be easy, but it can be done. Doing so would vastly increase the resilience of the global economy and improve the lives of some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Indeed, creating a sustainable ocean economy would help the world meet all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), not just SDG 14 (on life below water) (Fig. 20.5). Current practices, laws and cultural norms help support the open-access model that characterises much of the ocean. All of them can change. History shows that even very complex systems can shift onto new trajectories, sometimes very quickly. The energy transition in Germany, the banning of smoking in bars and restaurants in much of the world, and the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone layer are all examples of changes that required major shifts in attitudes and laws that occurred within the space of a few years. This kind of change can and must take place among stakeholders in the ocean economy. Spearheaded by a new cohort of ocean interests deeply vested in ocean health—sustainable fishers and mariculturists, coastal communities, renewable energy generators, ecotourism operators, scientists, environmentalists, social and civil society organisations— pollution and over-exploitation can be counteracted. The journey towards a sustainable future has already begun, with pioneers leading the way. New sustainable technologies are attracting investors, and businesses and govern-

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

799

Fig. 20.5  A healthy ocean is critical to meeting the sustainable development goals. Note: Regarding SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), the link to the ocean can be made through desalination plants. Regarding SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals), the ocean provides excellent plat-

forms for collaboration. Peaceful ocean science collaboration, for example, has been important for diplomatic relations (e.g. U.S.-Soviet Gulf Stream experiments in the 1960s). (Source: Authors)

800

ments are waking up to the opportunities of a sustainable ocean economy in building a new future after COVID-19. They are also increasingly recognising the risks and cost of inaction. Inspiring efforts from around the world provide a glimpse of what can be achieved globally if stakeholders act now.

3 Prologue: Five Sustainable Ocean Economy Stories What does a sustainable ocean economy look like? Before exploring the rationale, benefits and practicalities of the concept, let’s travel to five inspiring places (Fig. 20.6). The first destination is Gazi-Kwale County, Kenya, where a community-based organisation sells blue carbon credits from rebuilding its mangrove forest. The second stop is the Philippines, where a comprehensive approach used with 400 fishing communities helps meet the triple objective of food security, ocean protection and community prosperity. Then on to Europe, where the Medes Islands Marine Reserve in Catalonia, Spain, regenerates ocean biomass, supporting thriving ecotourism and, through spillover effects, sustain-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

able fisheries. Across the Atlantic, on the U.S. East Coast, GreenWave works with fishers and coastal communities to launch regenerative ocean farms which combine seaweed and shellfish production. The final stop is the North Sea, where the Zero Emission Energy Distribution at Sea (ZEEDS) initiative aims to create a revolutionary zero-carbon fuelling system for ships, enabled by offshore wind production. This is a voyage of discoveries, and at some stops the results are not yet proved or fully backed by scientific assessments. But they are ideas, ones that illustrate a range of possibilities happening right now; they demonstrate inspiring innovations with the promise of a sustainable ocean economy. Figure  20.6 (and the report cover) maps this voyage on a representation of Earth inspired by the work of South African oceanographer Athelstan Spilhaus. This projection emphasises that there is one interconnected ocean.

3.1 Stop 1: Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya Mikoko Pamoja, meaning ‘mangroves together’ in Kiswahili, perfectly describes the community-based blue carbon credit

Fig. 20.6  Five sustainable ocean economy stories. Design inspired by Athelstan Spilhaus, Atlas of the World, Geophysical Boundaries, Map XIIIA: “World Ocean Map in a square”, conformal, poles in South America and China, 1979. (Source: Authors)

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

801

Fig. 20.7  Mikoko Pamoja at work. Note: (top left) Gazi Bay in Kwale County, (bottom left) GRID-Arendal & the Mikoko Pamoja committee members, (top right) Community water project founded by Mikoko

Pamoja, (bottom right): close up of a mangrove. (Source: Rob Barnes, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, https://www.grida.no/resources/11125)

project in Kwale County on Kenya’s South Coast. The first effort of its kind, Mikoko Pamoja is improving the livelihood of the local community, regenerating the local mangrove forest and helping fight climate change (Fig. 20.7). The reduction of local mangroves threatened the livelihood of fishers and destabilised coastlines. Mikoko Pamoja was set up to reverse this trend and find alternatives to mangroves that could provide the community with fuel and building materials while also generating income. In 2013, a community-based organisation was formed, which was granted co-management rights for the 117-­hectare coastal area from the Kenyan government.58 A few hectares of Casurina woodlots were planted to provide an alternative source of fuel- and building wood for the community.59 On 114 hectares, mangroves were replanted and a carbon credit trading scheme, now accredited by Plan

Vivo (an international body regulating carbon credits), was set up.60 The trading scheme is now up and running—Plan Vivo sells 2500 credits per year, with 1 credit being equivalent to 1  metric  tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. These 2500 tonnes are derived from a mix of avoided deforestation and the planting of new mangroves. On average, the carbon sales generate about $12,500 per year. Thirty-five percent of the revenue is used for the project costs, while 65% is reinvested in the community. 61 In the past it has funded initiatives such as the establishment of a

Mikoko Pamoja Project. n.d. ACES (blog). https://www.aces-org. co.uk/mikoko-pamoja-project/. Accessed 5 May 2020. 59  Huxham, M. 2018. “MIKOKO PAMOJA: Mangrove Conservation for Community Benefit.” Mikoko Pamoja Team. Plan Vivo Project Design Document (PDD): 38. 58 

Huff, A., and C.  Tonui. 2017. Making “Mangroves Together”: Carbon, Conservation and Co-management in Gazi Bay, Kenya. ESRC STEPS Centre. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/ handle/20.500.12413/12970. 61  MPA News. 2020. “Funding MPAs by Selling Blue Carbon Credits: Practitioners from the First Projects Describe Their Experience So Far.” 30 July. https://mpanews.openchannels.org/news/mpa-news/ funding-mpas-selling-blue-carbon-credits-practitioners-first-projects-­ describe-their. 60 

802

water system for the whole village, a local soccer tournament and textbooks for the local primary school.62 In addition to the credit sales, the community benefits from the restored mangroves through increases in fish catches, beekeeping and ecotourism from the ‘Gazi Bay Boardwalk’, all of which contribute to more sustainable livelihoods.63 Despite facing challenges such as fluctuations in carbon credit prices, the project has largely been a success and has received strong support from the Kenyan government. There has been strong scientific support with partners through the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute as well as support from the Kenya Forest Services on aspects of forest governance.64 Mikoko Pamoja won the ‘Equator Initiative Prize’ and is now the model for future projects, including for ‘Vanga’, which covers an area about four times that of Mikoko Pamoja.65 Mangroves are considered to be a natural climate solution because of their ability to help reduce carbon emissions, and currently there are efforts to include mangroves as part of Kenya’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This work has also enhanced the visibility of the ocean space in Kenya and contributed to the value of safeguarding coastal ecosystems.

3.2 Stop 2: Community-Based Managed Access Network in the Philippines Fishery reform in the developing world is not just about the fish. It is also about people, coastal communities and fishing as a livelihood, a job and a way of life.66 Small-scale fisheries are a main source of food, provide millions of jobs and underpin cultures, particularly for the coastal poor. Rare, an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) that applies behavioural insights to the cause of artisanal fishery recovery in developing countries, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sustainable Fisheries Group (SFG) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, launched the Fish Forever program in multiple countries to build a social movement for the better management of coastal fisheries. Rare and SFG took the lead in the Philippines. Global Mangrove Alliance. 2019. “Mikoko Pamoja: A Business Case for Carbon Credit in Gazi-Kwale County, Kenya.” 8 May. http://www. mangrovealliance.org/mikoko-pamoja/. 63  Wylie, L., A.E. Sutton-Grier and A. Moore. 2016. “Keys to Successful Blue Carbon Projects: Lessons Learned from Global Case Studies.” Marine Policy 65 (March): 76–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.12.020. 64  Wylie et al. 2016. “Keys to Successful Blue Carbon Projects.” 65  Mikoko Pamoja Project. n.d. Blog. 66  Garcia, S., Y. Ye, J. Rice and A. Charles. 2018. “Rebuilding of Marine Fisheries.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/ca0161en/ca0161en.pdf. 62 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Better management starts with managed access areas that give fishing communities clear, exclusive rights to fish in certain areas, which are often aligned with traditional community use rights. The communities’ exclusive access is tied to their commitment to use fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs) that are designed to replenish and sustain fish populations and protect habitats and biodiversity. In communities that have organised themselves to manage ‘their’ fishing areas and protected zones, management typically becomes more sophisticated. For example, boats and fishers are registered, catch is recorded, regulations are respected and fishers participate in management (Fig. 20.8). In the absence of outsiders skimming off the rewards of good stewardship, a virtuous circle tends to evolve, where results drive good behaviour and vice versa. Households in these communities have been shown to become more resilient in terms of food and financial security, and communities can work together to develop access to previously elusive capital and markets. This social movement naturally kick-starts a political movement. National governments and international bodies begin to recognise the central role of coastal fisheries to the health, cultural coherence, resilience and wealth of coastal communities, and they start to promote the sector with better policies and improved access to financial resources. The Philippines have demonstrated these dynamics at work. The ‘Fish Forever’ program is active in more than 400 communities in the country, clustered in 47 sites. Early results from 20 sites showed that fish biomass inside and outside the reserve was either maintained or increased across all sites. At sites where Rare had been working for 7 years, the increases were as high as 390% inside the fully protected MPAs and 111% outside MPAs. There were also statistically significant increases in 80% of social metrics, including improved attitudes towards fully protected MPAs, participation in management and the sense of social equity. To build financial resilience in fishing communities, fisher households also organised themselves into ‘savings clubs’. These enabled more than 1500 members to save close to US $2 million in 2½ years. The success at the local level is now reflected in a national policy agenda that supports artisanal fisheries. One example is the inclusion of managed access areas in the Philippine Development Plan, the country’s central economic and development planning document. Most recently, working with Rare, 300 mayors also passed major resolutions to ­support artisanal fishers and the issues they face regarding climate change, preferential rights and sustainable financing.67

All results received from personal communication with Rare Conservation. 67 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

803

Fig. 20.8  Artisanal fishers planning their community fishery in the Philippines. (Source: Rare)

3.3 Stop 3: Medes Islands Marine Reserve, Spain Two hours northeast of Barcelona, seven idyllic islets can be seen from the Costa Brava. According to the official tourism website, the Medes Islands ecosystem is ‘the best natural reserve in the western Mediterranean’. Scuba divers come from all over Europe to see the abundant fish—including large Mediterranean dusky groupers and other predatory fishes—relict red coral populations, octopus and hundreds of other marine species around these islands. How is this possible in a sea known to be overfished, polluted and overrun by invasive species? It all started over 35  years ago, with the creation of a 51-hectare no-take marine reserve which banned fishing but allowed diving, navigation and moorings only on buoys (Fig. 20.9). Years later, an additional 460 partially protected hectares were added. They permit limited fishing, only by a few local artisanal fishing vessels. (Only seven local vessels have this exclusive access).68

Merino, G., F. Maynou and J. Boncoeur. 2009. “Bioeconomic Model for a Three-Zone Marine Protected Area: A Case Study of Medes Islands (Northwest Mediterranean).” ICES Journal of Marine Science 66 (1): 147–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn200. 68 

Fig. 20.9  The Medes Islands Reserve, Spain. (Sources: top: Damsea/ Shutterstock; bottom: funkyfrogstock/Shutterstock)

804

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

This protection proved successful on all fronts,69 even in this relatively small area. • Fish biomass has fully recovered, and six main species have almost reached the maximum carrying capacity of the ecosystem. • The restored biodiversity and biomass have transformed the Medes Islands into a paradise for divers and snorkelers, supporting thriving ecotourism in the area. Two hundred full-time jobs are supported and €12  million in revenue is generated, compared with €0.5 million before the creation of the reserve. • The net present value of the reserve is up to 12 times greater than it would have been without this effective protection and management.

3.4 Stop 4: GreenWave, United States In his book Eat Like a Fish, Bren Smith describes his journey as lifelong fisherman turned regenerative ocean farmer. He is fascinated with species that require no feed inputs and can regenerate their surrounding ecosystem: shellfish and seaweeds. After extensive research, he began to design and build an integrated, multitrophic mariculture farm, or as Bren would call it, a regenerative ocean farm70 (Fig. 20.10). On a visit to Bren’s farm, at first you will see nothing but a few buoys. Underwater, it’s a different story: kelp and mussels grow on horizontal lines of ropes connecting anchored scaffolding, scallops hang in lantern nets, while oysters and clams litter seafloor cages. According to Bren’s NGO, GreenWave, regenerative ocean farms can produce up to 150,000 shellfish and 10 tonnes of seaweed per acre. One farm can turn a profit of up to US $90,000–$120,000 per year—all without needing or buying feed, land, freshwater or fertiliser. Considering his initial investment of $20,000, this is a profitable business for Bren and other farmers, providing year-round income as kelp is harvested in spring, clams in spring to summer, scallops and mussels in autumn and oysters year-round. The ‘crop’ diversification also provides security for farmers should one of the crops fail.

Sala, E., C.  Costello, J. de Bourbon Parme, M.  Fiorese, G.  Heal, K. Kelleher, R. Moffitt et al. 2016. “Fish Banks: An Economic Model to Scale Marine Conservation.” Marine Policy 73 (November): 154–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.032. 70  Bren, S. 2019. Eat Like a Fish: My Adventures as a Fisherman Turned Restorative Ocean Farmer. Sydney: Murdoch. 69 

Fig. 20.10  GreenWave ocean farming model. Note: Sketch depicting the GreenWave 3D ocean farming model (top), Bren Smith harvesting kelp (bottom). (Source: Top: Inspired by Water Brothers; Bottom: Ronald T. Gautreau Jr. for GreenWave)

Getting started wasn’t easy. Native shellfish (mussels, clams, oysters, scallops) seed was easily obtained from established growers nearby, but sourcing microscopic kelp seed that could eventually grow into 1- to 2-m-long seaweed blades proved more complicated. While seaweed farming is a 1000-year-old industry in Asia, it is nascent in the United States. With the help of kelp scientists and local community partners, Bren and GreenWave built a kelp hatchery that could supply him and other local farmers with seed. Launched to replicate and scale Bren’s farming model, GreenWave educates the next generation of ocean farmers about farming in an era defined by climate change. Through its Farmer-in-­Training program, GreenWave supports aspiring regenerative ocean farmers as they navigate the complex U.S. regulatory system and teaches them the fundamentals of setting up their ocean farm. The farms are geared towards simplicity and low cost, making it possible for anyone to become a regenerative ocean farmer for ‘$20k, 20 acres and a boat’71—far less than the cost of establishing a farm on land. GreenWave. n.d. “Our Model.” https://www.greenwave.org/our-­ model. Accessed 13 May 2020. 71 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

805

Fig. 20.11  Sketches of zero emission energy distribution at sea. From provider vessel. Sketch of topside of a ZEEDS platform producing and left to right: Sketch showing ship-to-ship bunkering at sea with zero storing green ammonia. (Source: ZEEDS project) carbon fuel. Sketch showing drone carrying pilot wire from energy-­

GreenWave’s goal is to plant 1 million acres of restorative species in the next 10  years. They hope to catalyse the growth of ocean farms across the world, providing a profitable and ecologically regenerative food production system for millions of people. These farms would be organised in GreenWave ‘Reefs’, with 50 small ocean farms clustered around a land-based hatchery and processing hub, surrounded by a ring of institutional buyers and entrepreneurs.72

3.5 Stop 5: ZEEDS Project, North Sea Shipping is the most carbon efficient way (in tonnes per kilometre [km] travelled)73 to move goods across the globe and accounts for 90% of cargo transport. Shipping today contributes about 2.2% of global CO2 emissions, but these emissions could grow between 50% and 250% by 2050, mainly due to the growth in world maritime trade.74 For instance, container shipping volumes are expected to increase by 243% between 2015 and 2050.75 However, in April 2018, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) set a target of at

GreenWave. n.d. “Our Model.” Borken-Kleefeld, J., T. Berntsen and J. Fuglestvedt. 2010. “Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport.” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (15): 5700–5706. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/ es9039693. 74  International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2015. “Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014.” London: IMO, 3. http://www.imo.org/ en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/ Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Study/GHG3%20 Executive%20Summary%20and%20Report.pdf. 75  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. “ITF Transport Outlook 2017.” Paris: OECD Publishing. https:// www.oecd.org/about/publishing/itf-transport-outlook-­2 0179789282108000-­en.htm. 72  73 

least a 50% reduction in total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, compared with 2008 levels.76 How can a traditional industry like shipping, whose assets have a lifetime of more than 30 years, achieve the IMO’s target or even more ambitious decarbonisation pathways? Let’s travel to a hypothetical future in 2030. In the eastern Atlantic, a container vessel is heading towards Rotterdam. This ship is carbon-neutral, having been retrofitted to be powered by green ammonia, a combustible produced through a series of chemical reactions enabled by renewable energy. The ship is low on fuel and slows to six knots as it is met by a small autonomous refuelling ship with a fuel hose suspended in the air by a drone. After 1 h, while still progressing, the now refuelled vessel accelerates on its way to Rotterdam. The fuel-provider vessel heads back to dock at a floating ammonium production platform, which is surrounded by a network of offshore wind turbines (Fig. 20.11). This is the vision of Zero Emission Energy Distribution at Sea (ZEEDS), a new partnership created in 2018 that gathers leading Scandinavian players in energy, offshore engineering, shipping and technology (Equinor, Wärtsilä, Aker Solutions, Kvaerner, DFDS and Grieg Star). The ZEEDS concept envisions an ecosystem of strategically located offshore clean fuel production and distribution hubs, co-located near busy shipping lanes. Wind will provide the power to create sustainable ammonia for ship-to-ship refuelling. The good news is that this solution might be more realistic than it looks. Adapted ship engines and production technology at sea are being tested at a pilot scale, and green ammonia is looking very promising as a replacement for heavy fuel oil on long voyages.

IMO. 2018. “UN Body Adopts Climate Change Strategy for Shipping.” http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/ Pages/06GHGinitialstrategy.aspx. 76 

806

4 The Urgency of Today 4.1 Introduction The five stories in the Prologue are diverse but compelling illustrations of local actions to move towards a sustainable ocean economy. They share a common vision which recognises that the ocean will only be able to regenerate if and when the agendas of protection, production (e.g. food, energy, carbon) and human prosperity are managed holistically. Yet these examples are exceptions to the general global downward trajectory of ocean ecosystems or their associated economic potential. Action can be inspired by their examples, but the reality is that urgent action is needed to transition towards a more sustainable ocean economy at scale. This section develops three main arguments to emphasise the urgency of action: A healthy ocean is crucial for all of humanity and for the global economy  The agenda of a sustainable ocean economy applies to the entire world, not just to traditional ‘blue sectors’ like fisheries or shipping. The diverse services provided by healthy ocean ecosystems make Earth liveable. Feeding ten billion people in 2050 while remaining within a safe planetary ‘operating space’77 will be hard—and the ocean may well hold a big piece of the solution. The ocean could also play a significant role in fighting climate change, meeting up to one-fifth of the carbon mitigation challenge.78 Finally, global concern about ocean plastic pollution could catalyse a much deeper reform of the profusion of wasteful material management practices on land (Sect. 4.2). The ocean is under increasing threat  The ocean is becoming warmer, more acidic, depleted, stormier, higher, more oxygen-depleted and less predictable. Profound changes (state shifts) affecting many aspects of human life are no longer unthinkable. Neither the ocean economy as a whole, nor coastal communities, nor the social agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can thrive in such a degraded environment (Sect. 4.3). Solutions are emerging but urgently need to be scaled up  Despite the undeniable challenges, hints of a sustainable ocean mindset are on the rise. The pace of innovation in the Rockström, J., W.  Steffen, K.  Noone, Å. Persson, F.S.  Chapin, E. Lambin, T.M. Lenton et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268316. 78  Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/ HLP_Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf. 77 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

ocean economy is accelerating sharply, and investors are starting to find their way to the sustainable ocean economy. A data revolution is underway—enabled by an ocean technology revolution—redefining access to knowledge. Successful, sustainable ocean-related policies are increasingly gaining traction. The voices of citizens and communities advocating for more equitable and sustainable use of planetary resources are getting louder. There is an unprecedented international momentum for a sustainable ocean economy, as seen at meetings of the G7, G20, Ocean Panel, UN Ocean Conference, Our Ocean, World Ocean Summits, UN Decade of Ocean Science and so on (Sect. 4.4).

4.2 A Blue Awakening: Recognising That the Ocean Is Vital to Humankind and the Global Economy In an international 2020 survey, 94–96% of respondents saw ‘the condition of the ocean as important to their country’s economy’.79 At the same time, there is no single broadly accepted definition of the ocean economy. The most commonly used one is the following: ‘The ocean economy can be defined as the economic activities that take place in the ocean, receive outputs from the ocean, and provide goods and services to the ocean’.80 There is considerable variation in the way this definition is interpreted—the United States includes as few as six industry sectors in the ocean economy, Japan as many as 33. The ocean economy’s implied valuation also ranges widely. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), defining the ocean economy as ‘the sum of the economic activities of ocean-based industries, together with the assets, goods and services provided by marine ecosystems’,81 initially assessed ten ocean-based industries of the global ocean economy, conservatively estimating they represented in 2010 a total of US $1.5 trillion in gross value added [GVA];82 WWF calls it ‘the seventh largest economy in the world’, valuing ocean assets at $24 trillion;83 Kantar, David. 2020. “Perceptions of the Ocean and Environment.” Lucile Packard Foundation. https://oursharedseas.com/wp-content/ uploads/2020/03/Packard-Kantar-Ocean-Report-FINAL-1.pdf. 80  Park, K.S., and D.J.  Kildow. 2014. “Rebuilding the Classification System of the Ocean Economy.” Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, no. 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1001. 81  OECD. 2016. “The Ocean Economy in 2030.” Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https://www.oecd.org/ futures/Policy-Note-Ocean-Economy.pdf. 82  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/environment/the-ocean-economy-in2030-­9789264251724-en.htm. 83  Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and Boston Consulting Group. 2015. “Reviving the Ocean Economy: The Case for Action—2015.” Geneva: WWF International. 79 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

807

and many others assert it to be practically incalculable. The ocean economy includes heavily ocean health-dependent sectors such as tourism (26% ocean GVA), fisheries and mariculture (2–6% ocean GVA), as well sectors principally managed by more exogeneous interests, such as offshore oil and gas (33% ocean GVA), ports (13% ocean GVA) and maritime equipment (11% ocean GVA). In terms of employment, the ten ocean-based industries assessed by the OECD contributed some 31  million direct full-time jobs in 2010, with industrial capture fisheries accounting for the lion’s share of the OECD’s assessed ocean economy jobs (36% and plateauing), followed by tourism (23% and strongly increasing).84 If informal or artisanal jobs are included, the ocean’s global employment contribution is much higher— estimates for total (formal and artisanal) fisheries employment alone run as high as 237 million full-time equivalent jobs.85 These definitions and numbers are insightful but incomplete. To be a useful descriptor of the relationship between humans and the ocean, a broader, more systemic perspective on the ocean economy is needed, in line with the World Bank’s definition of a sustainable ocean economy: ‘the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems’.86 In the literature and in national or international initiatives it is common to find references to a ‘blue economy’, but again the definition and scope varies: sometimes ‘blue’ refers to the ocean, with the blue economy closer to the definition in this section’s first paragraph; at other times ‘blue’ refers to sustainable (as ‘green’ would do for sustainable land-based activities), and the blue economy is understood as in the World Bank definition. To avoid confusion, this report will avoid the term ‘blue economy’ in favour of ‘sustainable ocean economy’, mostly guided by the World Bank definition. Yet this report also invites readers to embrace a wider paradigm that acknowledges the following:

• The untapped opportunity the ocean provides to fighting climate change • The catalytic role the ocean can play in accelerating a global transition towards more circular and regenerative practices in land-based economies

• The importance of ocean contributions for all of humanity and nature • The ocean’s central contribution to the global agenda of food security OECD. 2016. “The Ocean Economy in 2030.” Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https://www.oecd.org/ futures/Policy-Note-Ocean-Economy.pdf. 85  Teh, L.C.L., and U.R.  Sumaila. 2013. “Contribution of Marine Fisheries to Worldwide Employment.” Fish and Fisheries 14 (1): 77–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00450.x. 86  World Bank and UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. “The Potential of the Blue Economy: Increasing Long-Term Benefits of the Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island Developing States and Coastal Least Developed Countries.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ bitstream/handle/10986/26843/115545.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 84 

4.2.1 The Ocean’s Contributions to Humanity Exceed the Realm of Its Industrial Production The ocean absorbs more than 90% of the heat resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. It rebalances the heat differential between poles and equators. It produces 50–80% of Earth’s oxygen.87 Its biological adaptations remain largely unknown and, if previous experience is any indication, contain untold medical, knowledge and commercial resources. For billions of coastal dwellers, the ocean is woven deeply into their cultural and spiritual lives. For all humans, it provides a sense of wonder, solace and connection to the natural world. Millions play in it every day. It provides a deep sense of place.88 The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report defined ecosystem services as ‘benefits people obtain from ecosystems’.89 This concept was updated and broadened to ‘nature’s contribution to people’ in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).90 The IPBES structures nature’s contribution to people into three main categories (definitions below are directly inspired by IPBES’s):91 • Nature’s material contributions to people: ‘substances, objects or other material elements from nature that sustain people’s physical existence and the infrastructure needed for the operation of a society or enterprise’. In the context of the ocean economy, these material contributions supNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). n.d. “How Much Oxygen Comes from the Ocean?” https://oceanservice. noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html. Accessed 13 May 2020. 88  Allison, E., J.  Kurien and Y.  Ota. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/relationship-betweenhumans-and-their-ocean-planet. 89  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), ed. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island. 90  Díaz, S., J.  Settele, E.S.  Brondízio, H.T.  Ngo, M.  Guèze, J.  Agard, A.  Arneth et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Bonn, Germany: Intergovernmental Science-­ Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. doi: https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579. 91  Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 87 

808

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

port subsistence (e.g. fish), energy (ocean fossil fuels, wind), health (e.g. pharmaceuticals derived from marine species) and construction (e.g. sand), among others. In this report it is assumed that most of these contributions are economically accounted for by conventional indicators like GVA (see Fig. 20.12). • Nature’s regulating contributions to people: ‘functional and structural aspects of organisms and ecosystems that modify the environmental conditions experienced by people, and/or sustain and/or regulate the generation of material and non-material contributions’. For the ocean and coastal ecosystems, climate regulation is a perfect example of such contributions, but the latter also include, for example, habitat creation and maintenance; regulation of hazard and extreme events; regulation of air quality; and dispersal of seeds, propagules and larvae (see Fig. 20.12).

• Nature’s non-material contributions to people. ‘Nature’s contribution to people’s subjective or psychological quality of life, individually and collectively’. These contributions include learning and inspiration from the ocean, physical and psychological experiences, and supporting identities (see Fig. 20.12). • The IPBES also defines a ‘maintenance of options’ category for the yet-to-be-discovered or understood use of natural ecosystems and organisms (see Fig. 20.12).

Fig. 20.12  The ocean’s importance to humankind. (Source: Authors, inspired by Díaz, S., J.  Settele, E.S.  Brondízio, H.T.  Ngo, M.  Guèze, J.  Agard, A.  Arneth et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services.” Bonn, Germany: Intergovernmental Science-­ Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. doi: https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579; OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/environment/the-­oceaneconomy-­in-­2030-­9789264251724-­en.htm)

Even in economic and monetisable terms, not every dollar counts the same. For example, coastal fisheries account for less than 1% of the ocean economy as conventionally defined. However, this is most likely a significant underestimation of the sector’s true economic importance. To more accurately represent the importance of the marine economy, one would also need to include employment for over 37  million arti-

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

809

sanal fishers,92 and the ocean’s provision of essential food for millions living in poverty along the coasts of the developing world, as well as for the one billion people relying on the ocean for most of their animal protein.93 Most global economic activity either depends on the ocean, is based on the ocean or affects the ocean in some essential way. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘All people on Earth depend directly or indirectly on the ocean and cryosphere’.94 Some illustrative facts confirm this importance of the ocean for humanity: 50–80% of the oxygen comes from the ocean,95 44% of the world’s population lives within 150  km of the coast96 and 90% of all international trade involves marine shipping.97

and will be highly dependent on the evolution of future technologies as well as human preferences. However, ocean-­ based food will almost certainly have a central role to play in global food security—it is healthy, its carbon footprint is low compared to land-based animal proteins,100 and it doesn’t require extensive use of water or the conversion of land for agricultural use. See Fig. 20.13 for the types of ocean food discussed in this report. If the EAT-Lancet diet101—used here as a solid proxy for a globally sustainable and healthy model of nutrition—were globally adopted, 2050 fish and seafood production would need to increase by 60–118% over 2010 production levels (with the range depending on food waste reduction).102 This corresponds to a production increase from 109 mmt today to 4.2.2 The Ocean Has a Central Role to Play between 160 and 218 mmt by 2050 (in whole weight). These in Global Food Security, But the Way forecasts are currently being refined to assess more precisely the Ocean Is Currently Used Is Not the role of ocean food in feeding a 2050 planet.103 on Track to Deliver It This is in stark contrast to current, business-as-usual Earth’s population, 2.5 billion in 1950, has grown to 7.8 bil- (BAU) projections of seafood supply (Fig.  20.14), which lion in 2020 and is projected to peak in 2064 at about 9.73 bil- project a decline of capture fisheries from 80 mmt today to lion.98 It has been estimated that 470 million metric tonnes 67 mmt by 2050 due to the pressure of overfishing on some (mmt) of total animal protein will be required annually to stocks and underfishing on others.104 Finfish mariculture feed the 2050 population.99 The relative sources of land-­ (marine aquaculture) is not projected to fill the gap, as it is based, ocean-based and lab-grown supply are not yet clear seen as constrained by the availability of fish oil (FO) and fish meal (FM)—in other words, ‘fishing fish to feed fish’. At reasonably probable future inclusion rates for FO and 92  FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. n.d. “Small-Scale FM, annual finfish production is forecast to reach a maxiFisheries around the World.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/fishery/ssf/world/en. Accessed 6 mum of only 14.4 mmt: around twice the current producMay 2020. tion—far short of what would be needed to fill the gap.105 93  World Health Organization. n.d. “3. Global and Regional Food Bivalve mariculture (e.g. of mussels and oysters) does not Consumption Patterns and Trends.” https://www.who.int/nutrition/top- require outside feed and therefore has a greater growth ics/3_foodconsumption/en/index2.html. Accessed 6 May 2020. potential than wild-capture fisheries and farmed finfish, 94  Pörtner, H.O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, K.  Poloczanska, K.  Mintenbeck et  al., eds. 2019. “Summary for even in a business-­as-­usual scenario. A steady increase in Policymakers.” In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere bivalve production (aligned with the past 10 years’ annual in a Changing Climate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. growth rate) therefore makes the biggest contribution to a https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf. 95  NOAA. n.d. “How Much Oxygen Comes from the Ocean?”. 96  UN Atlas of the Oceans. n.d. “Human Settlements on the Coast.” http://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/114/. Accessed 13 August 2020. 97  Olmer, N., B.  Comer, B.  Roy, X.  Mao and D.  Rutherford. 2017. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping, 2013–2015.” Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transport. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-­ emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf; International Chamber of Shipping. n.d. “Shipping and World Trade.” 98  UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. n.d. “2019 Revision of World Population Prospects.” https://population.un.org/wpp/. Accessed 6 May 2020; Vollset, S.E., E.  Goren, C.-W.  Yuan, J.  Cao, A.E.  Smith, T.  Hsiao, C.  Bisignano et  al. 2020. “Fertility, Mortality, Migration, and Population Scenarios for 195 Countries and Territories from 2017 to 2100: A Forecasting Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.” Lancet, 14 July. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30677-2. 99  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). n.d. “How to Feed the World in 2050.” http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2020.

Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 101  Willett, W., J.  Rockström, B.  Loken, M.  Springmann, T.  Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett et al. 2019. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” Lancet 393 (10170): 447–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(18)31788-4. This report cites a required increase of about 55–125% of fish and seafood production in 2050. We chose the halfway point within this range, 90%, and applied it to the seafood production stated in Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/future-food-sea. 102  Troell, M., M. Jonell and B. Crona. 2019. “The Role of Seafood in Sustainable and Healthy Diets.” EAT-Lancet Commission, 24. https:// eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/11/Seafood_Scoping_Report_ EAT-­Lancet.pdf. 103  Troell et al. 2019. “The Role of Seafood in Sustainable and Healthy Diets,” 24. 104  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 105  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 100 

810

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.13  Scope of ocean food discussed in this report. (Source: Authors. Photo credits: Ocean food: Anna Pustynnikova/Shutterstock; Wild caught: Split Second Stock/Shutterstock; Farmed: Vladislav Gajic/

Shutterstock; Fed: Konstantin Novikov/Shutterstock; Unfed: Dilara Mammadova/Shutterstock)

projected overall doubling of mariculture production, from 29 to 66 mmt in 2050. Summing these three potential contributions under a BAU scenario leaves a shortfall of up to 85 mmt (Fig. 20.14). The BAU scenario, of course, is not etched in stone. If properly and sustainably managed, capture fisheries could contribute about 98 mmt by 2050—over 40% more than the BAU projection.106 In addition to this wild-caught potential volume, finfish mariculture can contribute higher yields once (partially) decoupled from FM/FO.107 Mariculture must and can be done right. Unfed species (bivalves, seaweeds) are generally more benign to the environment, but barriers remain to higher production and consumption (e.g. the gap between perceived risk and actual risk).108 Finfish mariculture will require further technology development, and strict environmental regulations on antibiotic and effluent pollution, before it can produce very large volumes, presumably offshore, with lower local impacts and without reliance on fish-­ based feeds. Recent developments are encouraging; progress in both governance (e.g. the ‘traffic light system’ in Norway,

which conditions production on environmental assessments) and technology (e.g. disease control, alternative feeds, etc.; see Sect. 4.4) is underway. Additionally, equity issues associated with mariculture must be attended to, ensuring the full inclusion of women, equal treatment of all ethnic and racial groups, adoption of safe labour standards and fair treatment of smallholder farmers.109 Unfed mariculture, including seaweed production, is also currently greatly underdeveloped compared to its advantages and biological potential (see Sect. 5).

Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 108  Kuttschreuter, M. 2006. “Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages.” Risk Analysis 26 (4): 1045–57. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00799.x. 106  107 

4.2.3 Ocean-Based Solutions Are Underappreciated and Essential to Fight Climate Change The significant carbon mitigation challenge inherent in a 1.5 °C future is well understood and documented.110 Usually Allison et  al. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” 110  Masson-Delmotte, V., P.  Zhai, H.O.  Pörtner, D.  Roberts, J.  Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani et al., eds. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5  °C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/ SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf. 109 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

811

Fig. 20.14  The seafood gap to a healthy 2050 diet under business as usual. (Sources: (a) Excluding seaweed. FAO, ed. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/I9540EN/i9540en.pdf. (b) Wild-­ caught fisheries’ 13 mmt decrease by 2050 under BAU from Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel. org/blue-­papers/future-­food-­sea. For aquaculture 2050 BAU is obtained by summing the additional maximum potential for fed aquaculture under current feed constraints (+7.7 mmt) with an additional 28.9 mmt

potential for shelled molluscs calculated by applying the 2005–2014 global compound annual growth rate to the 2014–2050 period (assuming continued linear growth as there is no feed constraint). (c) Troell, M., M. Jonell and B. Crona. 2019. “The Role of Seafood in Sustainable and Healthy Diets.” EAT-Lancet Commission, 24. https://eatforum.org/ content/uploads/2019/11/Seafood_Scoping_Report_EAT-­Lancet.pdf. These authors quote a range of 60% to 118% necessary production increase for ‘Fish or seafood’ over 2010 production levels. Numbers projected here are simplified by assuming that the ratio between freshwater and marine fish remains unchanged in 2050 versus the baseline year)

seen as victims of climate change, the ocean and its coastal regions also offer a wide array of potential options to reduce GHG emissions. A comprehensive review was undertaken as part of a report commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Ocean Panel). The Special Report ‘The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change’111 estimates that ocean-based climate solutions could reduce global GHG emissions by up to 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually by 2030 and by up to 11  billion tonnes annually by 2050. This could contribute as much as one-fifth (21%) of the emission reduction required in 2050 to limit warming to 1.5  °C and 25% for a 2  °C target (Fig.  20.15). Emission reductions of this magnitude are equivalent to the annual emissions from all coal-fired power plants worldwide or taking 2.5 billion cars off the road every year. These numbers correspond to an upper range based on strong political signals and investments. The ocean-based options explored in this report include scaling ocean-based renewable energy generation (as a replacement for fossil fuel generation), reducing GHG emissions from marine transport (domestic and international), switching from emission-intensive land-based protein to

low-carbon protein from the ocean, using seaweed as an alternative low-carbon fuel and feed for terrestrial activities, increasing the sequestration and storage potential of coastal and marine-based carbon stocks, and storing carbon in the seabed. These options did not feature prominently in the first round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) communicated by countries or the long-term low GHG emission development strategies communicated to date under the Paris Agreement, but they offer island and coastal nations significant opportunities to consider in addition to land-based emission reduction measures.112 Currently, these solutions are delivering significantly less than their full mitigation potential. For example, the ocean’s renewable energy contribution totals less than 0.3% of total global energy production.113 Alarmingly, not only is the carbon sequestration and storage potential of coastal and marine ecosystems not fully being captured through efforts to pro-

Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 111 

Gallo, N.D., D.G. Victor and L.A. Levin. 2017. “Ocean Commitments under the Paris Agreement.” Nature Climate Change 7 (11): 833–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3422; Hoegh-Guldberg, O., E. Northrop and J. Lubchenco. 2019. “The Ocean Is Key to Achieving Climate and Societal Goals.” Science 365 (6460): 1372–74. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz4390. 113  International Energy Agency (IEA). 2019. Offshore Wind Outlook 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-outlook-2019. 112 

812

Fig. 20.15  Contribution of ocean-based mitigating options towards the emission gap. (Sources: UNEP 2018, Climate Action Tracker (2018), as adapted by Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.”

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/ sites/default/files/2019-­10/HLP_Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_ Change_final.pdf)

4.2.4 The Ocean Can Catalyse a Global Transition Towards More Circular and Regenerative Practices in Land-­ Based Economies The ‘ocean economy’ is usually associated with purely ocean-based industries—shipping, fishing and so on. 114  Hamilton, S.E., and D.  Casey. 2016. “Creation of a High Spatio-­ Nonetheless, almost all land-based industries rely on the sertemporal Resolution Global Database of Continuous Mangrove Forest vices provided by the ocean. Perhaps the most difficult, and Cover for the 21st Century (CGMFC-21).” Global Ecology and intriguing, part of the ocean economy puzzle concerns the Biogeography 25 (6): 729–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12449. 115  Duarte, C.M., ed. 2009. Global Loss of Coastal Habitats: Rates, chain reactions caused in global markets by changes in Causes and Consequences. Bilbao, Spain: Fundación BBVA. ocean-related production of fish, renewable energy or miner116  Duarte, C.M., W.C.  Dennison, R.J.W.  Orth and T.J.B.  Carruthers. als. Everything is connected—a reduction of anchovy har2008. “The Charisma of Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing the vests in Peru affects the price of Scottish farmed fish, Chinese Imbalance.” Estuaries and Coasts 31 (2): 233–38. doi: https://doi. pigs and omega-3 capsules (all dependant on fish meal and org/10.1007/s12237-008-9038-7. tect and manage these ecosystems but the degradation and loss of these ecosystems—mangroves at 0.21%/year,114 ­saltmarshes at 1–2%/year115 and sea grass at 2–5%/year—is releasing significant emissions back into the atmosphere.116

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

813

fish oil, products extracted by drying and grinding up fish like anchovies).117 The ocean economy can thus not be viewed in a siloed ‘blue’ fashion. Moreover, this connectedness applies not only to what people remove from the ocean but also to what they put into the ocean. Over 80% of all global marine pollution originates on land118—all too often, the ocean ‘serves’ as the ultimate planetary sink. It absorbs 30% of anthropogenic (land-based) CO2, 119 90% of excess heat caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions120 and an estimated 9–14 mmt of plastic pollution per year.121 Following the old fallacy of ‘the solution to pollution is dilution’, the ocean has been expected to absorb invisible pollution like nutrient runoff, heavy metals (e.g. mercury, cadmium), nuclear waste, pharmaceuticals, persistent toxicants (DDT, TBT, pesticides, furans, dioxins, phenols), sewage and personal care products. Keeping the ocean functioning within the bounds of the ‘safe operating space’ for humanity can also catalyse profound and profitable changes in land-based systems: moving away from the ‘blue silo’ allows for the explicit connection between SDG 14 (conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development)122 and the acceleration of SDG 15 (life on land), as well as other SDGs often thought of as land-based, including SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production), SDG 9 (sus-

tainable infrastructure) and SDG 7 (affordable and sustainable energy). The fate of the ocean is directly linked to a broader shift towards a circular economy123 approach to consumer goods and industrial production—a system where resources are used continually, at their highest possible value added, and recovered or regenerated as efficiently as possible at the end of their service. It is also linked to a land-based transition towards renewable energies, and to improved land use practices in agriculture and in coastal development. But looking at it the other way around, the ocean could be a unique opportunity to advance the broader global agenda of sustainability while ‘leaving no-one behind’. As a compelling example, the ocean is now the principal driver of fundamental work on the plastic value chain. The unprecedented crisis of ocean plastic pollution is bringing scientists, businesses, governments and civil society together to look for solutions.124 For instance, in October 2018 in Bali, 250 organisations, including many of the packaging producers, brands, retailers and recyclers, as well as governments and NGOs (altogether representing 20% of all plastic packaging produced globally) committed to eradicate plastic waste and pollution at the source. Following the plastic example, the wasteful agriculture system could be challenged by the sustainable ocean agenda, obliging it to accelerate the transition towards precision farming, less toxic fertilisers and pesticides, and the collection and treatment of human and livestock waste and wastewater.

Neate, R. 2012. “Anchovy Price Leap Causes Food Industry Chain Reaction.” The Guardian, 24 August. https://www.theguardian.com/ business/2012/aug/24/anchovy-price-leap-food-industry-chain. 118  Ocean Conservancy. n.d. Stemming the Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean. https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2020. 119  62 Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L. Meyer. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_ FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. 120  Gattuso, J.-P., A.  Magnan, R.  Billé, W.W.L.  Cheung, E.L.  Howes, F. Joos, D. Allemand et al. 2015. “Contrasting Futures for Ocean and Society from Different Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Scenarios.” Science 349 (6243). doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4722. 121  Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution”; Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave. https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf. 122  UN Statistics Division. n.d. “Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas and Marine Resources for Sustainable Development: SDG Indicators.” Development Data and Outreach. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2017/goal-14/. Accessed 6 May 2020. 117 

4.3 Failing the Environment and the People: The Need for Urgent Action Physical, geological, chemical, biological and ecological processes interact in the ocean in complex ways. Those processes and interactions have now been fundamentally altered by human activities, with concomitant changes to the services provided to people by natural ecosystems. For example, loss of biological diversity, major perturbaDefinition of Circular Economy by Ellen MacArthur Foundation: A circular economy is based on the principles of designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use and regenerating natural systems. 124  Dalberg Advisors. 2019. “Solving Plastic Pollution through Accountability.” Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund For Nature. https:// c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1212/files/original/SOLVING_ PLASTIC_POLLUTION_THROUGH_ACCOUNTABILITY_ENF_ SINGLE.pdf?1551798060. 123 

814

tions of biochemical cycles, and climate change each alter the functioning of ecosystems, and that in turn impairs or limits the benefits that ocean ecosystems provide to people. As the rate of change in most socioeconomic areas has accelerated past any historical precedent in the first half of the twentieth century, so have most earth system indicators— a phenomenon described as ‘the Great Acceleration’ (Fig. 20.16). There is also increasing strain on the ocean system: the ‘blue acceleration’—humanity’s expansion into the ocean for food, materials and space—has been unparalleled in history.125 The direct consequences of these trends are exhaustively documented today (see details below). The direct footprint of human activity is visible almost everywhere. Sixty-six percent of the marine environment is experiencing significant cumulative impact by human actions.126 Only 13% of the ocean area can still be classified as wilderness,127 and less than 3% of the ocean is unaffected by multiple human stressors.128 For example, between 1970 and 2000, sea grass meadows declined by roughly 30%, mangroves by 35% and saltmarshes by 60%, whilst between 11% and 46% of marine invertebrates are threatened.129 Below, the main stressors on the ocean caused by human activity are briefly described along with their directly observable consequences. Overfishing  The direct over-exploitation of fish stocks and the unintended impacts of fishing gear on non-target species Jouffray, J.-B., R.  Blasiak, A.V.  Norström, H. Österblom and M. Nyström. 2020. “The Blue Acceleration: The Trajectory of Human Expansion into the Ocean.” One Earth 2 (1): 43–54. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.016. 126  Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 127  Jones, K.R., C.J.  Klein, B.S.  Halpern, O.  Venter, H.  Grantham, C.D. Kuempel, N. Shumway et al. 2018. “The Location and Protection Status of Earth’s Diminishing Marine Wilderness.” Current Biology 28 (15): 2506–12.e3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.010. 128  Halpern, B.S., M.  Frazier, J.  Potapenko, K.S.  Casey, K.  Koenig, C. Longo, J.S. Lowndes et al. 2015. “Spatial and Temporal Changes in Cumulative Human Impacts on the World’s Ocean.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615. 129  Rogers, A., O.  Aburto-Oropeza, W.  Appeltans, J.  Assis, L.  T. Ballance, P.  Cury, C.  Duarte et  al. 2020. “Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/ critical-habitats-and-biodiversity-inventory-thresholds-and-­governance. 125 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

may be the most tangible manifestation of direct pressure from human activity. 130 This has been exacerbated by harmful fisheries subsidies (i.e. those directed at capacity expansion) as well as the effects of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Industrial and artisanal fishing fleets have been identified as the main driver of extinction for all classes of marine vertebrates except birds.131 Estimates of overfished stocks range from 33% (‘overfished’ category in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] database)132 to 47% (‘over-exploited or collapsed’ category in the Sea around Us Project’s classification).133 Higher trophic level species and predators such as sharks, tuna and billfish are especially depleted.134 For example, a 2020 global shark survey found no sharks in almost 20% of the 371 surveyed reefs across 58 nations, with levels of shark depletion being closely correlated to poor governance, the density of human population and distance to the nearest market.135 Open ocean diversity has declined by 10–50% over the past 50 years, a trend that has coincided with increased fishing pressure.136

73 Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 131  Rogers et al. 2020. “Critical Habitats and Biodiversity.” 132  FAO, ed. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/ I9540EN/i9540en.pdf. 133  Pauly, D., D.  Zeller and M.L.D.  Palomares. n.d. “Sea around Us Concepts, Design and Data.” http://www.seaaroundus.org. Accessed 6 May 2020. 134  Roff, G., C.J. Brown, M.A. Priest and P.J. Mumby. 2018. “Decline of Coastal Apex Shark Populations over the Past Half Century.” Communications Biology 1 (1): 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42003-018-0233-1; Christensen, V., M. Coll, C. Piroddi, J. Steenbeek, J. Buszowski and D. Pauly. 2014. “A Century of Fish Biomass Decline in the Ocean.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 512 (October): 155–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10946. 135  MacNeil, M.A., D.D.  Chapman, M.  Heupel, C.A.  Simpfendorfer, M.  Heithaus, M.  Meekan, E.  Harvey et  al. 2020. “Global Status and Conservation Potential of Reef Sharks.” Nature 583 (7818): 801–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2519-y. 136  Worm, B., M.  Sandow, A.  Oschlies, H.K.  Lotze and R.A.  Myers. 2005. “Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans.” Science 309 (5739): 1365–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1113399. 130 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

815

Fig. 20.16  ‘The great acceleration’. (Source: Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney and C. Ludwig. 2015. “The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration.” Anthropocene Review 2 (1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785)

816

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.17  2019: Warmest year in recorded human history for the world’s ocean. (Source: Cheng, L., J. Abraham, J. Zhu, K.E. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, T. Boyer, R. Locarnini et al. 2020. “Record-Setting Ocean

Warmth Continued in 2019.” Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 37 (2): 137–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-­020-­9283-­7)

Climate change  The raw numbers are sobering: ocean waters have absorbed 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions137 and sea surface temperatures have increased by 0.7 °C since 1900.138 New analysis confirms that 2019 was the warmest year on record for ocean temperature, and saw the largest single-year increase of the decade (Fig. 20.17).139 The 12 years with lowest Arctic sea

ice extent all happened in the past dozen years,140 and 2017 marked the lowest Antarctic sea ice extent on record.141

Stocker, T.F., D.  Qin, G.K.  Plattner, M.  Tignor, S.K.  Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels et al. 2013. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_ FINAL.pdf. 138  Laffoley, D., and J.M. Baxter, eds. 2016. Explaining Ocean Warming: Causes, Scale, Effects and Consequences. International Union for Conservation of Nature. doi: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2016.08.en. 139  Cheng, L., J. Abraham, J. Zhu, K.E. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, T. Boyer, R. Locarnini et al. 2020. “Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019.” Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 37 (2): 137–42. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7. 137 

Climate change generates stronger winds.142 This intensification of surface winds has accelerated the global mean ocean circulation over the past two decades, especially in tropical regions.143 These changes in ocean currents can affect not only weather patterns on land (e.g. the Gulfstream’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. 2018. “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Arrives at Its Minimum.” Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (blog). http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-arrivesat-its-minimum/. 141  Gaines, S., R. Cabral, C.M. Free, Y. Golbuu, R. Arnason, W. Battista, D. Bradley et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/expected-impacts-climatechange-ocean-economy. 142  Hu, S., J. Sprintall, C. Guan, M.J. McPhaden, F. Wang, D. Hu and W.  Cai. 2020. “Deep-Reaching Acceleration of Global Mean Ocean Circulation over the Past Two Decades.” Science Advances 6 (6): eaax7727. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax7727. 143  Hu et al. 2020. “Deep-Reaching Acceleration of Global Mean Ocean Circulation over the Past Two Decades.” 140 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

817

influence on the European climate144) but also fisheries through, for instance, modification of larval dispersal145 or changes in the intensity of coastal upwelling146 (the movement of cold, nutrient-rich water to the ocean surface). These upwelling changes can enhance fishery productivity, as with anchovies along the coast of Peru; but if the upwelling is too intense, it can have the opposite effect, triggering ‘dead zones’ with insufficient oxygen to support fish and other marine life. Changes to ocean circulation are regionally variable. For example, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which redistributes heat between tropics and higher latitude in the Atlantic, is one exception to the general pattern of speedier currents at the global scale. AMOC is ‘very likely to weaken over the twenty-first ­century’, according to the IPCC.147 Considerable uncertainty remains, however: the IPCC cites a range of between 1% and 54% for AMOC weakening, depending on the warming scenario chosen.148 Humanity’s GHG emissions have also acidified the ocean by 26% since the Industrial Revolution,149 and climate change is impacting dissolved oxygen content in ocean systems across the globe (see more details about dead zones later in this section). The combined effects are putting additional stress on many coastal and oceanic species, including the shell-forming animals (corals, phytoplankton, zooplankton, bivalves and more) which represent the foundation of the marine food webs.

57,000 km2 from 1980 to 2000),150 largely due to land reclamation and conversion to aquaculture ponds and rice paddies.151 This loss has resulted in reductions in fisheries and coastal food production,152 and increasing threats to species with a fragile conservation status. These coastal habitats help protect communities against life-threatening storm surge during tsunamis, typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes. Mangroves, sea grasses and saltmarshes are labelled ‘blue carbon’ ecosystems because they actively sequester and store organic carbon from the environment,153 meaning their loss increases emissions.154 The seafloor habitats have also been significantly affected by destructive fishing gear and methods. Bottom trawling has destroyed cold water coral and sponge ecosystems, which will take centuries to recover;155 dynamite and cyanide fishing has contributed to the decline of coral reefs.156

Habitat destruction  Key coastal habitats such as mangroves are being lost at an alarming rate: global mangrove cover has declined by around 25–35% (up to about Palter, J.B. 2015. “The Role of the Gulf Stream in European Climate.” Annual Review of Marine Science 7 (1): 113–37. doi: https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015656. 145  Ramesh, N., J.A. Rising and K.L. Oremus. 2019. “The Small World of Global Marine Fisheries: The Cross-Boundary Consequences of Larval Dispersal.” Science 364 (6446): 1192–96. doi: https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aav3409. 146  Bakun, A., B.A.  Black, S.J.  Bograd, M. García-Reyes, A.J.  Miller, R.R.  Rykaczewski and W.J.  Sydeman. 2015. “Anticipated Effects of Climate Change on Coastal Upwelling Ecosystems.” Current Climate Change Reports 1 (2): 85–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40641-015-0008-4. 147  Collins, M., R.  Knutti, J.  Arblaster, J.-L.  Dufresne, T.  Fichefet, X.  Gao, W.J.  Gutowski Jr. et  al. 2013. “Long-Term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/ site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf. 148  Collins et al. 2013. “Long-Term Climate Change.” 149  Gaines et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” 144 

Polidoro, B.A., K.E. Carpenter, L. Collins, N.C. Duke, A.M. Ellison, J.C.  Ellison, E.J.  Farnsworth et  al. 2010. “The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern.” Edited by D.M.  Hansen. PLOS ONE 5 (4): e10095. doi: https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010095; Valiela, I., J.L.  Bowen and J.K.  York. 2001. “Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical Environments. At Least 35% of the Area of Mangrove Forests Has Been Lost in the Past Two Decades, Losses That Exceed Those for Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs, Two Other Well-­ Known Threatened Environments.” BioScience 51 (10): 807–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0 .CO;2; Thomas, N., R. Lucas, P. Bunting, A. Hardy, A. Rosenqvist and M. Simard. 2017. “Distribution and Drivers of Global Mangrove Forest Change, 1996–2010.” Edited by S.  Joseph. PLOS ONE 12 (6): e0179302. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179302. 151  Richards, D.R., and D.A.  Friess. 2016. “Rates and Drivers of Mangrove Deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (2): 344–49. doi: https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113. 152  Aburto-Oropeza, O., E. Ezcurra, G. Danemann, V. Valdez, J. Murray and E.  Sala. 2008. “Mangroves in the Gulf of California Increase Fishery Yields.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (30): 10456–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105. 153  Nellemann, C., and E.  Corcoran. 2009. Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding Carbon: A Rapid Response Assessment. UN Environment Programme/Earthprint. 154  Duarte, C.M., H.  Kennedy, N.  Marbà and I.  Hendriks. 2013. “Assessing the Capacity of Seagrass Meadows for Carbon Burial: Current Limitations and Future Strategies.” Ocean & Coastal Management 83 (October): 32–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2011.09.001. 155  Inniss, L., A.  Simcock, A.Y.  Ajawin, A.C.  Alcala, P.  Bernal, H.P. Calumpong, P.E. Araghi et al. 2016. “The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment.” New York: United Nations. https://www.un.org/ Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/WOACompilation.pdf. 156  Beck, M.W., I.J. Losada, P. Menéndez, B.G. Reguero, P. Díaz-Simal and F. Fernández. 2018. “The Global Flood Protection Savings Provided by Coral Reefs.” Nature Communications 9 (1): 1–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-018-04568-z. 150 

818

Plastic pollution  At least 700 species of marine life have been demonstrated to interact with plastic,157 with the main impacts occurring through entanglement, ingestion and chemical contamination from macroplastics. The annual flow of plastic into the ocean is predicted to nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million metric tonnes per year if no serious action is taken.158 This number corresponds to an equivalent 50 kg of plastic for every metre of coastline worldwide.159 There is also clear evidence that microplastics are ingested by a wide range of species, including marine mammals, birds, fish and small invertebrates at the base of the food chain.160 Other land-based pollutants  Ocean ecosystems and marine life are damaged by many land-based pollutants, such as pesticides, antibiotics, parasiticides, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and excessive amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. For instance, in Southeast Asia, an estimated 600,000 tonnes of nitrogen end up in the ocean every year, discharged from major regional rivers.161 Direct impacts vary considerably, depending on the pollutant, its amount and the presence of other stressors.162 Impacts can include excess productivity that triggers dead zones (low- or no-oxygen; see details later in this section), reduced photosynthetic efficiency, chronic stress on marine organisms, cancer in animals, likely inhibition of reproduction and birth defects.163 Invasive species  Discharge of untreated ballast water from ships is considered one of the major threats to biodiversity that, if not addressed, could have severe public health, envi-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

ronmental and economic impacts.164 One cubic metre of ballast water can contain up to 50,000 zooplankton specimens165 and/or 10  million phytoplankton cells.166 With 10  billion tonnes of it transferred throughout the world each year,167 ballast water is one of the principal vectors of potentially invasive alien species.168 Compounding stressors  In many occurrences these individual stressors locally compound one another with exponential consequences on ecosystems. For instance, coral reefs around the globe are exposed not just to overheating but also to overfishing and pollution. The decline of average hard coral cover on Caribbean reefs from 50% in the 1970s to 10% in the early 2000s, for example, was caused by the introduction of a pathogen killing an important herbivore (sea urchin), on top of decades of overfishing of herbivores and grazers (parrotfish and multiple other species of fishes) as well as predators essential to the integrity of the system, sediment from deforestation on land, warmer water from climate change, and physical destruction and pollution from overdevelopment in coastal areas (see Fig. 20.18).169 In Asian and Australian waters, the primary drivers are switched. For example, in 2016 the Great Barrier Reef experienced an unprecedented die-off of staghorn and tabular corals on a third of its reefs,170 caused by a record heatwave, with pollution playing a secondary

Global Environment Facility–UN Development Programme  – International Maritime Organization (GEF-UNDP-IMO) GloBallast Partnerships Programme and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2010. “Economic Assessments for Ballast Water Management: A Guideline.” GloBallast Monograph Series no. 19. London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland: GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast 157  Gall, S.C., and R.C.  Thompson. 2015. “The Impact of Debris on Partnerships, IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/ Marine Life.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 92 (1): 170–79. doi: https://doi. documents/2010-075.pdf. 165  org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041. GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Partnerships and International Ocean 158  Lau, W.W.Y., Y.  Shiran, R.M.  Bailey, E.  Cook, M.R.  Stuchtey, Institute (IOI). 2009. “Guidelines for National Ballast Water Status J. Koskella, C.A. Velis et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Assessment.” GloBallast Monograph Series no. 17. https://archive. Plastic Pollution.” Science, July. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science. iwlearn.net/globallast.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Mono17_ aba9475. English.pdf. 159  Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution.” 166 Subba Rao, D.V., W.G.  Sprules, H.  Locke and J.T.  Carlton. 1994. 160  Law, K.L., and R.C. Thompson. 2014. “Microplastics in the Seas.” “Exotic Phytoplankton from Ship’s Ballast Waters: Risk of Potential Science 345 (6193): 144–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/ Spread to Mariculture Sites on Canada’s East Coast.” Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, no. 937: 1–51. science.1254065. 167  161  GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Partnerships. 2017. “The GloBallast Jambeck, J., E.  Moss, B.K.  Dubey, Z.  Arifin, L.  Godfrey, B.D.  Hardesty, G.  Hendrawan et  al. 2020. “Leveraging Multi-target Story: Reflections from a Global Family.” GloBallast Monograph no. Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already 25. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/BWM/Documents/ Stressed Ocean.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https:// The%20GloBallast%20Story.pdf. www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/leveraging-target-strategies-to- 168 GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Partnerships. 2017. “The GloBallast address-plastic-pollution-in-the-context. Story.” 162  Jambeck et al. 2020. “Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address 169 Jackson, E.J., M. Donovan, K. Cramer and V. Lam. 2014. “Status and Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean.” Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970–2012.” Gland, Switzerland: 163  Jambeck et al. 2020. “Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, International Union for Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean”; Mills, Conservation of Nature. L.J., and C.  Chichester. 2005. “Review of Evidence: Are Endocrine-­ 170 Hughes, T.P., J.T.  Kerry, A.H.  Baird, S.R.  Connolly, A.  Dietzel, Disrupting Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment Impacting Fish C.M. Eakin, S.F. Heron et al. 2018. “Global Warming Transforms Coral Populations?” Science of the Total Environment 343(1): 1–34. doi: Reef Assemblages.” Nature 556: 492–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.12.070. s41586-018-0041-2. 164 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

819

Fig. 20.18  Case study: compounding stressors leading to the decline of Caribbean Reefs. (Source: Authors, inspired by Jackson, E.J., M.  Donovan, K.  Cramer and V.  Lam. 2014. “Status and Trends of

Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970–2012.” Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, International Union for Conservation of Nature)

role. Overall, the outlook for coral reefs is deeply concerning: annual severe bleaching (ASB) is forecast to affect 75% of all global reefs before 2070, even if the Paris Agreement carbon reduction pledges are followed.171 With coastal overfishing endemic in most developing countries, the resilience of reefs to ASB events will be greatly diminished. With global warming of 1.5  °C, coral reefs would decline by 70–90%, and virtually all (>99%) would be lost at 2 °C warming.172

coral reefs if strong action is taken to reduce carbon emissions174 and create large, fully protected areas in the ocean.

It should be noted, however, that large, remote coral reefs that are fully protected from extractive and abatable destructive activities (in fully protected marine protected areas) have proved to be more resilient to warmer water and other environmental stressors. Coupled with the finding that some strains of corals are becoming more tolerant of warmer waters,173 this suggests that it may not be too late to save

van Hooidonk, R., J. Maynard, J. Tamelander, J. Gove, G. Ahmadia, L.  Raymundo, G.  Williams et  al. 2016. “Local-Scale Projections of Coral Reef Futures and Implications of the Paris Agreement.” Scientific Reports 6 (1): 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39666. 172  Masson-Delmotte et al. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. 173  Coles, S.L., K.D.  Bahr, K.S.  Rodgers, S.L.  May, A.E.  McGowan, A.  Tsang, J.  Bumgarner and J.H.  Han. 2018. “Evidence of Acclimatization or Adaptation in Hawaiian Corals to Higher Ocean Temperatures.” PeerJ 6 (August): e5347. doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.5347. 171 

4.3.1 Indirect Effects Can Already Be Observed When these pressures increase beyond a certain tipping point, the interconnected ocean system may no longer be able to provide the benefits people want and need. The combination of their effects can be unexpectedly severe and larger than the sum of their parts. If these stressors start compounding on a larger scale, potentially serious and fundamental indirect, ‘second order’ consequences occur, such as loss of biological diversity and abundance. Though analytically demanding in terms of attribution and measurement, such consequences are highly significant for the ocean’s future. Even more concerning is that indirect effects may fundamentally shift key parts of the ocean system from one state to another that is often functionally different (Fig.  20.19). At this level, even sophisticated models and ‘data revolution’ tools can only suggest what might happen but not precisely when and where. Given what is at stake, these effects need to be considered in decisions, even if uncertainty is high.

Bay, R.A., N.H. Rose, C.A. Logan and S.R. Palumbi. 2017. “Genomic Models Predict Successful Coral Adaptation If Future Ocean Warming Rates Are Reduced.” Science Advances 3 (11): e1701413. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701413. 174 

820

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.19  Examples of indirect consequences of compounding pressures on the ocean. (Sources: Breitburg, D., L.A.  Levin, A.  Oschlies, M. Grégoire, F.P. Chavez, D.J. Conley, V. Garçon et al. 2018. “Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal Waters.” Science 359 (6371). doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240; Srokosz, M.A., and H.L.  Bryden. 2015. “Observing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning

Circulation Yields a Decade of Inevitable Surprises.” Science 348 (6241): 1255575; Christensen, V., M.  Coll, C.  Piroddi, J.  Steenbeek, J. Buszowski and D. Pauly. 2014. “A Century of Fish Biomass Decline in the Ocean.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 512 (October): 155–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10946)

Stratification  Ocean stratification occurs naturally when waters with different properties (temperature, salinity, density) form layers, which act as a barrier to mixing.175 Usually, wind, currents and storms help mix the cold (deep) and warm (upper) layers.176 Climate change disturbs this dynamic: rising surface temperatures exacerbate the layering and decrease the rate of mixing. This, in turn, decreases the amount of nutrients travelling up to surface waters, which further affects biological productivity, heat redistri-

bution, carbon uptake and oxygen production. The data show that upper ocean stratification will be greater everywhere during the second half of the twenty-first century, indicating a more pronounced decoupling between the surface and the deeper ocean.177 The areas most affected include the Arctic, the tropics, the North Atlantic and the northeast Pacific.178

Inniss et al. 2016. “The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment.” Capotondi, A., M.A.  Alexander, N.A.  Bond, E.N.  Curchitser and J.D. Scott. 2012. “Enhanced Upper Ocean Stratification with Climate Change in the CMIP3 Models.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 117 (C4). doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007409. 175  176 

Capotondi et  al. 2012. “Enhanced Upper Ocean Stratification with Climate Change in the CMIP3 Models.” 178  Capotondi et  al. 2012. “Enhanced Upper Ocean Stratification with Climate Change in the CMIP3 Models.” 177 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

821

Deoxygenation  In the open ocean, deoxygenation is primarily caused by global warming: oxygen solubility decreases with increasing temperature, and less oxygen reaches the deep ocean layers because of stratification. In the past 50 years, the ocean’s oxygen content has decreased by 2%,179 and ocean models predict a further decline of up to 7% by 2100.180 Oxygen-minimum zones in the open ocean have expanded by several million square kilometres.181

ditions can also make animals more susceptible to pathogens and parasites, increasing morbidity and mortality from diseases.

In estuaries and other coastal systems strongly influenced by their watershed, oxygen declines can be linked to agriculture, sewage and the combustion of fossil fuels, which generate increased loadings of nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic matter.182 An influx of nutrients causes an increase in microscopic algae, which ultimately die and decay, and the resulting decomposition process consumes oxygen, leading to oxygen depletion in the surrounding water. The Baltic Sea is a prime example of low-oxygen conditions caused by high nutrient loads from land runoff.183 Oxygen decline in coastal systems is exacerbated by climate change (as in the open ocean) and by increasing nutrient delivery originating from increased precipitation.184 Overall, around 700 sites worldwide are now affected by low-oxygen conditions—up from only 45  in the 1960s.185 Deoxygenation can have far-reaching biological consequences. Larger fish species with high metabolic rates, including yellowfin tuna and swordfish, are especially vulnerable to deoxygenation, and there is evidence that the balance of marine life is starting to shift in favour of species that are more tolerant of low-oxygen conditions, such as microbes, jellyfish and some squid.186 Low-oxygen conSchmidtko, S., L.  Stramma and M.  Visbeck. 2017. “Decline in Global Oceanic Oxygen Content during the Past Five Decades.” Nature 542 (7641): 335–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21399. 180  Laffoley, D., and J.M.  Baxter, eds. 2019. Ocean Deoxygenation: Everyone’s Problem—Causes, Impacts, Consequences and Solutions. International Union for Conservation of Nature. doi: https://doi. org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.13.en; Long, M.C., C. Deutsch and T. Ito. 2016. “Finding Forced Trends in Oceanic Oxygen.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 30 (2): 381–97. doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/2015GB005310; Keeling, R.F., A.  Körtzinger and N. Gruber. 2010. “Ocean Deoxygenation in a Warming World.” Annual Review of Marine Science 2 (1): 199–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.marine.010908.163855. 181  Breitburg, D., L.A.  Levin, A.  Oschlies, M.  Grégoire, F.P.  Chavez, D.J. Conley, V. Garçon et al. 2018. “Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal Waters.” Science 359 (6371). doi: https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aam7240. 182  Breitburg et al. 2018. “Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal Waters.” 183  Keeling et al. 2010. “Ocean Deoxygenation in a Warming World.” 184  Breitburg et al. 2018. “Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal Waters.” 185  Laffoley and Baxter. 2019. Ocean Deoxygenation. 186  Laffoley and Baxter. 2019. Ocean Deoxygenation. 179 

Reduced biomass and biodiversity, and redistribution of species  Physical changes and overfishing have profound second-order consequences for the biological ocean. The IPBES estimates that ‘more than 40% of amphibian species, almost a third of reef-forming corals, sharks and shark relatives, and over a third of marine mammals are currently threatened with extinction’.187 Overfishing disproportionately removes predators, which are replaced by shorter-lived and smaller species, and the food chain becomes much simpler, less dynamic and less resilient.188 Predatory fish biomass today is about one-third of 1920 levels.189 Warming and deoxygenation are predicted to cause a large-scale redistribution of global fish and invertebrate biomass by 2055, with a 30–70% increase in high-latitude regions and a drop of up to 40% in the tropics.190 Loss of biodiversity leads to measurable decreases in ecosystem functionality, including the number of viable fisheries (non-collapsed), the provision of nursery habitats, as well as the filtering and detoxification services essential for water quality and the reduction of harmful algal blooms, fish kills and beach closures.191 Sea level rise  Sea level rise results from a combination of thermal expansion caused by the warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of glaciers and ice sheets.192 A range of positive feedback mechanisms makes predictions exceedingly complex. For example, the melting of glaciers accelerates their rate of flow into a warming sea. It has been assessed that the global average sea level

Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 188  Maureaud, A., D.  Gascuel, M.  Colléter, M.L.D.  Palomares, H.  Du Pontavice, D. Pauly and W.W.L. Cheung. 2017. “Global Change in the Trophic Functioning of Marine Food Webs.” PLOS ONE 12 (8). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182826. 189  Christensen et al. 2014. “A Century of Fish Biomass Decline in the Ocean.” 190  Gaines et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” 191  Worm, B., E.B.  Barbier, N.  Beaumont, J.E.  Duffy, C.  Folke, B.S. Halpern, J.B.C. Jackson et al. 2006. “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services.” Science 314 (5800): 787–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294. 192  Lindsey, R. 2019. “Climate Change: Global Sea Level.” National Oceanic and Atmostpheric Administration, 14 August. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-globalsea-level. 187 

822

has risen by about 16–21 cm since 1900,193 at an accelerating rate over the past two decades.194 The future extent and level of potential damage from sea level rise is therefore the subject of intense research and debate. The IPCC frames the range of outcomes between the empirical record of similar events in the distant past, and much more cautious simulations from process-based computer models: ‘Paleo sea level records from warm periods during the last 3  million  years indicate that global mean sea level has exceeded 5 m above present (very high confidence) when global mean temperature was up to 2  °C warmer than pre-industrial (medium confidence)’.195 Perhaps more relevant to climate policies than the slow rise over centuries to millennia is the risk of rapid melting of Antarctic or Greenland ice that could lead to sea level rise of several metres over a span of decades. The risk of such catastrophic events is notoriously difficult to evaluate based on observational records. Phenomena such as deoxygenation and reduction of biomass and biodiversity are highly synergistic—one propels the other. It is not analytically feasible to predict precisely when and where these complex chains of events will occur. However, new ‘big simulation’ tools allow us to describe what might happen in any given ocean region.196 Typically, these simulations show that while a single source of stress (e.g. overfishing, pollution) can do considerable damage, multiple and compounding sources can do worse by orders of magnitude.197 Put simply, ocean risk is a function of how bad the stressors are, the degree to which

Sweet, W.V., R. Horton, R.E. Kopp, A.N. LeGrande and A. Romanou. 2017. “Sea Level Rise.” In Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. 1, edited by D.J.  Wuebbles, D.W.  Fahey, K.A.  Hibbard, D.J.  Dokken, B.C.  Stewart and T.K. Maycock, 333–63. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. doi: https://doi.org/10.7930/J0VM49F2. 194  Cazenave, A., B. Meyssignac and H. Palanisamy. 2018. “Global Sea Level Budget Assessment by World Climate Research Programme.” Sea Scientific Data Open Edition (SEANOE). doi: https://doi. org/10.17882/54854. 195  Church, J.A., P.U. Clark, A. Cazenave, J.M. Gregory, S. Jevrejeva, A.  Levermann, M.A.  Merrifield et  al. 2013. “Sea Level Change.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.  Tignor, S.K.  Allen, J.  Boschung, A.  Nauels et  al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf. 196  Bailey, R.M., and J.M.A. van der Grient. 2020. “OSIRIS: A Model for Integrating the Effects of Multiple Stressors on Marine Ecosystems.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 493 (May): 110211. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110211. These models look at the ocean as a network of linked basic states (such as the populations of whales, or zooplankton, or temperature) and use large computer simulations to assess the impact of specific stressors on this network. 197  Bailey and van der Grient. 2020. “OSIRIS.” 193 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

they reinforce each other and the natural variability of the ocean they are affecting. The 2019 IPCC report The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate estimates that climate-induced declines in ocean health will cost the global economy US $428 billion/ year by 2050 and $1.98 trillion/year by 2100 (Fig. 20.20).198 These numbers encompass costs associated with declines in ocean health and services due to climate-change, overfishing, excessive nutrient loads and plastic pollution. Of course, the synergy story has an upside as well. If each new layer of stress increases overall risk disproportionately, then the opposite is also true: for each layer taken away, the system becomes more resilient. This makes it possible to buy valuable time when dealing with long-term issues such as warming or acidifying waters.

4.3.2 The Decline of Ocean Health Is Threatening Most Ocean Sectors Insufficient action to reform the ocean economy and protect and restore ocean health can negatively impact ocean sectors that depend on a healthy, productive and resilient ocean or are directly exposed to its physical manifestations (e.g. sea level rise, waves, extreme events). Wild-catch fisheries  Climate change will impact wild-­ catch fisheries in terms of both stock productivity (i.e. its potential sustainable yield) and distribution (i.e. its physical range). The IPBES states that ‘climate change alone is projected to decrease ocean net primary production by 3–10%, and fish biomass by 3–25%’ by 2100, depending on climate scenarios.199 These global numbers mask even more significant variation in changes across stocks and regions. Poleward regions such as the North Atlantic and North Pacific are ­predicted to see a 30–70% increase in catch potential, while equatorial regions face a 40% decrease.200 Where stocks decrease or move away from traditional fishing grounds, fishers must spend more resources to locate and catch them.201 Conversely, any shifts to shallower water may make stocks easier for local fishers to catch but more vulnerable to overfishing. Overall, smaller-scale fisheries which rely on vessels with limited range and low technological capabilities are likely to be most vulnerable to shifts in

Pörtner et al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 199  Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 200  Gaines et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” 201  Laffoley and Baxter. 2019. Ocean Deoxygenation. 198 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

823

Fig. 20.20  The cost of inaction on the global economy. Note: Cost associated with declines in ocean health and services due to climate change, overfishing, excessive nutrient loads and plastic pollution. (Source: Pörtner, H.O., D.C.  Roberts, V.  Masson-Delmotte, P.  Zhai,

M.  Tignor, K.  Poloczanska, K.  Mintenbeck et  al., eds. 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf)

range or migratory patterns.202 The equity implications of longer travel and/or declining yields are pronounced, especially since artisanal fisheries provide the protein of last resource in many developing countries’ coastal areas. Regulatory constraints may also hinder fishers’ ability to adapt, particularly if species move across management boundaries.203 Depending on the chosen climate scenario, between 28% and 72% of current global fishery yields will shift across country boundaries by 2100.204 In addition to economic impacts, the redistribution of catch potential is likely to increase the risk of conflicts among fisheries, authorities and communities. In the absence of a coordinated response, the compounding effects of overfishing and stock (range) shift could severely threaten future global fishery yields and profits.205

With these conditions expected to change and levels of uncertainty to grow, more adaptive management of fisheries will be critical to a better future (e.g. through rights-based fishery or secure-access systems).206

Laffoley and Baxter. 2019. Ocean Deoxygenation. Pinsky, M.L., G.  Reygondeau, R.  Caddell, J.  Palacios-Abrantes, J. Spijkers and W.W.L. Cheung. 2018. “Preparing Ocean Governance for Species on the Move.” Science 360 (6394): 1189–91. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2360. 204  Gaines, S.D., C.  Costello, B.  Owashi, T.  Mangin, J.  Bone, J.G. Molinos, M. Burden et al. 2018. “Improved Fisheries Management Could Offset Many Negative Effects of Climate Change.” Science Advances 4 (8): eaao1378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378. 205  Garrett, A., and J.  Pinnegar. 2019. “Climate Change Adaptation in the UK (Wild Capture) Seafood Industry 2018.” Seafish/Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership. https://seafish.org/media/ Publications/Climate_change_adaptation_in_the_UK_wild_capture_ seafood_industry_2018.pdf. 202  203 

• Mariculture. The overall potential of mariculture is likely to remain high under climate change. With careful planning, improvements in feed technology and the implementation of best practices for preventing or reducing negative impacts on ecosystems and communities, mariculture could offset long-term losses in food and income from capture fisheries in most countries that will experience losses in that sector. However, a study found that a severe climate scenario would create both gains and losses in the studied 180 cultured finfish and bivalve species.207 Lower trophic species such as bivalves were affected disproportionately due to the compounding effects of shifts in temperature, chlorophyll and ocean acidification. The Indo-Pacific region—China, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia—is particularly impacted; finfish mariculture Lubchenco, J., E.B.  Cerny-Chipman, J.N.  Reimer and S.A.  Levin. 2016. “The Right Incentives Enable Ocean Sustainability Successes and Provide Hope for the Future.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (51): 14507–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1604982113. 207  Froehlich, H.E., R.R.  Gentry and B.S.  Halpern. 2018. “Global Change in Marine Aquaculture Production Potential under Climate Change.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (11): 1745–50. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/s41559-018-0669-1. 206 

824

could decline by as much as 30% in some areas, and the risks to bivalve farmers are even higher.208 Many coastal residents in these regions depend heavily on seafood for employment and food security. Anthropogenic pollution is already having an effect on mariculture operations. Apart from farmed species requiring pristine water conditions for optimal growth, the accumulation of anthropogenic pollutants, especially microplastic in farmed (and wild) species, is a significant concern.209 This is especially true of non-fed mariculture species like bivalves,210 who feed by filtering suspended material—including the accidental microplastics—out of the water column. Tourism  Sea level rise will erode and submerge tourism infrastructure and beaches, with many resorts sitting at less than 1 m above the high-water mark.211 In the Caribbean, a sea level rise of 1 m is projected to endanger 49–60% of tourist resorts, damage or cause the loss of 21 airports and cause severe flooding of 35 ports.212 In 2050, according to one estimate, rebuilding tourist resorts alone will cost the region US $10 billion to $23.3 billion.213 In Venice, higher water levels are threatening building integrity, eroding the lagoon and subjecting the city to more than twice as many floods since 1960.

Froehlich et  al. 2018. “Global Change in Marine Aquaculture Production Potential under Climate Change.” 209  Rochman, C.M., A.  Tahir, S.L.  Williams, D.V.  Baxa, R.  Lam, J.T. Miller, F.-C. The et al. 2015. “Anthropogenic Debris in Seafood: Plastic Debris and Fibers from Textiles in Fish and Bivalves Sold for Human Consumption.” Scientific Reports 5 (1): 1–10. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/srep14340. 210  Phuong, N.N., L.  Poirier, Q.T.  Pham, F.  Lagarde and A.  Zalouk-­ Vergnoux. 2018. “Factors Influencing the Microplastic Contamination of Bivalves from the French Atlantic Coast: Location, Season and/or Mode of Life?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 129 (2): 664–74. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.054; van Cauwenberghe, L., and C.R.  Janssen. 2014. “Microplastics in Bivalves Cultured for Human Consumption.” Environmental Pollution 193 (October): 65–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010; Li, J., D.  Yang, L.  Li, K.  Jabeen and H.  Shi. 2015. “Microplastics in Commercial Bivalves from China.” Environmental Pollution 207 (December): 190–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018. 211  Nicholls, M. 2014. “Climate Change: Implications for Tourism: Key Findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.” University of Cambridge. https://www.cisl.cam. ac.uk/business-action/low-carbon-transformation/ipcc-climate-­ science-­business-briefings/pdfs/briefings/ipcc-ar5-implications-fortourism-­briefing-prin.pdf. 212  Pachauri, R.K., L.  Mayer and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. 2015. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_ SynthesisReport.pdf. 213  Nicholls. 2014. “Climate Change.” 208 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

The tourism industry also will be hit by the loss of coral reefs. Coral reefs contribute $11.5 billion annually to global tourism revenues, benefitting more than 100 countries.214 Coral reefs would be virtually all lost at 2 °C warming,215 with serious impacts for tourism in Australia and small island developing states (SIDS) in the Caribbean and elsewhere.216 Tourism is both a source and a victim of pollution.217 Beach closures due to sewage pollution affect countries worldwide. Other direct forms of pollution impacting tourism include plastic waste on beaches, making them undesirable for tourists to visit. Indirect impacts of anthropogenic pollution on tourism also exist: the combined effect of elevated sea surface temperatures, excess fertiliser and increased nutrient runoff due to deforestation are potential causes of the explosive growth of sargassum seaweed218 that is washing up on tourism beaches in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa, driving down hotel bookings in certain areas.219 On top of these worrying trends, the COVID-19 pandemic is having severe impacts on coastal tourism, for example. SIDS are expected to experience a 7.3% fall in gross domestic product (GDP) given their tourism dependency, and this drop could be up to 16% in highly tourism-dependent SIDS like Seychelles or the Maldives.220 Ports and supply chains  Severe disruptions due to extreme weather events can be expected. A 2013 study221 finds that the supply chain consequences of compounding sea level rise, higher storm surges, increased cyclone intensity and Nicholls. 2014. “Climate Change.” Masson-Delmotte et al. 2019. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. 216  Nicholls. 2014. “Climate Change.” 217  Diez, S.M., P.G.  Patil, J.  Morton, D.J.  Rodriguez, A.  Vanzella, D.V.  Robin, T.  Maes and C.  Corbin. 2019. “Marine Pollution in the Caribbean: Not a Minute to Waste.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/482391554225185720/ pdf/Marine-Pollution-in-the-Caribbean-Not-a-Minute-to-Waste.pdf. 218  Djakouré, S., M.  Araujo, A.  Hounsou-Gbo, C.  Noriega and B.  Bourlès. 2017. “On the Potential Causes of the Recent Pelagic Sargassum Blooms Events in the Tropical North Atlantic Ocean.” Biogeosciences Discussions, September, 1–20. doi: https://doi. org/10.5194/bg-2017-346. 219  Agren, D. 2019. “Seaweed Invasion Threatens Tourism in Mexico’s Beaches as Problem Worsens.” The Guardian, 28 June. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/28/ mexico-seaweed-invasion-tourism-caribbean-beaches. 220  Coke-Hamilton, P. 2020. “Impact of COVID-19 on Tourism in Small Island Developing States.” UN Conference on Trade and Development. 24 April. https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails. aspx?OriginalVersionID=2341. 221  Becker, A.H., M.  Acciaro, R.  Asariotis, E.  Cabrera, L.  Cretegny, P. Crist, M. Esteban et al. 2013. “A Note on Climate Change Adaptation for Seaports: A Challenge for Global Ports, a Challenge for Global Society.” Climatic Change 120 (4): 683–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-013-0843-z. 214  215 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

825

destructiveness,222 wave regimes223 and river floods of ports,224 coastal refineries and chemical plants could cause operational delays at a scale of billions of U.S. dollars per day,225 with incalculable effects on business cycles, supply chains and the overall operating risk of companies.

protection.228 In Europe, annual damage from coastal floods is expected to rise from €1.25 billion today to €93–960 billion by the end of the century.229 Without drastic changes towards climate-smart coastal development, major disruptions can be expected in addition to damages to coastal communities.

4.3.3 The Risk to Coastal Communities Is Increasing Major and irreversible shifts in ocean functionality threaten coastal communities and habitats in many ways—the current ocean economy system is far from delivering prosperity for all. Further, the effects of these shifts will be disproportionately felt by vulnerable, historically underrepresented and underserved communities in both developed and developing countries.

Risks to agriculture  Sea level rise will affect agriculture through land submergence, the salinisation of soil and fresh groundwater, and land loss due to permanent coastal erosion.230 Countries heavily dependent on coastal agriculture, such as Bangladesh, are likely to experience reduced production and livelihood diversity, as well as greater food insecurity (Fig. 20.21).231

Flood damage  New research has demonstrated that extreme coastal inundation events are increasing, and in some regions increased chronic flooding has been observed.226 Many small islands already face large, sometimes existential, flood damage, and damage from sea level rise could equal several percentage points of GDP in 2100.227 Risk associated with floods and hurricanes are accentuated for the 100–300 million people living within coastal 100-year flood zones, as the loss of coastal habitats and coral reefs reduces natural coastal

Becker et  al. 2013. “A Note on Climate Change Adaptation for Seaports.” 223  Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea et al. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf. 224  Tebaldi, C., B.H.  Strauss and C.E.  Zervas. 2012. “Modelling Sea Level Rise Impacts on Storm Surges along US Coasts.” Environmental Research Letters 7 (1): 014032. doi: https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032. 225  Becker et  al. 2013. “A Note on Climate Change Adaptation for Seaports.” 226  Strauss, B.H., R.E.  Kopp, W.V.  Sweet and K.  Bittermann. 2016. “Unnatural Coastal Floods: Sea Level Rise and the Human Fingerprint on U.S. Floods since 1950.” Princeton, NJ: Climate Central. https://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/research/Unnatural-Coastal-­ Floods-2016.pdf. 227  Wong, P.P., I.J.  Losada, J.P.  Gattuso, J.  Hinkel, A.  Khattabi, M.L. McInnes, Y. Saito and A. Sallenger. n.d. “2014: Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas.” Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A, Global and Sectoral Aspects: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C.B.  Field, V.R.  Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 222 

Permanently displaced coastal populations  Rising sea level will be experienced not only as a long-term, gradual event but also as a series of extreme events caused by the compounding effects of spring tides, stronger and slower-­ moving hurricane surges, spring floods and land loss. Based on a scenario without effective climate change mitigation policies,232 a 1  m rise in sea level would entail dramatic increases in the frequency of 100-year extreme weather events in cities such as Shanghai, New  York and Kolkata (Fig. 20.21). Some cities will have the means to adapt with major feats of engineering, but other areas will become unliveable, generating waves of displaced people in the context of disasters and climate change. Indeed, 88  million to 1.4  billion people are estimated to be at risk of displacement.233 In the United States, 3 ft (~0.91 m) of sea level rise Díaz et  al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” 229  Vousdoukas, M.I., L.  Mentaschi, E.  Voukouvalas, A.  Bianchi, F. Dottori and L. Feyen. 2018. “Climatic and Socioeconomic Controls of Future Coastal Flood Risk in Europe.” Nature Climate Change 8 (9): 776–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0260-4. 230  Pörtner, H.O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, K. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck et al., eds. 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. https://report. ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf. 231  Khanom, T. 2016. “Effect of Salinity on Food Security in the Context of Interior Coast of Bangladesh.” Ocean & Coastal Management 130 (October): 205–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2016.06.013. 232  Riahi, K., S.  Rao, V.  Krey, C.  Cho, V.  Chirkov, G.  Fischer, G.  Kindermann et  al. 2011. “RCP 8.5: A Scenario of Comparatively High Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Climatic Change 109 (1): 33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y. 233  Hauer, M.E., E. Fussell, V. Mueller, M. Burkett, M. Call, K. Abel, R.  McLeman and D.  Wrathall. 2020. “Sea-Level Rise and Human Migration.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1 (1): 28–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0002-9. 228 

826

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.21  Impacts from compounding effects of climate change. (Sources: King, D., Z.  Dadi, Q.  Ya and A.  Ghosh. 2015. Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health; Dasgupta, S., M.M.  Hossein, M.  Huq and

D. Wheeler. “Climate Change and Soil Salinity: The Case of Coastal Bangladesh.” Ambio 44: 815–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-­ 015-­0681-­5. Images: Left: GenadijsZ/Shutterstock; Right: FotoKina/ Shutterstock)

by 2100 threatens four million people.234 The situation is particularly dire for SIDS, for whom raising seas can become an existential threat.235

nario, the ocean economy could have a net negative effect on progress towards UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, and reducing inequalities (see Sect. 5.4 for a detailed assessment of the link between SDG 14 (life below water) and the other SDGs).

4.3.4 Ocean Activities Are Currently Not Delivering on the Social Sustainable Development Goals If not properly regulated and managed, a growing ocean economy can lead to even greater economic inequality than already exists.236 Benefits will continue to be captured by an elite and strong incumbents, whilst vulnerable and marginalised groups become even more exposed to economic, social and cultural impacts and displacements.237 In this sceHauer, M.E., J.M. Evans and D.R. Mishra. 2016. “Millions Projected to Be at Risk from Sea-Level Rise in the Continental United States.” Nature Climate Change 6 (7): 691–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2961. 235  OECD. 2018. Making Development Co-operation Work for Small Island Developing States. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/ publication/9789264287648-en; Ourbak, T., and A.K.  Magnan. 2018. “The Paris Agreement and Climate Change Negotiations: Small Islands, Big Players.” Regional Environmental Change 18(8): 2201–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1247-9; Thomas, A., and L.  Benjamin. 2018. “Policies and Mechanisms to Address Climate-­ Induced Migration and Displacement in Pacific and Caribbean Small Island Developing States.” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 10 (1): 86–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCCSM-03-2017-0055. 236  Allison et  al. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” 237  Bennett, N.J., A.M.  Cisneros-Montemayor, J.  Blythe, J.J.  Silver, G. Singh, N. Andrews, A. Calò et al. 2019. “Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Economy.” Nature Sustainability 2 (11): 991–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1. 234 

Increasing inequalities  Global inequity is increasingly acknowledged as a substantial challenge to the ocean economy. Inequities are contrary to and will undermine progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals as they have contributed to a deteriorating ocean environment, with negative effects on human well-being primarily borne by the most vulnerable. Climate change risks aggravate existing inequity. The vulnerable and marginalised will be disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change. The lack of alternatives and high dependence on fish stocks for nutrition and income disproportionally expose the coastal poor to the effects of climate change.238 Growing demand for fish feed can also exacerbate inequalities by diverting small pelagic fish like pilchards from domestic consumption for food, where such fish are a key component of the diet for many communities.239 In addition, poor communities have

Österblom, H., C.C.C. Wabnitz and D. Tladi. 2020. “Towards Ocean Equity.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/towards-ocean-equity.pdf; Taylor, S.F.W., M.J.  Roberts, B.  Milligan and R.  Ncwadi. 2019. “Measurement and Implications of Marine Food Security in the Western Indian Ocean: An Impending Crisis?” Food Security 11 (6): 1395–415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00971-6. 239  Tacon, A.G.J., and M. Metian. 2009. “Fishing for Feed or Fishing for Food: Increasing Global Competition for Small Pelagic Forage Fish.” Ambio 38 (6): 294–302. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40390239. 238 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

827

fewer resources to respond to shifting fish stocks by changing gear types or travelling further to fish, as well as fewer resources to shift livelihoods altogether. Gender inequality is pervasive in many ocean industries overall, and climate change could be especially devastating for the most marginalised coastal women.240 The international community’s global ambition to ‘leave no one behind’ can only be realised through inclusive governance and the fair distribution of ocean benefits. An increased focus on equity will be instrumental for the legitimacy, effectiveness and sustainability of the ocean economy.

countries. Informal or unregulated economies and fishing activities, such as shellfish gathering or fish processing, face significant exposure to unregulated exploitation and disproportionally employ women245 and marginalised groups.246 Unreported catches and illegal activities can mask labour trafficking, peonage systems, unsustainable resource use and health and sanitary issues whilst simultaneously avoiding taxation and detracting from wider economic benefits.247

Food insecurity and malnutrition  Projected changes in fish distribution and abundance will put income, livelihoods, nutritional health and food security at risk in communities that rely on marine resources, such as those in the Arctic, West Africa and small island developing states.241 Globally, climate change puts up to three billion people at risk of food and economic insecurity.242 Food security and human health are also threatened by harmful algal blooms, with communities in areas without sustained monitoring pro­ grams and dedicated early warning systems most vulnerable to these risks.243 Cultural diet changes in certain parts of the world, particularly Pacific island nations, are shifting diets away from healthy, local reef seafood towards imported, often highly processed, high sugar and fat foods. The results are rising malnutrition and increasing prevalence of non-­ communicable diseases.244 Job safety and security  The isolation of ships at sea and the liability protection of vessel owners afforded by current flag state regulations serve to conceal human rights abuses, whilst labour protections are poorly enforced in many Garai, J. 2016. “Gender Specific Vulnerability in Climate Change and Possible Sustainable Livelihoods of Coastal People. A Case from Bangladesh.” Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 16 (1): 79–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci656; Akinsemolu, A.A., and O.A.P. Olukoya. 2020. “The Vulnerability of Women to Climate Change in Coastal Regions of Nigeria: A Case of the Ilaje Community in Ondo State.” Journal of Cleaner Production 246 (February): 119015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119015. 241  Pörtner et al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 242  Holsman, K.K., E.L. Hazen, A. Haynie, S. Gourguet, A. Hollowed, S.J.  Bograd, J.F.  Samhouri and K.  Aydin. 2019. “Towards Climate Resiliency in Fisheries Management.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 76 (5): 1368–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz031. 243  Pörtner et al. 2019. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 244  Charlton, K.E., J.  Russell, E.  Gorman, Q.  Hanich, A.  Delisle, B.  Campbell and J.  Bell. 2016. “Fish, Food Security and Health in Pacific Island Countries and Territories: A Systematic Literature Review.” BMC Public Health 16 (1): 285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12889-016-2953-9. 240 

BAU ocean industries development is likely to cause and exacerbate inequities across the spectrum of ocean sectors, and people with vulnerable marine livelihoods (who are more likely to be women, ethnic and racial minorities, migrants, youth and Indigenous People) are likely to be disproportionately affected. A new paradigm urgently needs to be embraced.248 Human rights  Organised crime and human rights violations are a known plague within the ocean economy, especially the fisheries sector. Apart from the human impact, these crimes continue to have negative impacts on the environment as well as the global economy. The crimes can include, among others, tax crimes, money laundering, labour offences, drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. Many of these crimes can be associated with or facilitated by illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing,249 which is estimated to account for 20% of the world’s catch (up to 50% in

Harper, S., C.  Grubb, M.  Stiles and U.R.  Sumaila. 2017. “Contributions by Women to Fisheries Economies: Insights from Five Maritime Countries.” Coastal Management 45 (2): 91–106. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1278143. 246  Barange, M., T. Bahri, M.C.M. Beveridge, K.L. Cochrane, S. Funge-­ Smith and F. Poulain. 2018. “Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options.” FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper no. 627. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search. do?recordID=XF2018002008. 247  Lopes, P.F.M., L.  Mendes, V.  Fonseca and S.  Villasante. 2017. “Tourism as a Driver of Conflicts and Changes in Fisheries Value Chains in Marine Protected Areas.” Journal of Environmental Management 200 (September): 123–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2017.05.080; Moreto, W.D., R.W. Charlton, S.E. DeWitt and C.M.  Burton. 2019. “The Convergence of CAPTURED Fish and People: Examining the Symbiotic Nature of Labor Trafficking and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.” Deviant Behavior 41(6): 1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1594587. 248  Allison et  al. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” 249  Witbooi, E., K.-D. Ali, M.A. Santosa, G. Hurley, Y. Husein, S. Maharaj, I.  Okafor-Yarwood et  al. 2020. “Organized Crime in the Fisheries Sector.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/organised-crime-associated-fisheries. 245 

828

some areas).250 These offences have been notoriously challenging to address due to jurisdictional disputes and inadequate or absent legal frameworks and enforcement. Attention has been drawn to this issue on an international level, with increasing understanding of the complexities of organised crime in the fishing sector. In 2008, the UN General Assembly requested that states assist in gathering more information on the connection between illegal fishing and organised crime.251

4.4 Embracing Hope: The Building Momentum for a Sustainable Ocean Economy When reading through the litany of threats to the ocean, two uncomfortable questions arise: Is the ocean so complex and damaged that it is too big to fix?252 Is the only way out to immediately curtail most ocean activities? The answer to both is a decisive ‘no’. A profoundly different mindset is emerging, in an unprecedented number of global initiatives through the G20 and G7, the Ocean Panel, the UN Ocean Conference, Our Ocean, the World Ocean Summits, the UN Decade of Ocean Science, World Trade Organization meetings on ending harmful fishing subsidies, COP26 on climate, COP15 on biodiversity, the RISE UP Blue Call to Action (led jointly by NGOs and civil society)253 and so on. Coastal nations, especially small island states (alternatively referred to as ‘large ocean states’)254 are advocating for socially equitable and environmentally sustainable growth.255 Civil society is realising the ocean’s decline and vigorously endorsing governmental action to protect it: a 2020 survey found, for instance, that 92% of Japanese respondents supported the establishment of MPAs, 92% of Widjaja, S., T. Long, H. Wirajuda, A. Gusman, S. Juwana, T. Ruchimat and C.  Wilcox. 2020. “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/HLP%20Blue%20 Paper%20on%20IUU%20Fishing%20and%20Associated%20Drivers. pdf; Witbooi et al. 2020. “Organized Crime in the Fisheries Sector.” 251  Widjaja et  al. 2020. “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers”; Witbooi et al. 2020. “Organized Crime in the Fisheries Sector.” 252  Lubchenco, J., and S.D.  Gaines. 2019. “A New Narrative for the Ocean.” Science 364 (6444): 911. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aay2241. 253  Oceano Azul, Ocean Unite, Oak Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Marine Conservation Institute, High Seas Alliance, Oceana et al. 2020. “RISE UP: A Blue Call to Action.” https://www. riseupfortheocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCA_RISE-­UP_ EN_A4-­1.pdf. 254  Allison et  al. 2020. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” 255  Bennett et  al. 2019. “Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Economy.” 250 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

U.S. respondents believed that ‘ocean governmental regulations are necessary’ and 92% of Indonesian respondents ‘supported environmental conservation regulations to protect the ocean’.256 In response to the growing pressures described in Sect. 4.3, innovations and trends are emerging that demonstrate through trial and error that alternatives are possible.257 These ‘niche innovations’ can be geographical and/or sectoral spaces, where innovators coalesce in response to perceived pressures affecting the ocean. These niche innovations can be protected from market dynamics (through subsidies, soft money) or political interference (through regulation or location in the non-profit sector). This section identifies (non-­ exhaustively) seeds of change already sprouting and in need of careful nurture: celebrated in their beginnings, prioritised in policy and finance, and promoted publicly. This section first looks at selected sectorial innovations and trends (in particular in fisheries, mariculture, energy, shipping and tourism) before identifying additional cross-­ sectorial ones (in data, ocean planning, finance, anti-­pollution efforts and accounting).

4.4.1 Hopeful and Promising Sectorial Trends and Innovations Sustainable fisheries  Three main trends will accelerate sustainable reforms: • The turning institutional tide. Most national fishery ministries are now committed to the goal of maximum sustainable yields. Most, however, still struggle to attain that goal. In recent years, regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), long constrained by consensus decision rules, have finally been able to restore some tuna stocks, notably Atlantic bluefin tuna and southern bluefin tuna.258 The plight of artisanal fishers is being more fully considered in fishery management plans, but this is tempered by the lack of catch and effort data from artisanal fisheries, which are often equal in size to industrial fisheries. Fish-dependent nations in Asia (e.g. Indonesia, Fiji, the Philippines, the Marshall Islands) and Africa (e.g. Mauritius, Seychelles)

Kantar. 2020. “Perceptions of the Ocean and Environment.” Swilling, M., M. Ruckelshaus, T.B. Rudolph, P. Mbatha, E. Allison, S. Gelcich and H. Österblom. 2020. “The Ocean Transition: What to Learn from System Transitions.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/ocean-transitionwhat-learn-system-transitions. 258  Walter, J., R. Sharma and M. Ortiz. 2018. “Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Stock Assessment 1950–2015 Using Stock Synthesis.” ICCAT 100; Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. n.d. “Latest Stock Assessment.” https://www.ccsbt.org/en/content/latest-­ stock-­assessment. Accessed 6 May 2020. 256  257 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

829

are committed to restoring the efficiency and equitability of their fisheries and/or have made substantial protected area commitments. • A data revolution. Sound fishery management digital tools are now widely available, including vessel tracking, fishery simulation, registry and enforcement systems (e.g. satellite imagery, eDNA and drones). Philanthropically funded initiatives to study the ocean have mushroomed (e.g. REVOcean, OceanX). Market demand in the developed world for sustainably sourced fish has never been higher and can now be reliably serviced with chain-of-­custody certification. Shortcomings in data availability are being addressed through new collection technologies (onboard cameras, scanners) and new data analysis and treatment methods. Lowering the costs of such technology and new models around sharing will be necessary to also benefit the broader base of small-scale fishers.

• Asset turnover. Many of the developing country fishing fleets are ageing as profits have been too low to fund depreciation. The fleets of Ghana, the Philippines and Senegal, for example, all have an average age of more than 30 years.259 In the absence of capacity-related subsidies, many of these boats cannot be profitably replaced— if market discipline is maintained (no capacity subsidies or assistance, from either the country itself or foreign nations through loans and/or selling of fishing rights). In such cases, fishing capacity is allowed to drop, and the profits of remaining boats can slowly recover towards the maximum sustainable yield point; creating feedback effects that financially reward sustainable fishers. Box 20.1 presents two inspiring case studies of fishery recovery (at national and international levels), demonstrating that sound measures properly implemented can lead both to restoration of fish stocks and economic and social gains.

two-thirds of overfished stocks have been rebuilt or begun rebuilding since 1996. Revenue from 1996 to 2010 is up The United States Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 54% in real terms.a The key features—reliance only on (SFA), and amendment to the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens scientific evidence, use of rights-based approaches, strict Fishery Conservation and Management Act or Magnuson catch limits and accountability measures, and the 10-year Stevens Act (MSA), governs fisheries management in the rebuilding plans—have been widely copied by fishery U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (up to 200 miles off- managers worldwide. shore). It is widely credited with saving U.S. fisheries. The The law enjoys considerable support from the comoriginal MSA established the legal basis for many essen- mercial fishing community and has generally held up well tial fishery management mechanisms, such as the permit- to inevitable pressure to extend deadlines for rebuilding ting of vessels and operators, and the ability to restrict stocks, relax catch limits and monitoring requirements, gear, access and periods of fishing. However, for the first and limit the influence of science. Support for the law 20  years, and despite language aspiring to ‘sustainable reflects the fact that stocks are rebuilding and fishers have fishing’, it did not explicitly prevent overfishing. The SFA input into the process, but especially because fishers’ changed this decisively. Its most important features were long-term incentives are aligned with their short-term mandates to (1) not only end overfishing but also recover incentives. The approach also combines national stanoverfished species to sound, fully documented population dards with regional tailoring. Regional fishery managelevels (usually about one-third of the estimated pre-fishing ment councils propose management plans for each fishery population) within 10 years (with certain exceptions), (2) that take into account local knowledge and factors but require that fishing quotas (catch limits) be set for each must also satisfy strict national standards. fishery, based only on scientific evidence about what is The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) include biologically sustainable, and include accountability mea- the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of sures to adjust future quotas in the case that overfishing Kiribati, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the accidentally occurs, and (3) allow the use of rights-based Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Palau, the Independent fishery management approaches if appropriate for that par- State of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. ticular fishery. The inclusion of specific timelines and Because these nations’ mostly contiguous EEZs hold conaccountability measures made all the difference. siderable fishery resources (especially tuna), they have These amendments were highly successful. Forty-­ developed a uniform management structure that priorithree fish stocks have been rebuilt since 2000, and over tises resource sustainability and transparency.b Box 20.1 Successful Fishery Recovery Can Happen: Two Hopeful Case Studies

FAO. n.d. “The Status of the Fishing Fleet.” http://www.fao.org/3/ y5600e/y5600e05.htm. Accessed 6 May 2020. 259 

830

The agreement most prominently features three major arrangements:c 1. A regionwide register and monitoring of fishing vessels, with trackers on each boat. 2. No transshipment at sea, mandatory daily catch and effort reporting, regular logbook maintenance, 100% onboard observer coverage and an electronic data transmission device that provides position and catch information. 3. No fishing in the high-seas pockets between PNA nation EEZs, no fishing on floating aggregation devices between July and September, and mandatory retention of any bigeye, yellowfin or skipjack tuna caught. The resulting comprehensive data collection makes it possible to set up and enforce the Vessel Day Scheme—a type of fishing quota that allocates ‘allowed days of fishing’ to individual vessels. Based on a scientific stock assessment, an overall ‘days of fishing’ effort is determined (44,033 in 2019 and 2020)d and appropriated to the PNA countries.e The countries can then sell their allocated fishing days to fishing vessels, resulting in sizable revenues for the PNA countries—nearly US $400 million in 2015.f The fishing days are tradeable between countries, which helps optimize fishing across the entire PNA territory—an important feature in managing highly migratory tuna stocks. It also ensures that the fishery’s benefits are shared by all PNA countries, regardless of where the tuna happen to be in any given year.g The agreement has increased revenue for the PNA countries while maintaining sustainable, science-­driven harvesting practices. It has stabilised the stocks, provided the PNA (and other) nations with the lasting value derived from a well-managed fishery and has become a model for other ocean states. In 2012, this led the PNA skipjack tuna fishery to become certified by the Marine Stewardship

Mariculture  Trends in marine aquaculture also point towards future sustainable expansion: • National priority. China and Norway lead the development of large, next-generation offshore finfish farms (Box 20.2) which attempt to address issues of containment, disease control and nutrient efficiency. Archipelago nations, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, are exploring locally relevant approaches such as combined seaweed and low-trophic mariculture farms. National commit-

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Council, making it the world’s largest independently certified tuna fishery.h Sources: a   Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Earthjustice, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and Pew Charitable Trusts. 2018. “How the Magnuson-Stevens Act Is Helping Rebuild U.S. Fisheries.” https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/magnuson-­ stevens-­act-­rebuild-­us-­fisheries-­fs.pdf b  Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA). n.d. “Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common Stocks (As Amended April 2010).” https://www.pnatuna.com/content/nauru-­a greement. Accessed 13 August 2020 c   World Wildlife Fund. 2011. “Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA).” http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/factsheet_7.pdf d  “Purse Seine VDS TAE for 2018–2020.” 2017. Parties to the Palau Arrangement, 22nd Annual Meeting, Majuro, Marshall Islands, 5–7 April. http://www.pnatuna.com/ sites/default/files/Purse%20Seine%20VDS%20TAE%20 for%202018-­2020_0.pdf e   Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. n.d. Introduction. https://www.ffa.int/vds. Accessed 6 May 2020 f  PNA. 2016. “Behind the Scenes Work Makes PNA’s Vessel Day Scheme a Success.” https://www.pnatuna. com/node/373 g   International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2015. “Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA): Interview with Maurice Brownjon.” https://www.iucn.org/ content/parties-­n auru-­a greement-­p na-­i nterview-­ maurice-­brownjon h   Marine Stewardship Council. 2016. “PNA Tuna: Small Islands, Big Opportunities.” http://pna-­stories.msc. org/

ments to spatially explicit planning, streamlined permitting, rigorous operating standards and state-supported R&D are likely to further accelerate mariculture. • Improvement in fish meal/oil alternatives’ availability and price. The conversion of former biofuel or ethanol fermentation facilities to algae production (in places like Brazil or the U.S. Midwest) would scale up production so significantly that price points for omega-3 fatty acids as FM/FO alternatives and proteins could tumble (Box 20.2). Given the problems in the current biofuel markets, this

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

could happen soon, and with considerable government support to prevent the stranding of these major industrial assets. Insect-based fish feeds also are attracting increasing attention, creating a source of revenue out of food waste (insects such as black soldier fly larvae can be grown out of food waste and be used to feed farmed fish).260 • Progress made on limiting environmental impact of finfish mariculture. Apart from feed, the main challenges of mariculture are (1) fouling of the water column and sea floor, (2) parasites (sea lice) that migrate to native (wild) species, (3) leakage of antibiotics used to (over) treat diseases and (4) the escape of non-native (and/or genetically modified) species. New technologies offer some promise. Remote video-controlled feeding systems can reduce food waste; parasites can be controlled drug-­ free through the addition of cleaner fish,261 lasers, electric fences and sudden changes in temperature; 262 disease resistance can be boosted with selective breeding;263 control systems such as the Norwegian ‘traffic light’ system can control the growth of farmed salmon;264 and rigid-­ structure caging systems can reduce escapes. Finally, the combination of bivalves and seaweed into multi-trophic farms is a promising approach to limit some impacts of finfish farming.265

Biancarosa, I., V.  Sele, I.  Belghit, R. Ørnsrud, E.-J.  Lock and H. Amlund. 2019. “Replacing Fish Meal with Insect Meal in the Diet of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Does Not Impact the Amount of Contaminants in the Feed and It Lowers Accumulation of Arsenic in the Fillet.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 36 (8): 1191–205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2019.1619938. 261  Deady, S., S. Varian and J. Fives. 1995. “The Use of Cleaner-Fish to Control Sea Lice on Two Irish Salmon (Salmo salar) Farms with Particular Reference to Wrasse Behavior in Salmon Cages.” Aquaculture 131 (March): 73–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(94)00331-H. 262  The Explorer. 2019. “Norwegian Technology for Sustainable Aquaculture.” 14 August. https://www.theexplorer.no/stories/ocean/ norwegian-technology-for-sustainable-aquaculture/. 263  Klinger, D., and R.  Naylor. 2012. “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 247–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-021111-161531. 264  Sandvik, A.D., I.A.  Johnsen, M.S.  Myksvoll, P.N.  Sævik and M.D. Skogen. 2020. “Prediction of the Salmon Lice Infestation Pressure in a Norwegian Fjord.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 77 (2): 746–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz256. 265  Buck, B.H., M.F.  Troell, G.  Krause, D.L.  Angel, B.  Grote and T.  Chopin. 2018. “State of the Art and Challenges for Offshore Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA).” Frontiers in Marine Science 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00165.

831

Box 20.2 Examples of Mariculture Tech-Driven Innovations

Credit: SalMar SalMar’s Ocean Farm 1 is one of the largest offshore marine mariculture pens. Built in China and deployed in Norway, the 110-m-wide-structure is predicted to be able to hold over 1 million salmon. Apart from its enormous size (250,000  cm3), it is able to withstand 12-m waves and is equipped with over 20,000 sensors monitoring the well-being of the fish.

260 

Credit: Perception7/Shutterstock. Grown by feeding sugar derived from sugarcane to algae in a fermentation tank through a special fermentation process, the algae turn the sugar into omega-3 oil, which can be (and is being used as) a replacement for fish oil in fish feed. A frontrunner in this space is Corbion’s DHS Algal prime, managing to save 40  metric  tonnes of forage fish per tonne of DHS Algal prime. Algal prime is already produced at a commercial scale, and with prices falling its algae omega-3 oil is at price parity with fish-derived omega-3. DSM has partnered with Evonik to develop a similar algae-based solution, called Veramaris. They claim 1  tonne of Veramaris algal oil is the equivalent of 60 tonnes of avoided wild-caught fish.

832

Accelerating ocean-based renewables  Offshore wind is an increasingly mature and competitive technology, but other ocean-based renewable energy sources are also actively being explored: energy extracted from waves and tides, from salinity and temperature gradients (e.g. by ocean thermal energy conversion or by heat pumps for heating and cooling), and floating solar photovoltaic systems are beginning to emerge in marine environments.266 Three major factors are encouraging the growth of ocean renewables: • Increasingly competitive electricity cost. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for offshore wind was $124– $146 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in the United States in 2017 and somewhat less in Europe.267 Recently, auctions in the European market have seen contracts drop to about $50/MWh,268 which is highly competitive with other sources of electricity. Low cost of capital drives down LCOE for offshore wind, and economies of scale are significant, with costs declining at 18% per doubling of capacity.269 Non-wind sources are largely uncompetitive today, with LCOE often above $250/MWh. Wave energy and ocean thermal energy conversion are capital intensive and unlikely to scale below $150/MWh and $70–$190/ MWh,270 respectively, making them most useful for very specific applications such as for small island nations currently reliant on imported fossil fuels. • Rising global investments in offshore wind. The ebb and flow of projects responding to policy has resulted in volatile global investment volumes (ranging from $30 billion to less than $15 billion in the past 5 years), but the overall trend is bullish. With decreasing offshore auction prices, the increasing water depth of projects,

Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 267  Stehly, T.J., and P.C.  Beiter. 2020. “2018 Cost of Wind Energy Review.” NREL/TP-5000-74598. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Lab. doi: https://doi.org/10.2172/1581952. 268  IEA. 2019. Offshore Wind Outlook 2019. 269  Ørsted. n.d. “Making Green Energy Affordable: How the Offshore Wind Energy Industry Matured—and What We Can Learn from It.” https://orsted.com/-/media/WWW/Docs/Corp/COM/explore/Making-­ green-­energy-affordable-June-2019.pdf. 270  Kempener, R., and F.  Neumann. 2014. “Wave Energy Technology Brief.” International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/ documentdownloads/publications/wave-energy_v4_web.pdf; Ocean Energy Systems (OES). 2015. “International LCOE for Ocean Energy Technologies: An Analysis of the Development Pathway and Levelised Cost of Energy Trajectories of Wave, Tidal and OTEC Technologies.” IEA Technology Collaboration Programme for Ocean Energy Systems. https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/news/international-lcoe-forocean-energy-technology/.

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

increasing turbine capacity and declining LCOE, global investments are nearly certain to increase—especially as Europe’s commanding lead is challenged by Asia, Australia and even the Middle East in the years to come271 (see Box 20.3). • Declining environmental impact. There is growing consensus that offshore wind farms can be built without significantly damaging the environment, if proper planning and mitigation measures are put in place to address bird strikes, construction and operation noise, and sea floor damage.272 The carbon mitigation benefits of ocean-based renewable energy production are significant and accrue back to ocean health and functionality.

Box 20.3 Offshore Wind in Vietnam

The southern coast of Vietnam has demonstrated technically feasible wind potential, with average wind speeds of 7–11  m/s. Faced with gradually depleting hydro and fossil fuel energy sources and burgeoning demand, the country plans to install 6.2 gigawatts (GW) by 2030. As a major first step, a site survey licence has recently been issued for the 3.4 GW Thang Long wind project offshore from Ke Ga Cape—the world’s largest wind project, located in a 2800  km2 area 20–50  km offshore from Binh Thuan Province. This is the first step towards a US $11.9 billion, six-­ phase build-out designed to take optimal advantage of progressing Mitsubishi and Vestas turbine technology between now and 2026. The first 600  MW phase is expected to comprise 64 turbines at a best-in-class capacity of 9.5 MW and to be operational in 2023. The project is emblematic of the special financial and operational conditions in developing countries. On the downside, developers generally are on their own with development costs, and projects win or lose on strict market terms. On the upside, the natural conditions are often perfect, and the onshore infrastructure/ offtake facilities and supply chains are often new and up-to-date.

266 

IRENA. 2018. “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017.” Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena. o rg / - / m e d i a / F i l e s / I R E NA / A g e n cy / P u b l i c a t i o n / 2 0 1 8 / J a n / IRENA_2017_Power_Costs_2018.pdf. 272  Draget, E. 2014. “Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Power Production in the North Sea.” Oslo: World Wide Fund for Nature. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/WWF-OSW-­ Environmental-Impacts.pdf. 271 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

833

Shipping, often considered as a traditional, slow-moving sector, is experiencing a real revolution • Shipping decarbonisation momentum. The International Maritime Organization’s Energy Efficiency Design Index requires ships built after 2022 to be at least 50% more efficient over 2008 levels,273 and total shipping GHG emissions to be reduced by at least 50% in 2050.274 The industry is now actively working and collaborating on this agenda. For instance, Mærsk, a leading shipping company, is estimated to have invested several billion U.S. dollars between 2014 and 2019  in researching carbon-­free shipping technologies.275 The efforts are also focusing on addressing the difficult problem of collaboration: the ‘Getting to Zero Coalition’ convenes more than 100 companies and shipping-related stakeholders (e.g. ports) to develop ‘commercially viable zero emission vessels, powered by zero emission fuels by 2030’.276 The ‘Green Maritime Methanol consortium’ is exploring use of methanol as a shipping fuel.277 Another cross-industry collaboration—Project ZEEDS—aims to create the ‘zero fuel station of the future’—green ammonia fuel stations at sea that are powered by surrounding offshore wind farms (see the Prologue of this report). Zero-carbon fuels are still at a very early stage for long-haul trips, but recent advances in battery technology have allowed short-haul ships—mostly passenger and car ferries in developed countries—to become electrified (see Box 20.4).278 Finally, on the energy efficiency front, optimised hull, propulsion and (existing) engine designs could deliver

energy efficiency improvements of 30–55% compared to current fleets.279 • Ballast water treatment improvements. In 1991, the ‘International Guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships’ ballast water and sediment discharges’, developed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC),280 set the stage for ballast water control. These standards have been followed by the 2017 Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM),281 which requires ships to treat their ballast water by 2024.282 The BWM has been supported by the GoBallast program, a global partnership of— among others—the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the IMO and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) aimed at reducing global ballast water pollution. • Improved port management. The World Port Sustainability Program is designed to ‘enhance and coordinate future sustainability efforts of ports worldwide and foster international cooperation with partners in the supply chain’.283 On a national level, many ports are leading the way towards becoming more sustainable. The Port of Rotterdam’s €5  million ‘Incentive scheme for climate-­friendly shipping’ aims to make the port a leader in carbon neutrality.284 A joint project by the Port Authority of Bari (Italy) and DBALab uses ‘artificial intelligence for environmental monitoring and prediction’ of the port’s activities. The program’s display environmental and port activity data allow operators to minimize the port’s environmental footprint.285

Energy Transitions Commission (ETC). n.d. “Mission Possible: Reaching Net-Zero Carbon Emissions from Harder-to-Abate Sectors by Mid-century: Sectoral Focus Shipping.” http://www.energy-­ transitions.org/sites/default/files/ETC%20sectoral%20focus%20-%20 Shipping_final.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2020. 280  IMO. n.d. “Ballast Water Management.” http://www.imo.org/en/ OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed 7 May 2020. 281  Global Environment Facility. 2017. “Global Treaty to Halt Invasive Aquatic Species Enters into Force.” 8 September. https://www.thegef. org/news/global-treaty-halt-invasive-aquatic-species-enters-force. 282  “Ballast Water Management Convention Amendments Enter Into Force.” 2019. Maritime Executive, 14 October. https://www.maritime-­ executive.com/article/ballast-water-management-convention-amendments-enter-into-force. 283  World Port Sustainability Program (WPSP). n.d. “About WPSP.” https://sustainableworldports.org/about/. Accessed 7 May 2020. 284  WPSP. 2019. “Port of Rotterdam: Incentive Scheme for Climate-­ Friendly Shipping.” https://sustainableworldports.org/project/ port-of-rotterdam-incentive-scheme-for-climate-friendly-shipping/. 285  WPSP. 2019. “Port of Bari: Artificial Intelligence for Environmental Monitoring and Prediction.” https://sustainableworldports.org/project/ port-of-bari-artificial-intelligence-for-environmental-monitoring-and-­ prediction/. 279 

Chestney, N. 2019. “IMO Agrees on Stricter Efficiency Targets for Some Ships.” Reuters, 17 May. https://uk.reuters.com/article/ us-imo-shipping-efficiency-idUKKCN1SN2BV. 274  Olmer et  al. 2017. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping, 2013–2015.” 275  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2020. Review of Maritime Transport 2019. New  York: UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2019_en.pdf. 276  Global Maritime Forum. n.d. “Getting to Zero Coalition.” https:// www.globalmaritimeforum.org/getting-to-zero-coalition. Accessed 7 May 2020. 277  “Support for Green Maritime Methanol Project.” 2019. Maritime Journal, 21 February. https://www.maritimejournal.com/news101/ power-and-propulsion/support-for-green-maritime-methanol-project. 278  Balsamo, F., C. Capasso, G. Miccione and O. Veneri. 2017. “Hybrid Storage System Control Strategy for All-Electric Powered Ships.” Energy Procedia, ATI 2017, 72nd Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association, September, 1083–90. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.242; Filks, I. 2019. “Batteries Included: Sweden’s Emissions-Free Ferries Lead the Charge.” Reuters, 14 March. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-battery-ferryidUSKCN1QV1W7. 273 

834

Box 20.4 Decarbonising Short-Haul Shipping: Electric Ferry

The Danish towns of Fynshav and Søby are connected by an electric ferry 60 m long and 13 m wide. The relatively short trip length of commuting ferries facilitates the use of batteries and electric engines. Since the first electric ferry was put in service in Norway in 2015, the number of electric ferries operating in the country has been rapidly increasing and will reach between 60 and 70  in 2021. Also, cities in the United States, Canada and Denmark

Successful coastal/marine conservation initiatives • Restoration. ‘Soft’ coastal approaches using tidal marshes, mangroves, dunes, coral reefs and shellfish reefs are increasingly part of coastal defence. Sixteen thousand acres of tidal marshes in San Francisco Bay are under restoration, and the Mississippi marshlands are under restoration to protect New Orleans and southeast Louisiana from storm surges. The Netherlands and Belgium combine ‘hard’ solutions (e.g. seawalls, dykes, sluice gates) with ‘soft’ restoration, with the latter showing highly efficient results.286 In the Belgian Scheldt estuary, up to 4000 hectares of historically reclaimed wetlands are being converted back into floodplains; when finished in 2030 at Turner, R.K., D. Burgess, D. Hadley, E. Coombes and N. Jackson. 2007. “A Cost-Benefit Appraisal of Coastal Managed Realignment Policy.” Global Environmental Change 17 (3): 397–407. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.006; Broekx, S., S.  Smets, I. Liekens, D. Bulckaen and L. de Nocker. 2011. “Designing a Long-­ Term Flood Risk Management Plan for the Scheldt Estuary Using a Risk-Based Approach.” Natural Hazards 57 (2): 245–66. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9610-x. 286 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

have concrete plans (or even orders) to electrify their car and passenger ferries. Source: Ellsmoor, J. 2019. “The World’s Largest Electric Ferry Has Completed Its Maiden Voyage.” Forbes, 18 August. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/08/18/the-­worlds-­largest-­electric-­ferry-­­ has-­completed-­its-­maiden-­voyage/. Photo: Erik Christensen, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

a cost of €600  million, this will alleviate a 2100 yearly risk of flood damage estimated at €1  billion.287 In Southeast Asia, mangrove forest plantations are being considered as protection against storm surges,288 but restoration projects are small compared to the area already lost. In cities as diverse as Amsterdam, Abidjan and Lagos, beach and dune barriers are being built as crucial defences against coastal flooding.289 • Protection. Marine protected areas provide levels of protection ranging from strict ‘no-take’ to more permissive ‘sustainable extraction’ (see MPA guide in Fig. 20.27). If properly sized, sited and delineated, they can generate multiple benefits. The strongly protected ‘no-take’ zones, Temmerman, S., P. Meire, T.J. Bouma, P.M.J. Herman, T. Ysebaert and H.J. De Vriend. 2013. “Ecosystem-Based Coastal Defence in the Face of Global Change.” Nature 504 (7478): 79–83. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/nature12859. 288  Temmerman et al. 2013. “Ecosystem-Based Coastal Defence in the Face of Global Change.” 289  Temmerman et al. 2013. “Ecosystem-Based Coastal Defence in the Face of Global Change.” 287 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

835

for instance, have been shown to restore fish stocks by a factor of up to six times within the area;290 to support ecosystem complexity, health- and associated ecosystem services;291 to help with climate resilience;292 to reduce carbon released from seabed floor;293 to increase ecosystem resilience;294 and to provide pristine ocean areas important to many cultures around the world. • As of today, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) estimates, 14.4% of national waters and 5.7% of the global ocean are protected.295 However, only 2.4% of the ocean can be considered to be in fully protected MPAs.296 Too often, MPAs are categorised as environmental measures at odds with economic interests (starting with fisheries). • When full protection cannot be achieved, ‘extractive MPAs’—defined as ocean areas subject to some restriction on use and/or extraction—can represent a viable form of protection for many countries with coastlines (>75% of countries in 2013).297 Properly designed, they can be effective in protecting key coastal habitats, and they may represent an underused means to block particularly destructive coastal land uses and resource-extraction practices.

4.4.2 Structural Changes Across Ocean Economy Sectors This section reviews recent progress in ocean data, ocean planning, finance, anti-pollution efforts and accounting of the ocean economy.

Sala, E., and S. Giakoumi. 2018. “No-Take Marine Reserves Are the Most Effective Protected Areas in the Ocean.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 75 (3): 1166–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059. 291  Babcock, R.C., N.T.  Shears, A.C.  Alcala, N.S.  Barrett, G.J.  Edgar, K.D. Lafferty, T.R. McClanahan and G.R. Russ. 2010. “Decadal Trends in Marine Reserves Reveal Differential Rates of Change in Direct and Indirect Effects.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (43): 18256–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908012107. 292  Micheli, F., A. Saenz-Arroyo, A. Greenley, L. Vazquez, J.A. Espinoza Montes, M. Rossetto and G.A. de Leo. 2012. “Evidence That Marine Reserves Enhance Resilience to Climatic Impacts.” PLOS ONE 7 (7). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040832. 293  Roberts, C.M., B.C.  O’Leary, D.J.  McCauley, P.M.  Cury, C.M. Duarte, J. Lubchenco, D. Pauly et al. 2017. ‘Marine Reserves Can Mitigate and Promote Adaptation to Climate Change’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1701262114. 294  Harrison, J. 2015. “Governing Marine Protected Areas: Resilience through Diversity, Written by Peter J.S. Jones.” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 30 (4): 811–13. doi: https://doi. org/10.1163/15718085-12341373. 295  Convention on Biological Diversity. n.d. “Global Implementation.” https://www.cbd.int/protected/implementation/. Accessed 17 August 2020. 296  Marine Conservation Institute. n.d. “Interactive Map.” Atlas of Marine Protection. http://mpatlas.org/map/mpas/. Accessed 7 May 2020. 297  Costello, M.J., and B. Ballantine. 2015. “Biodiversity Conservation Should Focus on No-Take Marine Reserves: 94% of Marine Protected Areas Allow Fishing.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30 (9): 507–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.011. 290 

The ocean data revolution  The technology is here now. It is now technically possible to sample the ocean on its true spatial and temporal scales with a remote-sensing network covering the physical, biological, ecological298 and chemical properties of the global ocean surface (although full coverage remains far off). From the proliferation of sensors and platforms (Argo floats,299 REMUS,300 Wave Glider301) and satellites (from SeaSat onwards) to cabled observatories302 and acoustic modems, remote sensing and transmission of data from a variety of platforms is becoming an ‘always on, always connected’303 operating system. The connection of intelligent devices into an ‘Internet of Things’ is moving from land to sea, analysing data ranging from invasive species in bilge water to nutrients in river deltas, allowing for an ever-more complete picture in near real time—the holy grail of adaptive management. The open-access platforms necessary to store, share and process the innovation are technically available (and in broad use in many cloud-based data systems), but their application in the ocean realm is still lagging behind (see Sect. 6.3 for in-depth discussion). Data processing is keeping pace with the sensing revolution. Processing capacity has increased 1 trillion times in the past 50 years, making it possible to build massive dynamic Seltenrich, N. 2014. “Remote-Sensing Applications for Environmental Health Research.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (10): A268–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.122-A268. 299  Freeland, H.J., and P.F.  Cummins. 2005. “Argo: A New Tool for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment of the World’s Oceans, an Example from the N.E.  Pacific.” Progress in Oceanography 64 (1): 31–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.11.002. 300  Stokey, R.P., A. Roup, C. von Alt, B. Allen, N. Forrester, T. Austin, R.  Goldsborough et  al. 2005. “Development of the REMUS 600 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle.” In Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE 2: 1301–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ OCEANS.2005.1639934. 301  Thomson, J., and J.  Girton. 2017. “Sustained Measurements of Southern Ocean Air-Sea Coupling from a Wave Glider Autonomous Surface Vehicle.” Oceanography 30 (2): 104–9. 302  Kelly, R.P. 2014. “Will More, Better, Cheaper, and Faster Monitoring Improve Environmental Management?” Environmental Law 44: 1111; Smith, L.M., J.A.  Barth, D.S.  Kelley, A.  Plueddemann, I.  Rodero, G.A.  Ulses, M.F.  Vardaro and R.  Weller. 2018. “The Ocean Observatories Initiative.” Oceanography 31 (1): 16–35. 303  Abbott, M.R., and C.E. Sears. 2006. “Always-Connected World and Its Impact on Ocean Research.” Advances in Computational Oceanography 19 (1). doi: https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2006.88. 298 

836

model simulations ranging from cosmological galaxy formation304 to weather, climate prediction and hurricane prediction. The implications for ocean governance, management and economic development are profound. Growing traction on ocean planning  The safety issues associated with multiple uses in a turbulent ocean environment (e.g. stationary wind farms or mariculture facilities vs. cargo, fishing and navy shipping lanes) are complex and a major cause of regulatory delays today. The regulatory difficulties of securing long-term, reliable permits and access rights are hurting the mariculture industry. Carbon- and offset-­ financed restoration projects are hard to structure without long-term title protections. Open access for all interested parties is the primary driver of overfishing in the developing world. On land, nobody would expect investors to deal with the legal and regulatory uncertainties of such an open-­ access system. At the same time, the technical hurdles to delineating, monitoring, and enforcing access rights in a remote ocean are no longer applicable—the remote-sensing revolution offers multiple alternatives to expensive patrol-based enforcement schemes. For example, Caribbean protected area managers and technologists have jointly developed low-­ cost acoustic sensors that identify violating vessels.305 Another example is Global Fishing Watch,306 which visualises, tracks and shares data on global fishing activities in near real time. As a result, several regions (northeast United States; Netherlands/North Sea; Baltic Sea; Norway; Xiamen, China; and the Australian Great Barrier Reef) have broken down siloed management practices in favour of more integrated spatial planning. Xiamen, for example, has pioneered a spatially explicit approach to coastal management since 1994, with a 40% improvement in socioeconomic benefits from its marine sectors.307 Hundreds of territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFs) areas are being set up across the globe to protect community fisheries in multiple developing countries (e.g. Chile, Indonesia, the Philippines), with emerging evi-

IllustrisTNG. 2019. “TNG.” https://www.tng-project.org/about/. Leape, J., M. Abbott, H. Sakaguchi et al. 2020. “Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/ blue-papers/technology-data-and-new-models-sustainably-managingocean-­resources. 306  Global Fishing Watch. n.d. “Sustainability through Transparency.” https://globalfishingwatch.org/. Accessed 11 May 2020. 307  Peng, B., H. Hong, X. Xue and D. Jin. 2006. “On the Measurement of Socioeconomic Benefits of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM): Application to Xiamen, China.” Ocean & Coastal Management 49(3): 93–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.02.002. 304  305 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

dence of recovering stocks, and increasing catches and profits.308 The Baltic Sea states have coordinated across borders and sectors to implement a science-based planning strategy and have been rewarded with the return of predators and birds as well as restored fish stocks in the past 20–30 years.309 The ocean as the new investment opportunity  The tide is turning on ocean investment. In a recent Credit Suisse survey,310 72% of investors (n = 200) classified the ­sustainable ocean economy as ‘investable’. Several sustainable ocean economy private investment funds have been established recently: Sky Ocean Ventures, Althelia Sustainable Ocean Fund, Katapult Ocean, Ocean 14, BlueInvest Fund, Blue Oceans Partners and Fynd Ocean Ventures just to name a few. For more mature technologies such as wind energy, investments have also become sizeable offshore: 2018 investments in new offshore wind farms in Europe totalled €10.3  billion, 24% of total new power investments in that year.311 International funding for sustainable innovation includes a 2019 proposal for an IMO-administered US $5 billion fund to ‘accelerate the R&D effort required to decarbonise the shipping sector and to catalyse the deployment of commercially viable zero-carbon ships by the early 2030s’.312 Also in 2019, the Asian Development Bank launched the Action Plan for Healthy Oceans and Sustainable Blue Economies for the Asia and Pacific region, with committed funding of $5 billion from 2019 to 2024 to finance and provide technical

Costello, C., D.  Ovando, T.  Clavelle, C.K.  Strauss, R.  Hilborn, M.C. Melnychuk, T.A. Branch et al. 2016. “Global Fishery Prospects under Contrasting Management Regimes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (18): 5125–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1520420113. 309  Reusch, T.B.H., J.  Dierking, H.C.  Andersson, E.  Bonsdorff, J. Carstensen, M. Casini, M. Czajkowski et al. 2018. “The Baltic Sea as a Time Machine for the Future Coastal Ocean.” Science Advances 4(5): eaar8195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8195. 310  Responsible Investor Research and Credit Suisse. 2020. Investors and the Blue Economy. https://www.esg-data.com/reports. 311  Brindley, G. 2019. Financing and Investment Trends 2018: The European Wind Industry in 2018. Wind Europe. https://windeurope.org/ wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/reports/Financing-and-­ Investment-Trends-2018.pdf. 312  Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), INTERCARGO, INTERFERRY, International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO), International Parcel Tankers Association (IPTA) and World-Class Shipping (WSC). 2019. “Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships: Proposal to Establish an International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB).” Marine Environment Protection Committee, 75th Session, Agenda Item 7. https://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/Submissions/ IMO/final-imrb-submission-to-mepc-75.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 308 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

837

assistance for ocean health and marine economy projects in the region.313

signatories, including from investors, innovators and NGOs. Cumulatively these commitments still fall far short of solving the crisis—but they represent only the beginning of what Unprecedented momentum in the fight against land-­ could become a comprehensive redesign of the plastic based pollution  Ocean pollution reforms are on different economy.317 tracks. For plastics, the ocean is a major driver of global movement from linear to circular material management sys- New, more holistic ways to account for the ocean econtems on land. For nutrients, pesticide runoff and industrial omy are now available  Today’s economic policy is conpollution, ocean interests have not yet reached the same level cerned with outcomes and sustainability, not simply of influence, explaining a reform agenda lagging behind. managing monetary inflation—‘twenty-first century progress cannot be measured with twentieth century statistics’.318 The transformation of the current linear plastic value The System of Environmental Economic Accounting is chain to a more circular one represents enormous potential being updated to include ecosystem accounting; there is economic value, with estimated potential materials savings ­discussion of revising the internationally agreed System of worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year,314 together National Accounts to focus on sustainability.319 with significant co-benefits for the climate (9.3 gigatonnes [Gt] of CO2e in 2050—equivalent to eliminating transportaThe most fundamental remaining accounting challenge is tion emissions), and employment upsides.315 A recent com- the monetisation of ocean and other natural assets—an prehensive modelling exercise concluded that solutions essential input. The international standards for national available today to industry and governments—if massively accounts—the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA)— deployed—could reduce annual land-based plastic leakage provides little guidance for doing so. But methods for the into the ocean by around 80% by 2040, compared to a valuation of non-produced or natural assets do exist,320 business-­as-usual scenario, and also help advance other soci- including a ‘Capital Asset Pricing for Nature’ software packetal, economic, and environmental objectives.316 age.321 The Inclusive Wealth Index (2012) of the UN The crisis is now forcing the hand of plastic resin manu- Environment Programme (UNEP), adopted by 140 counfacturers, converters, and consumer brands. New consumer tries, is piloting the measurement of natural capital,322 and brand commitments to ‘plastic neutrality’ and recycling-­ many partnerships aim to develop technical capacity, such as friendly design are proliferating. The plastic industry as a the WAVES (World Bank), BIOFIN (UNDP), MAES (EU) whole is increasingly recognising its extended responsibili- and UNEP-TEEB-CBD partnerships. In the business world, ties for the entire product lifecycle and exploring cooperative the Natural Capital Coalition, Conservation International, schemes to improve waste management and collection. Over the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 95 plastic packaging policies and laws were signed in the United States, Europe and Asia from 2010 to 2019; and the 317  World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey New Plastics Economy Global Commitment had over 400 Asian Development Bank. 2019. “ADB Launches $5 Billion Healthy Oceans Action Plan.” 2 May. https://www.adb.org/news/ adb-launches-5-billion-healthy-oceans-action-plan. 314  Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2015. “Towards the Circular Economy, Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.” https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/TCE_ Ellen-­MacArthur-­Foundation_9-Dec-2015.pdf. 315  Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Material Economics. 2019. “Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change.” https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Completing_The_Picture_How_The_Circular_Economy-­_ Tackles_Climate_Change_V3_26_September.pdf; Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2015. “Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe.” Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Stiftungsfonds für Umweltökonomie und Nachhaltigkeit (SUN), and McKinsey Center for Business and the Environment. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_ Growth-­Within_July15.pdf. 316  Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution.” 313 

& Company. 2016. “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics.” http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications. 318  Agarwala, M.K. 2019. “Natural Capital Accounting and the Measurement of Sustainability.” PhD diss., London School of Economics and Political Science. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4146/1/ Agarwala_Natural-capital-accounting.pdf. 319  UN Statistical Division. 2019. “50th Session Documents.” https:// unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/50th-session/documents/. 320  Adamowicz, W., L.  Calderon-Etter, A.  Entem, E.P.  Fenichel, J.S. Hall, P. Lloyd-Smith, F.L. Ogden et al. 2019. “Assessing Ecological Infrastructure Investments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (12): 5254–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1802883116; Fenichel, E.P., and C. Obst. 2019. “A Framework for the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets.” Discussion paer 5.3. In System of Environmental Economic Accounting, 2019 Forum of Experts in SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, 26–27 June 2019, Glen Cove, NY. https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/discussion_paper_5.3.pdf. 321  Yun, S.D., E.P. Fenichel and J.K. Abbott. 2017. Capital Asset Pricing for Nature. Version 1.0.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=capn. 322  Managi, S., and P.  Kumar. 2018. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress towards Sustainability. New York: Routledge.

838

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Norwegian Ocean Economy Dashboard HIGH LEVEL PANEL FOR A SUSTAINABLE OCEAN ECONOMY NOK Base Year 2016 Define the Reference Year (1978–2016)

Define the Ocean Economy (Hold CTRL to Select Multiple) Building of ships, oil platforms and moduls and other transport equipment Oil and gas extraction

2006

Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs

to

2016

Service activities incidental to oil and gas Fishing and aquaculture Ocean transport

*(Blank) indicates No Data Available

Value Added % Change to 2016 -50.00%

Assets % Change to 2016

0.0%

0.00% 50.00%

-100.00%

Income % Change to 2016

100.00%

-50.0 %

50.0% 100.0%

-100.0%

0.00% -50.00%

-100.00%

33.15%

-12.43% Value Added in Reference Year

560.80bn

Income in Reference Year

Income & Other Market Services

Fisheries Value

Transportation

Mining, Oil and Gas

Tourism

Non- Market Services

100.00%

38.83% Produced Assets in Reference Year

78.54bn

IO Table by industry

50.00%

1.04T Partial Balance Sheet Fisheries Stock Pollutants

Fig. 20.22  Example of a live interactive digital dashboard for ocean accounting: Norway ocean economy dashboard. Note: See the live dashboard at https://environment.yale.edu/data-­science/norwegian-­ ocean-­economy-­dashboard. (Source: Fenichel, E.P., B. Milligan, I. Por-

ras et  al. 2020. “National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/national-­accounting-­ocean-­and-­ocean-­ economy)

(NOAA), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and others brought together 60 leading ocean-­ related organisations in 2017 to ignite the creation of the Natural Capital Protocol for the Ocean323 to supplement the recognised Natural Capital Protocol.324 Other natural capital valuation methods are already changing policy and investment decisions325 (most advanced are perhaps those in China and the United Kingdom, but also other countries are taking up this information and transform-

ing policy and investment, e.g. Belize326). These initiatives didn’t start in countries’ statistical offices but instead were initiated in sector-related ministries (e.g. fisheries, tourism, environment) and in finance ministries. The digital revolution provides a major boost for ocean national accounting.327 Online, digital dashboarding makes it possible to drill down quickly to specific indicators of interest in policy analysis and evaluation. The future has begun: an ocean proto-account for Norway can be displayed as an interactive dashboard (Fig.  20.22), and the United States hosts an interactive ocean proto-account.328 A user of the Norway dashboard can define the ocean economy through any combination of six sectors and explore how these interact along various indicators of production,

Natural Capital Coalition. n.d. “Natural Capital Protocol for the Ocean.” https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ Natural-Capital-Protocol-for-the-Ocean_Overview.pdf. 324  World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2017. “What Experts Are Saying about the Natural Capital Protocol Toolkit.” 13 July. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Redefining-Value/Business-­ Decision-­Making/Assess-and-Manage-Performance/Natural-Capital-­ Protocol-Toolkit/News/What-experts-are-saying-about-the-NaturalCapital-Protocol-Toolkit. 325  Ouyang, Z., C.  Song, C.  Wong, G.C.  Daily, J.  Liu, J.  Salzman, L.  Kong et  al. 2019. “Designing Policies to Enhance Ecosystem Services: China’s Experience on Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services for Green Growth.” In Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms around the World, edited by L. Mandle, Z.  Ouyang, J.  Salzman and G.C.  Daily, 177–94. Washington, DC: Island. 323 

Arkema, K.K., G.M.  Verutes, S.A.  Wood, C.  Clarke-Samuels, S. Rosado, M. Canto, A. Rosenthal et al. 2015. “Embedding Ecosystem Services in Coastal Planning Leads to Better Outcomes for People and Nature.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24): 7390–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406483112. 327  Leape et al. 2020. “Technology, Data and New Models for Sustainably Managing Ocean Resources.” 328  NOAA. n.d. “ENOW Explorer: Discover More about Your Local Ocean Economy.” https://coast.noaa.gov/enowexplorer/#/. Accessed 7 May 2020. 326 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

839

value created, capital used and the like. Although data holes remain (most fundamentally, Norway does not yet include monetisation of its natural capital stocks), the dashboard radically expands the breadth of questions that can be asked and answered.329 This section makes clear that a healthy ocean and a subsequent sustainable ocean economy are crucial allies to address some of the most pressing challenges humanity will face in the twenty-first century, including food security, climate change and social inequalities. Today the ocean’s health is under increasing pressure from anthropogenic stressors. If not addressed these could compound with each other with dramatic consequences. A growing number of initiatives, technologies and business solutions are emerging and show that the possible alternative path of a sustainable ocean economy is realistic and feasible. The next section offers a vision where these positive developments are generalised and a sustainable ocean economy can emerge that benefits the people, the economy and the planet.

Section 5 of this report invites the reader to take a journey towards an alternative tomorrow, where a set of sound early decisions launches the productive disruptions, pioneers and dynamics that lead to a sustainable ocean economy over the coming decades. This section paints a ‘vision’ of what a sustainable ocean economy could look like and the benefits it could generate. This vision is anchored in science and is feasible if the right decisions are made and several systemic barriers are removed (analysed in depth in Sect. 6, Sect. 6.2). This section starts by introducing seven fundamental design principles, suggested as a guiding ‘Southern Cross’ or ‘North Star’ (Sect. 5.2) to scale up the promising trends presented in Sect. 4. It then lays out a vision where five fundamental transformations enable the development of truly sustainable ocean sectors (Sect. 5.3). Finally, it presents evidence that such a vision can deliver a ‘triple benefit’ of effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity (Sect. 5.4).

5 The Possibility of Tomorrow 5.1 Introduction For centuries, the ocean has been viewed as ‘too big to fail’.330 However, as shown in Sect. 4, this belief cannot be considered true anymore: overfishing, habitat destruction, climate change and pollution represent a de facto uncontrolled experiment. The size of the challenge could easily lead one to think that the ocean is now ‘too big to fix’.331 This report offers a more hopeful narrative. Section 5 ­posits that the agendas of ocean and terrestrial resource productivity are no longer separable; neither are the agendas of ocean protection and ocean productivity. As pressure rises on business and political leaders, and as new, sustainable types of ocean ventures demonstrate compelling economics, the tide can turn and the ocean as a source of sustainable prosperity can become ‘too important to ignore’.332

Many of the data needed to feed these dashboards and to parameterise these connections already exist, but they are highly dispersed. A first step towards understanding the dynamics at play is to highlight the current high-level status of ocean account data with a live version of the dashboard at https://environment.yale.edu/data-science/ norwegian-ocean-economy-dashboard/. 330  Lubchenco and Gaines. 2019. “A New Narrative for the Ocean”; Lubchenco, J. 2019. “People and the Ocean 3.0: A New Narrative with Transformative Benefits.” In A Better Planet: 40 Big Ideas for a Sustainable Planet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 331  Lubchenco and Gaines. 2019. “A New Narrative for the Ocean”; Lubchenco. 2019. “People and the Ocean 3.0.” 332  Lubchenco and Gaines. 2019. “A New Narrative for the Ocean”; Lubchenco. 2019. “People and the Ocean 3.0.” 329 

5.2 Defining a Compass Direction: Principles for a Sustainable Ocean Economy Seven fundamental design principles are introduced below to help decision-making and prioritisation towards a sustainable ocean economy. Every measure, transformation and example in this section is based on these seven fundamental design principles (Fig. 20.23). Guarantee equity  The ocean, as ‘the common heritage of humankind’, needs to benefit all of humanity. Avoiding coastal food and energy insecurity, labour exploitation and gender discrimination should be given the highest priority and form the bedrock of decision-making related to the ocean economy. This includes respecting relevant international agreements like the SDGs, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.333 Align with the Paris 1.5 °C target  The 2019 UN emission gap report states that the world is currently on course for 3.2  °C global warming over pre-industrial levels334—presenting a stark contrast to the 1.5 °C limit now commonly recognised as critical for ocean health. Establishing a regenerative ocean economy, focused on restored and protected ‘blue sinks’ (e.g. mangroves, sea grass, saltmarshes) and Bennett et  al. 2019. “Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Economy.” 334  UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 2019. The Emissions Gap Report 2019. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unenvironment.org/ resources/emissions-gap-report-2019. 333 

840

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.23  Principles for a sustainable ocean economy. (Source: Authors)

zero- or low-carbon production of food, energy and transportation, is essential to that goal. Base decisions and accountability on science and ensure transparency  The age of the unfathomable, inexhaustible ocean is over. Future management must rely on a clear-eyed view of the impacts of climate change, the ocean’s resource dynamics, its natural cycles of decline and regeneration and the resilience and vulnerability built into its infinitely complex biological systems. This requires the full and creative use of the data revolution for ocean purposes, the full appreciation and use of scientifically accurate local and Indigenous knowledge, and the commitment of management institutions to follow the advice of scientists. Grow regeneratively  The ocean economy, at every relevant scale, needs to cumulatively regenerate the ocean’s vitality, diversity, and resilience. A sustainable ocean economy needs to ensure that marine economic activities are at least carbon-­ neutral and support the ocean’s biodiversity. Not every project can be carbon-negative or rebuild biodiversity—but projects must be linked such that they bend the arc towards greater ocean health. Build agile institutions that are able to react quickly  In an increasingly fast and unpredictable world where ‘gover-

nance failure is routine’335 and crises like COVID-19 could become more frequent, institutions need to optimize themselves based on the principle of agility and ability to react quickly, while making decisions in an inclusive ‘top-down, bottom-up manner’. This move towards shorter reaction times would allow governments, community networks and supra-national interests to adapt quickly to rapidly changing climatic and sociological conditions. Align short-term self-interest with long-term communal and individual benefits  Current misplaced incentives (economic incentives and behavioural norms) that drive destructive outcomes need to be reconfigured towards a new set of incentives aligned with the other six principles and the vision of a sustainable ocean economy. Adopt a ‘planetary insurance’ mindset  The ocean is becoming more unpredictable—the degradation of its health and ecosystem services is accelerating and is non-linear. Setting aside large areas of fully intact and comprehensive ecosystems and habitats is an essential insurance mechaJessop, B. 2003. “The Governance of Complexity and the Complexity of Governance: Preliminary Remarks on Some Problems and Limits of Economic Guidance.” Department of Sociology at Lancaster University, 21. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-­ papers/papers/jessop-governance-of-complexity.pdf. 335 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

nism. The science is clear: large, properly designed protected areas increase the ocean’s resilience to a variety of stressors, including warming and acidification. Similarly, the level of uncertainty at play does not allow for uncontrolled experiments and should encourage the following of a stricter, precautionary approach, whether in the exploration of new commercial species or the exploitation of known stocks and new resources like seabed minerals and metals. Taking these general principles to their logical conclusion, a potential future emerges that diverges from the dystopian future evoked in Sect. 4.

5.3 A New Picture Is Emerging: The 2050 Sustainable Ocean Economy It is impossible to predict precisely any version of the 2050 ocean economy—but it is possible to describe an optimistic scenario that combines the main linked components of a sustainable ocean economy (Fig. 20.24). In this sustainable 2050 scenario, a new network emerges of interest groups including fishers, ocean farmers, scientists, civil society, local communities, as well as key energy, shipping and tourism players. This network is economically empowered and culturally deeply vested in ocean health and the sustainable ocean economy principles stated above. The groups of which it is composed create significant societal

841

and economic values by linking offshore wind farms, mariculture, zero-carbon shipping, fuel production and tourism with unprecedented production efficiencies (see Fig. 20.24). Carefully situated non-fed and multi-trophic, zero-feed mariculture produces food for millions of coastal inhabitants. Large fully protected marine areas and MPA networks preserve intact ecosystems. Other effective area-based conservation measures and lightly protected MPAs accommodate some sectoral uses of ocean spaces that are compatible with some conservation goals. Large-scale restoration projects (e.g. mangroves, sea grass) are now financed by carbon mitigation fees and offset mitigation arrangements. Wild-­ caught fisheries implement climate-smart, ecosystem-based fisheries management. Collectively, this new cohort of ocean interest groups, of which youth and women are integral parts, works powerfully within the political economy to advocate for an equitably used ocean, free of pollution and over-­ exploitation, and with large fully protected areas to ensure ocean health and guard against unexpected changes. Ocean-user interest groups have championed the importance of healthy ocean ecosystems, kick-starting an increased global understanding of the immense potential of a sustainably managed ocean economy. The spatial complexities of implementing linked and complementary ocean uses have encouraged more systematic ocean planning. Access rights for specific ocean resources have been clarified. Legal and political actions have been taken against land-based polluters. New finance and transaction recording (ledger) technol-

Fig. 20.24  The new contours of a sustainable ocean economy. (Source: Authors)

842

ogies have opened global markets for small artisanal producers while ensuring traceability and fair redistribution of the value created. Knowledge commons are allowing transparent sharing of data, assessments and lessons of what is working and what is not, leading to far more agile responses by communities, businesses and nations. The political realm has responded to the new economic realities. Operating standards and permitting procedures have been clarified and standardised. Net margins of new and innovative ocean businesses are now supported through appropriate risk-reduction measures. Regulatory pressure on land-based polluters has increased. Access laws have been reformed to better balance the goals and needs of multiple stakeholder groups, including commercial and subsistence users. Labour laws have been strengthened, setting international standards to eradicate human rights abuses, and these laws are enforced. Coastal communities, especially in the tropical realm, have reasserted their traditional use rights and are empowered to regulate access to local fisheries and ocean resources. Secure in their rights of access, they have the luxury of planning for the long term, and they have switched to sustainable stewardship practices. Women-owned cooperatives running near-shore mariculture operations, processing facilities and logistics have become the norm. In this scenario, this 2050 state did not appear by magic. It was made possible by deliberate political decisions made in the early 2020s and dynamic changes continuing over 30  years to overcome a series of well-established barriers and habits. In this scenario, from 2020 onwards several countries shifted their focus to sustainable ocean management, clearly defined what they wanted to achieve and decided to manage sustainably 100% of their areas under national jurisdiction. To learn and demonstrate feasibility at scale, these countries set up ‘sustainable ocean economic zones’ (SOEZs). These zones promoted ‘projects of choice’ (in line with the seven principles introduced in Sect. 5.2) with attractive logistical, financial and regulatory benefits. Projects integrated multiple and symbiotic sectors (e.g. energy, food, tourism); provided for well-designed marine protection and restoration areas; and prioritised ocean health, food security and labour protection. A network of scientists, technologists, investors, sustainable businesses, regulators, local communities and government officials collaborated to design these zones, and they defined uses, standards, finance instruments, and conservation and regeneration requirements. International negotiations on harmful subsidies, illegal fishing, high seas management, Arctic protection and seabed mining came to a productive conclusion. New visions of a stable, zero-waste and regenerative ocean economy moved into the industrial mainstream. These decisions, directly informed by properly funded science, triggered a chain of transformative events:

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

• Ecosystem-based, inclusive spatial planning became the norm. Careful science-based planning was required to make these spatially and operationally complex projects a reality (see discussion of marine spatial planning in Sect. 6). Siting decisions had to be formalised, access rights legalities had to be codified and potential use conflicts had to be eliminated through careful apportionment. Conservation offsets (fully protected MPAs, coastal restoration projects, buffer zones) had to be clearly defined and gazetted. Over time, ocean planning became an institutionally well-engrained habit, informed by excellent knowledge of the complex ocean ecosystems and the ability to monitor and adapt management to changing environments, driven by economic utility and managed inclusively with all stakeholders. • Polluters paid. The initial projects, and those following in their footsteps, created a strong community of shared economic interests. As pollution from industrial and agricultural sources began to directly affect sustainable ocean economy success, ocean users and land-based communities came together to find solutions to stop leakage of pollution into the ocean. In many countries, courts and agencies found in favour of the ocean interests and reforms on land leaned towards more circular and regenerative practices. At the same time, increased ocean food production forced new food safety standards, covering pollutants such as plastics and mercury. • Automation and the data revolution hit the ocean. As ocean economies became more sophisticated, advanced remote-sensing technologies became indispensable for delineation and enforcement. Distributed ledger and registration technologies (e.g. blockchain336) were used to track the differentiated traits of ocean economy products and (ecosystem) services all the way across the value chain to the consumer, responding to stringent sustainability demands from consumers. The demand pressure from major new maricultural development sped up the development of new sources of feed supply. At the same time, information-sharing went both ways—local outcomes, yields, business results, assessments and the like became readily available to investors and policymakers. • Investors woke up. As the economic viability of a sustainable approach to the ocean economy emerged more clearly, investment volumes naturally increased. Over time, financial markets became more sensitive to the risks resulting from competitive distortions (e.g. subsidies of fishery capacity or fossil fuel electricity) and declining ocean productivity (e.g. pollution and/or habitat degradation). At the Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology in which requests for transactions need to be validated by the entire network rather than by a single point. After validation, the transaction becomes an immutable block within the transaction’s history, which exists for as long as the network exists. 336 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

843

same time, financial technologies allowed small-scale ocean players to access global markets and strengthen their voice. • National accounting changed. Nations started to make informed decisions based on a full range of metrics covering production, natural capital and human well-being— potentially through official ‘national ocean accounts’. The changing nature of the ocean economy was increasingly and positively reflected in such national accounts

and eventually began to shape public investments and policies in the ocean realm.

Box 20.5 Concepts of Ocean Multi-Use and Sector Coupling

Marine spatial planning is a proven and crucial tool to manage conflicts between ocean users and advance towards more sustainable uses of the ocean.a However, the development of sustainable ocean industries remains limited if they are considered as individual and separate activities, ignoring potential synergies:b spatial efficiency, circular models (e.g. waste from one as input to another), shared costs and so on. Consequently, there has been a growing interest in the development of a sustainable ‘ocean multi-use’ concept that fosters synergies among ocean sectors (sector-coupling). This concept, at the heart of the 2050 sustainable vision described in this section, has been defined by a recent paper as follows:c ‘Ocean multi-use is the joint use of resources in close geographic proximity by either a single user or multiple users. It is an umbrella term that covers a multitude of use combinations in the marine realm and represents a radical change from the concept of exclusive resource rights to the inclusive sharing of resources and space by one or more users’. The EU Commission has been pioneering this concept by funding research and a series of large-scale collaborative projects over the past 10  years, including TROPOS, MERMAID, H2Ocean, Multi-use in European Seas (MUSES) and Marine Investment for a Blue Economy (MARIBE). These concepts are today mostly at the (advanced) blueprint stage, but new 3-year funding has just been confirmed to test pilots until 2023 (project UNITED).d

With these trends arcing towards greater balance and efficiency of ocean use over time, the sustainable ocean economy began to thrive, driven mainly by the linked contributions of five economic sectors (see Fig. 20.24 and Box 20.5). The paragraphs below describe the dynamics that led to this 2050 vision.

Adapted from Fernando Montecruz for the TROPOS Project, 2013. a   “DIRECTIVE 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning.” 2014. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­137-­54482-­7_33 b   Lukic, I., A.  Schultz-Zehden, J.  Onwona Ansong, S. Altvater, J. Przedrzymirska, M. Lazić, J. Zaucha et al. 2018. “MUSES (Multi-use in European Seas) Project v. 3.0 MUSES Deliverable 4.2.1 Multi-use Analysis.” Edinburgh, UK: MUSES Project. https://pdfs.semantics ch o l a r. o rg / 9 7 9 6 / 7 5 3 0 c 1 7 5 e 9 e 1 b c f 6 f 7 f 7 0 8 7 9 9 1ca60613575.pdf c   Schupp, M.F., M.  Bocci, D.  Depellegrin, A.  Kafas, Z.  Kyriazi, I.  Lukic, A.  Schultz-Zehden et  al. 2019. “Toward a Common Understanding of Ocean Multi-­use.” Frontiers in Marine Science 6. doi: https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00165 d  Community Research and Development Information Service. n.d. “Multi-use Offshore Platforms Demonstrators for Boosting Cost-Effective and Ecofriendly Production in Sustainable Marine Activities.” https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/862915. Accessed 17 August 2020 Lu, S.-Y., J.C.S. Yu, J. Wesnigk, E. Delory, E. Quevedo, J.  Hernández, O.  Llinás et  al. 2014. “Environmental Aspects of Designing Multi-purpose Offshore Platforms in the Scope of the FP7 TROPOS Project.” In OCEANS 2014: TAIPEI, 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ OCEANS-­TAIPEI.2014.6964306

844

5.3.1 Sustainable Ocean Food Production Multi-/low-trophic mariculture  Mariculture quickly became popular and successful. With a major concentration on low-trophic-level species (seaweed, bivalves, molluscs), it increased the level of local biomass, created new habitats, created new jobs and local income, and provided an alternative to land-based, carbon-intensive meat production, as well as a source of key nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids and iodine. Higher-trophic-level finfish mariculture shed its dependence on fish-derived feeds and adopted strict operating standards addressing disease control, local pollution and escapes. In some cases, low- and higher-trophic production combined into ‘integrated (or co-located) multi-trophic farms’ with fed (salmon, seabass, grouper, etc.) and unfed species (e.g. bivalves, seaweed) growing together in a symbiotic and lowwaste ecosystem. Where relevant, mariculture operations colocated with offshore wind farms, which provided a low-cost and reliable source of electricity for the farm and clean fuel for ship traffic. Strict labour standards were adopted for mariculture operations, while profits and operating risks became evenly spread along the mariculture supply chain. Expansion of mariculture was achieved in a harmonious way that respects Indigenous rights to healthy ocean resources. Wild-caught fisheries  Fishing fleets (commercial and artisanal) became profitable and stable because fishers’ economic and conservation incentives were aligned, wild fish stocks were restored (especially predators), protected against poachers and allocated fairly to fleets and communities to be fished at optimal capacity. Sustainably fished stocks proved more resilient to climate shocks and provided increasingly predictable returns to appropriately sized fleets. International collaboration and strong local enforcement massively reduced IUU fishing, corruption and forced labour on fishing boats. With access rights to fish stocks more firmly defined and enforced, fishing fleets increasingly adopted sustainable yield standards as the most long-term profitable model of fishing. Fuelled by increasing demand and leadership from seafood incumbents, traceability ‘from ocean to plate’ in the fish supply chain became the norm and supported generalisation of best practices. Perhaps most important, as communities gained more control over local ocean access, benefits became more equitably shared through sustainably financed mechanisms and the food security needs of coastal inhabitants became paramount.

5.3.2 Clean Ocean Energy The offshore wind sector continued its exponential growth and replaced fossil fuels as the main source of power from the ocean. Intermittency issues were addressed by a new grid and storage infrastructure. Offshore wind farms increasingly

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

provided energy to other offshore uses (e.g. mariculture, shipping) and anchored and delineated large-scale MPAs. In many cases, they emerged as the natural ‘centre’ of many ocean economic zones.

5.3.3 Low-Carbon Transportation and Ports Shipping continued to move around 90% of globally traded goods but accelerated decisively towards zero emissions. A combination of efficiency measures, together with the introduction of new fuels (such as green ammonia or hydrogen), led to a net-zero global shipping fleet. Offshore wind farms provided the energy to generate ammonia or hydrogen, transferred to ships either locally through floating platforms or through ports. Uncontrolled ballast discharges became a thing of the past, and transport efficiencies were boosted through increased automation and revolutionised cargo-­ tracking systems. Ports became carbon-neutral, eliminated air pollution, implemented labour laws and synchronised their activities with the marine ecosystem they were situated in (adapting shipping lanes to avoid whale strikes, smart dredging, etc.). 5.3.4 Ocean Restoration and Protection Ocean restoration and protection were largely driven and financed by the pragmatic agendas of carbon mitigation and sequestration, fishery productivity, coastal protection and ocean tourism. Carbon mitigation funds underwrote sea grass and mangrove restoration as highly efficient carbon sequestration projects. Cities and coastal industries underwrote wetland and marsh restoration as the most effective measure exposure to storms and tides. Networks of fully protected and enforced MPAs became commonplace in integrated fishery management and protection of carbon storage plans, often co-located with offshore wind and food production facilities. Ecotourism facilities routinely took advantage of the rich underwater environment of fully protected MPAs. 5.3.5 Tourism Sustainable tourism showed off the beauty of a healthy ocean and created a broad set of ocean defenders, all the while celebrating rather than destroying habitats and diversity. The industry continued to grow, providing enjoyment and livelihoods for millions of people. This growth was based on sustainable tourism growth plans, which countries developed and implemented in the early 2020s. These plans, written in conformity with the sustainable tourism principles of the UN World Tourism Organization, allowed the industry to grow with minimal environmental (no virgin coastal land conversion, carbon-neutral cruise ships, no effluent discard, limitation of visitors to delicate ecosystems) and social impact (no over-tourism). Payment for ecosystem services got ­mainstreamed through tourism taxes. Through the adoption of these ecosystem fees, coastal tourism accrued benefits to

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

local communities and financed the restoration and maintenance of the coastal and marine ecosystems it relies on.

5.3.6 Other Sectors For different reasons, several ocean-related economic sectors are not included or detailed in this report’s 2050 scenario of a sustainable ocean economy: industries like maritime engineering and equipment are assumed to follow the development of the above-mentioned sectors. Other sectors not included or detailed in this report’s sustainable ocean economy scenario include the following: Marine biotech  The scale of genomic diversity in the ocean is difficult to comprehend and poorly understood. Over 33,000 marine natural products—naturally occurring molecules produced by marine organisms—have been discovered,337 many with remarkable levels of biological activity, and probably only representing a very small subset of the total ocean genomic diversity. The revolution in gene sequencing and bioinformatics has allowed for considerable innovation in ocean protection and production. Sequencing costs have declined 1000-fold over the past decade, and 100,000-fold since the beginning of the millennium,338 allowing millions of DNA fragments to be sequenced simultaneously and inexpensively, creating an intensely data-rich field. However, the sector is still in its infancy. Since its future is hard to predict, the marine biotech sector has been excluded from the future vision scenario. Deep-seabed mining  As an emerging industry in the ocean, deep-seabed mining is often considered as an example of the ‘new blue economy’. It fits the blue economy definition of the EU Commission (i.e. all economic activities related to the ocean), but it remains to be seen if it will meet the World Bank definition (i.e. sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems). Indeed, recent science clearly states that greater knowledge of the environmental impacts, as well as the ability to mitigate these to acceptable levels, is required before we can be confident that engaging in industrial-scale deep-seabed mining would bring a global net benefit.339

“MarinLit: A Database of the Natural Marine Product Literature.” 2020. Publishing Journals, Books and Databases. 7 May. http://pubs. rsc.org/marinlit/. 338  National Human Genome Research Institute. n.d. “DNA Sequencing Costs: Data.” https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/ DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data. Accessed 7 May 2020. 339  Haugan, P.M., L.A.  Levin, D.  Amon, M.  Hemer, H.  Lily and F.G.  Nielsen. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/ ocean-energy-and-mineral-sources. 337 

845

The proponents of deep-sea mining typically claim that the extraordinary richness of the underwater ores would result in far lower environmental impacts than mining on land, making deep-seabed mining the best option to supply a growing global demand for cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, lithium and rare earth elements, driven by the green transition of the economy (e.g. solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, electric cars).340 Mining deep-sea polymetallic nodules is indeed calculated to release less CO2 per kilogram than mining on land.341 Mining interests such as Deep Green and Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR) consider deep-sea minerals to be essential to combating climate change.342 If profitable, deep-sea mining could also provide an economic development opportunity for many countries. However, these claims need to be balanced against the risks. Current scientific understanding of deep-sea ecosystems—the range of species, their movements, ecological connectivity and susceptibility to mining stress—is still in its infancy. Deep-sea communities are known to recover from disturbance very slowly, if at all.343 The impact of deep-­ seabed mining on marine life—with its associated toxicity, dredging, noise and intense disturbance of the seafloor—is likely immense given the great longevity (thousands of years) and slow growth of many deep sea animals.344 The profitability of national mining operations, without governmental support or comparably low taxes, remains ­questionable. If the operations are profitable, it will also raise questions about the equitable sharing of profits derived from

Dominish, E., S.  Teske and N.  Florin. 2019. Responsible Minerals Sourcing for Renewable Energy. Report prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable Futures. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2019-04/ ISFEarthworks_Responsible%20minerals%20sourcing%20for%20 renewable%20energy_Report.pdf. 341  van der Voet, E., L. van Oers, M.  Verboon and K.  Kuipers. 2019. “Environmental Implications of Future Demand Scenarios for Metals: Methodology and Application to the Case of Seven Major Metals.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (1): 141–55. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/jiec.12722. 342  Gerard Barron (CEO and chairman of DeepGreen Metals). 2019. “Address to ISA Council.” presented at the Member of the Nauru Delegation, 27 February. https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/ s3fs-public/files/documents/nauru-gb.pdf. 343  Jones, D.O.B., S.  Kaiser, A.K.  Sweetman, C.R.  Smith, L.  Menot, A. Vink, D. Trueblood et al. 2017. “Biological Responses to Disturbance from Simulated Deep-Sea Polymetallic Nodule Mining.” PLOS ONE 12 (2): e0171750. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171750. 344  Miller, K.A., K.F. Thompson, P. Johnston and D. Santillo. 2018. “An Overview of Seabed Mining Including the Current State of Development, Environmental Impacts, and Knowledge Gaps.” Frontiers in Marine Science 4. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00418; Sumaila, U.R., C.M.  Rodriguez, M.  Schultz, R.  Sharma, T.D.  Tyrrell, H.  Masundire, A.  Damodaran et  al. 2017. “Investments to Reverse Biodiversity Loss Are Economically Beneficial.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 29 (December): 82–88. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.007. 340 

846

a resource taken out of humanity’s common heritage.345 Finally, deep-sea mining may conflict with other marine uses, with complex legal and political ramifications in the international waters of the open ocean.346 Until the need for, and potential consequences of, deep-­ sea mining are better understood, the concept is conceptually difficult to align with the definition of a sustainable ocean economy and raises various environmental, legal and governance challenges, as well as possible conflicts with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.347 It is thus not discussed further in this report. Oil and gas  ‘The whale in the room’: how should the oil and gas sector be included in a report on a sustainable ocean economy? On the one hand, it is the largest sector of the current ocean economy by far, accounting for 34% of its GVA, according to the OECD.348 Massive capital investments are locked into extraction facilities, many with decades to go in their useful lives. Equally massive investments are planned soon: in the next 20 years, projected offshore crude oil output will grow from 30% to 50% of total global production, and almost half of remaining technically recoverable oil reserves are offshore.349 Within the offshore realm, the share of deep water (125—1500 m) and ultra-deep water (>1500 m) production is projected to increase to 50% by 2020. More than half of major oil and gas discoveries since 2000 have been in the deep ocean.350 At the same time, exploitation of the technically feasible offshore oil deposits would exceed the remaining CO2 budget commensurate with the 1.5 °C or even 2 °C future, which is crucial for ocean stability and viability.351 In addition, the Tladi, D. 2014. “The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Proposed Treaty on Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: The Choice between Pragmatism and Sustainability.” Yearbook of International Environmental Law 25 (1): 113–32. doi: https://doi. org/10.1093/yiel/yvv060; Österblom et  al. 2020. “Towards Ocean Equity.” 346  Miller et  al. 2018. “An Overview of Seabed Mining Including the Current State of Development, Environmental Impacts, and Knowledge Gaps.” 347  Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 348  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. 349  U.S.  Energy Information Administration. 2016. “Offshore Oil Production in Deepwater and Ultra-deepwater Is Increasing.” Today in Energy, 28 October. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail. php?id=28552. 350  Zhang, G., H. Qu, G. Chen, C. Zhao, F. Zhang, H. Yang, Z. Zhao and M.  Ma. 2019. “Giant Discoveries of Oil and Gas Fields in Global Deepwaters in the Past 40 Years and the Prospect of Exploration.” Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience 4 (1): 1–28. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jnggs.2019.03.002. 351  McGlade, C., and P. Ekins. 2015. “The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting Global Warming to 2 °C.” Nature 517 (7533): 187–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016. 345 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

new frontiers (the deep ocean and the Arctic) are technically challenging, ecologically risky and often occur in remote areas, far from ports and infrastructure. The Deepwater Horizon disaster is a vivid example of the potential scale of oil spills, and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates a 75% chance of one or more large spills over the lifetime of development and production in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. Continued or increased offshore oil and gas exploration is conceptually difficult to align with the definition of a sustainable ocean economy, and it is thus not discussed in this report. The decommissioning of existing offshore platforms may offer interesting possibilities. Decommissioning expenses are estimated to increase from $2.4 in 2015 to $13 billion/ year in 2040. The cost of removal is often tax-supported and could be reduced with potential re-use applications.352 For example, North Sea countries are gradually decommissioning about 600 oil and gas installations353 at the same time as they are installing massive new offshore wind capacity. Decommissioned oil and gas platforms could conceivably be used to convert and store offshore wind energy (e.g. in the form of hydrogen or ammonia fuels) in ways that eliminate costly hook-ups with onshore grids.354 Other conversions, such as ‘rigs to reefs’ conversions or repurposing as tourist centres, are already used today.355 The development of offshore wind capacity is extensively discussed in this report. There are very interesting opportunities for using renewable offshore energy as the focal point for other sustainable ocean ventures, ranging from mariculture IHS Markit. 2016. “Decommissioning of Aging Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities Increasing Significantly, with Annual Spending Rising to $13 Billion by 2040, IHS Markit Says”. 29 November 2016. https:// news.ihsmarkit.com/prviewer/release_only/slug/energy-power-media-­ decommissioning-aging-offshore-oil-and-gas-facilities-increasing-si; Elden, S. van, J.J.  Meeuwig, R.J.  Hobbs and J.M.  Hemmi. 2019. “Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms as Novel Ecosystems: A Global Perspective”. Frontiers in Marine Science 6. doi: https://doi. org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00548. 353  Jepma, C.J., and M. van Schot. 2017. “On the Economics of Offshore Energy Conversion: Smart Combinations—Converting Offshore Wind Energy into Green Hydrogen on Existing Oil and Gas Platforms in the North Sea.” Energy Delta Institute. https://projecten.topsectorenergie. nl/storage/app/uploads/public/5d0/263/410/5d0263410 16a2991247120.pdf. 354  Jepma and van Schot. 2017. “On the Economics of Offshore Energy Conversion.” 355  FOA. 2020. “The Business Case for Marine Protection and Conservation”; Fowler, A.M., A.-M. Jørgensen, J.C. Svendsen, P.I. Macreadie, D.O. Jones, A.R. Boon, D.J. Booth et al. 2018. “Environmental Benefits of Leaving Offshore Infrastructure in the Ocean.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16 (10): 571–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ fee.1827; Jennifer Nalewicki. 2019. ‘The Gulf of Mexico’s Hottest Diving Spots Are Decommissioned Oil Rigs’. Smithsonian Magazine, 5 April 2019, sec. Travel. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/gulfm e x i c o s - h o t t e s t - d i v i n g - s p o t s - a r e - d e c o m m i s s i o n e d - o i l -­ rigs-180971728/. 352 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

847

to shipping fuel generation, tourism and protected areas. The widespread and essential development of ocean renewable energy will require wide-ranging reforms of ocean planning and access control systems, all of which are also discussed in this report.

5.4 The Big Reconciliation: Protect Effectively, Produce Sustainably and Prosper Equitably

sions while safeguarding biodiversity and associated ecosystem services; (2) it could sustainably produce, helping sustainably power and feed a planet of ten billion people; and (3) it could enable humanity to equitably prosper, creating better, more equitable jobs and redistribution of benefits, and supporting economic growth, household income and well-­being, while prioritising access, equitable decision-making and benefits that support equity and reduce unequal impacts and harm on the most vulnerable (Fig. 20.25).

This section demonstrates that a sustainable 2050 ocean economy could simultaneously deliver in three ways: (1) it could effectively protect, reducing greenhouse gas emis-

5.4.1 Protect Effectively A sustainable ocean economy can help keep the climate within the Paris Agreement boundaries and protect and

Fig. 20.25  A sustainable ocean economy can create a triple win for people, nature and the economy. Note: MPAs: Marine protected areas. GHG: Greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: Authors, drawing on the following sources: OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https:// www.oecd.org/futures/Policy-­Note-­Ocean-­Economy.pdf; Konar, M., and H.  Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs.” Washington, DC: World

Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/Economicanalysis; Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www. oceanpanel.org/blue-­papers/future-­food-­sea; Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­1 0/HLP_Report_ Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf)

848

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

regenerate the ocean’s biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.

could apply with other land-based pollution. Even if the correlation is harder to demonstrate, the sustainable ocean economy agenda could help catalyse broader reforms of Climate  Absorbing a third of the planet’s CO2 emissions the land-­based food system, most notably in agriculture. and about 93% of the world’s human-induced additional One can expect that agricultural regulations aimed at heat,356 the ocean is already shouldering a significant part of reducing ocean dead zones could result in farmers adoptregulating Earth’s climate. In the process, it is becoming ing precision agriculture practices to avoid runoff. The warmer, more acidic and higher. Nonetheless, the ocean adoption of precision agriculture, in turn, would have a economy’s potential role in active climate mitigation is far positive impact on soil health and water quality in rivers from realised today. In a sustainable ocean economy, ocean-­ and streams. based renewable energy could play a much more important role than today: shipping would be zero-emission, fisheries Ocean and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity and bioand mariculture would be much more energy efficient, mass  In a 2050 sustainable ocean economy, the economic coastal ocean assets would be restored and protected, and value of restoration of ocean and coastal natural capital CO2 could be stored in the seabed. ‘The Ocean as a Solution would be recognised and turned into action, with carbon to Climate Change’ (2019) analysed the CO2 abatement finance and coastal protection funds playing a major role in potential from these five areas and concluded that the ocean large-scale restoration projects. Restored and protected natucould contribute up to 21% (or 11.8 GtCO2e) of the emission ral blue assets would then be able to deliver ecosystem serreduction required to achieve a 1.5 °C trajectory by 2050357 vices for coastal populations, especially in ensuring human (Fig. 20.26). In such a vision, the ocean would move away safety by helping to mitigate the impacts of storms and sea from being solely a climate change victim (warming, acidifi- level rise. For instance, healthy coral reefs reduce wave cation, etc.) towards actively participating in the climate energy by up to 97%, protecting up to 100 million coastal change mitigation solution. inhabitants from storm risks.361 In addition, a study has found that a ‘100-m-wide belt of mangroves can reduce wave A sustainable ocean economy would also help catalyse heights between 13% and 66%, and up to 100% where mandeep reforms of the land-based plastics value chain. Indeed, groves reach 500  m or more in width’.362 This study also a holistic, circular approach to ocean plastics could reduce found that saltmarshes can attenuate up to 50% of smaller annual ocean plastic leakage by 80%, compared to a BAU waves, even with a barrier of just 10 m.363 scenario where this flow is expected to triple by 2040.358 Given CO2 emissions associated with plastics production, ‘Planetary insurance’ in the form of MPAs would have use and end of life, this holistic approach has the potential to been generalised and integrated within the 100% managed reduce CO2e emissions associated with the plastics value EEZs and a legal mechanism to create large, fully protected chain by 25% compared to BAU 2040.359 The plastics value MPAs on the high seas. By restoring biodiversity, these chain would otherwise emit an estimated 4.5  GtCO2e by MPAs increase the resilience of the ecosystems, since they 2050—roughly 7% of global emissions in a BAU scenario— provide a protected home for communities that are capable with the attendant warming and acidification effects on the of ‘differential response’.364 These MPAs would be primarily ocean.360 highly or fully protected and actively managed to obtain the greatest conservation outcomes.365 In visual terms, if plotted Reduced other sources of pollution from land  By dras- on the chart of Fig. 20.27, the majority of MPAs in a sustaintically limiting leakage into the ocean, the plastics value chain holistic and circular approach would limit the grow- 361 Ferrario, F., M.W. Beck, C.D. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C.C. Shepard and ing pressure on ocean fauna and flora. The same logic L. Airoldi. 2014. “The Effectiveness of Coral Reefs for Coastal Hazard Gaines et al. 2019. “The Expected Impacts of Climate Change on the Ocean Economy.” 357  Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 358  Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution”; Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave. 359  Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution”; Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave. 360  ETC. n.d. “Mission Possible.” 356 

Risk Reduction and Adaptation.” Nature Communications 5 (1): 3794. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4794. 362  Mapping Ocean Wealth (The Nature Conservancy). n.d. “Coastal Protection.” https://oceanwealth.org/ecosystem-services/coastal-­ protection/. Accessed 11 May 2020. 363  Mapping Ocean Wealth (The Nature Conservancy). n.d. “Coastal Protection.” 364  McCann, K.S. 2000. “The Diversity–Stability Debate.” Nature 405(6783): 228–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/35012234. 365  Oregon State University, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Marine Conservation Institute, National Geographic Society and UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2019. “An Introduction to the MPA Guide.” https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/mpa-guide.

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

849

Fig. 20.26  Contribution of five ocean-based climate action areas to mitigating climate change in 2030 (Maximum GtCO2e). Note: To stay under a 1.5 °C change relative to pre-industrial levels. (Source: Hoegh-­ Guldberg, O., et al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change:

Five Opportunities for Action.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-­10/HLP_ Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf)

Fig. 20.27  The MPA guide. (Source: Adapted from Oregon State University, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Marine Conservation Institute, National Geographic Society and UNEP World

Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2019. “An Introduction to the MPA Guide.” https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/mpa-­guide)

850

able ocean scenario would be in the top right-hand corner. Indeed, species richness has been found to be 21% higher and biomass up to six times greater within fully protected marine areas (from here on simply called MPAs) compared to the adjacent unprotected areas.366 In a sustainable ocean economy scenario, the MPA placement would not be chosen randomly but designed according to science-based criteria, local knowledge and in consultation with diverse stakeholders. For instance, scientific analyses can produce scenarios to locate areas that maximise three benefits of MPAs: (1) rebuilding and safeguarding biodiversity, (2) mitigating climate change (by avoiding emissions from the disturbance of sediment carbon by bottom trawling and eventually deep-sea mining) and (3) boosting fisheries productivity (by increasing fisheries catches around MPAs through the spillover of fish). The food benefits would only be captured if the MPA strategy has been coupled with the sustainable management of the surrounding fisheries and an inclusive process that actively involves local communities and marginalised groups in the design and establishment of the MPAs.

5.4.2 Produce Sustainably In the sustainable ocean economy scenario adopted in this section, effective ocean protection would enable sustainable ocean production. Most notably, the ocean can produce a near unlimited amount of renewable energy and significantly more seafood than today. In this section, an ambitious but realistic production potential is described. Ocean-based renewable energy  There appear to be no relevant physical limits to ocean-based production of renewable energy. Estimates for total technically feasible global offshore wind power generation potential range from 157,000 terawatt hours per year (TWh/yr.) to 631,000 TWh/yr.367— 6–23 times more than the total global electricity consumption in 2018 (26,700  TWh/yr.).368 Europe’s offshore wind potential alone (71,845  TWh/yr.) is estimated to be over three times the current global electricity demand.369 Other forms of ocean-based energy also have a very significant Dinerstein, E., C.  Vynne, E.  Sala, A.R.  Joshi, S.  Fernando, T.E.  Lovejoy, J.  Mayorga et  al. 2019. “A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets.” Science Advances 5 (4): eaaw2869. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869. 367  Bosch, J., I. Staffell and A.D. Hawkes. 2018. “Temporally Explicit and Spatially Resolved Global Offshore Wind Energy Potentials.” Energy 163 (November): 766–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2018.08.153. 368  IEA. n.d. “Data & Statistics”; Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 369  Bosch et  al. 2018. “Temporally Explicit and Spatially Resolved Global Offshore Wind Energy Potentials”; IEA. n.d. “Data & Statistics.” 366 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

technically feasible potential, such as tidal energy (around 6200  TWh/yr.),370 wave energy (between 1750 and 5550 TWh/yr.),371 ocean thermal energy conversion (technical potential uncertain)372 and salinity gradient energy (1650 TWh/yr.).373 However, their cost is far from competitive today. By most realistic estimates, offshore wind will remain the most competitive offshore energy source, although the pace of development will remain far below theoretically feasible levels over the coming decades. The International Energy Agency estimates that 570 GW of offshore wind could be installed by 2040.374 An OECD scenario projects 900 GW by 2050375 and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) REmap Scenario projects 1000 GW of installed offshore wind by 2050.376 This suggests that even the upper range of the scenarios used in the Ocean Climate Special Report377 may turn out to be conservative. Sustainable seafood  The ocean could in theory sustainably produce six times more food than today under an optimistic scenario,378 thereby playing a significantly greater role in ensuring the food security of a planet with ten billion people in 2050. It has the potential to do so with a low environmental footprint (e.g. with sustainable fed mariculture and sustainable fisheries) or even in a regenerative way (e.g. with non-fed mariculture). Delivering this potential, however, depends on climate-adaptive, in-depth reforms of wild-catch fisheries, evolution of consumer preferences and significant scaling of (sustainable) mariculture: • Wild-catch fisheries. Currently, most fishing is not economically or ecologically optimised. Far too many stocks are pursued by too many boats; far too much seafood value is lost due to poor handling; and far too many non-­target species are accidentally caught. If this approach continues, 2050 yield is expected to decrease to about 67 mmt/year.379

Including tidal stream and tidal range energies. Retrieved from Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 371  Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 372  Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 373  Haugan et al. 2019. “What Role for Ocean-Based Renewable Energy and Deep-Seabed Minerals in a Sustainable Future?”. 374  IEA. 2019. “World Energy Outlook 2019—Analysis.” https://www. iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019. 375  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. 376  IRENA. 2019. “Future of Wind.” 377  Hoegh-Guldberg et  al. 2019. “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change.” 378  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 379  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 370 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

851

However, if all stocks currently exploited were to be fished at maximum sustainable economic yield,380 production could increase to 96  mmt/year in 2050: an additional 16 mmt/year of seafood compared to today.381 This represents a 20% production gain over today’s production levels, and a 40% increase over e­ stimated BAU catch. It is important to note that these optimistic gains depend on the deployment of effective, climate-adaptive fishery reforms, strengthened international institutions and cooperation, in combination with scale-up of marine protected areas (see Sect. 6 for more details). • Mariculture. The production of sustainable fed (finfish) and unfed (bivalve, seaweeds) mariculture is currently at a very small fraction of its biological potential (the theoretical production limit is estimated at 15,000  mmt/ year—far more than 470  mmt of meat will be required annually in 2050 to feed the projected global population of more than 9.7 billion).382 –– Fed mariculture requires external feed (today including fish oil and fish meal) and is currently severely constrained by the price and availability of feed. Under optimistic projections assuming a 95% reduction of fish meal and fish oil content in mariculture feed, current production could be multiplied tenfold.383 However, the siting and operations of monocultural, high-trophic finfish farms, especially in pristine areas, is often highly controversial. A reimagined approach to finfish farming, focused on local food security concerns, multi- and low-trophic species, new disease control and containment technologies, and avoidance of pristine areas, will be essential to capture the biological potential in a sustainable way. –– Non-fed mariculture is ecologically largely benign and offers great potential. Bivalve mariculture (e.g. mussels, oysters), for example, could theoretically be increased more than 30-fold beyond current production to its biological potential of 460  mmt/year (bivalves only).384 Seaweed, with a suitable cultivation area of 48 million km2, has the potential to play

a substantially larger role in supplying humanity with food and land animals and fish with feed. Seaweed also constitutes a very promising low-carbon source for raw materials that can be used in biostimulants (fertilisers), cosmetics, bioplastics, biofuels and other applications. In a sustainable ocean economy, the current economic, technological and regulatory barriers hindering the expansion of non-fed mariculture must be overcome (see Sects. 6.2 and 6.3).385

MSY and MEY: Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the long-term maximum amount of catch for a given fishery, purely based on the stock’s biology. Maximum economic yield (MEY) adds the dimension of fishing costs to optimize for the most profitable, sustainable amount of catch, which is generally slightly lower than MSY catch. Information retrieved from World Ocean Review. “The Profits of Fishing.” Maribus, after Quaas. n.d. “The Profits of Fishing: World Ocean Review.” https:// worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/fisheries/causes-of-overfishing/the-­ profits-­of-fishing/. Accessed 18 August 2020. 381  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 382  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 383  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 384  Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 380 

With these elements in mind, it is safe to say that reforming wild-caught fisheries and growing sustainable mariculture (especially unfed species) could multiply current ocean food production by up to six times by 2050 (Fig. 20.28).386

5.4.3 Prosper Equitably This discussion describes prosperity in terms of jobs, economic wealth creation, inclusivity and equity if a sustainable ocean economy vision is realised. Only a small and simple sampling is possible—an exhaustive account of the relative upside of a restored, vibrant and productive ocean would fill libraries. The future of ocean jobs, in many ways, echoes the general employment trends on land. In the energy sector, job growth is shifting to renewables, with many high-level engineering and support jobs created, especially in the developed world. Rising levels of productivity and automation would shift jobs in shipping, commercial fishing and large-scale mariculture from the front line to expert support (engineering, information technology, data, applied science, infrastructure). Small-scale fisheries would increasingly come under local control, recovering their productivity but imposing limits on fishing effort, enabled by smart policies that ensure secure access. This report describes potential long-term evolutions of ocean jobs, building on various sources and projections from the pre-COVID period. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected many ocean industries, making these projections and future jobs trajectories highly uncertain. For instance, up to 100 million jobs are today considered at risk in the tourism sector alone.387 In addition, the crisis affecting ocean-based sectors is disproportionately hitting women and more vulnerable groups (low-skilled workers, small-scale fishers and businesses, Indigenous community members, younger workers, etc.).388 Recovery and economic stimulus Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Costello et al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” 387  UNCTAD. 2020. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Blue Economy: New Challenges and Prospects for Recovery and Resilience.” https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditctedinf2020d2_en.pdf. 388  Northrop, E., M.  Konar, N.  Frost and E.  Hollaway. 2020. “A Sustainable and Equitable Blue Recovery to the COVID-19 Crisis.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 385  386 

852

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.28 (a, b) Ocean food and energy production potential increase under a sustainable ocean economy scenario. Note: (a) Costello, C., L.  Cao, S.  Gelcich et  al. 2019. “The Future of Food from the Sea.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel. org/blue-­papers/future-­food-­sea. (b) IRENA. 2019. “Future of Wind: Deployment, Investment, Technology, Grid Integration and Socio-­ economic—Executive Summary.” Abu Dhabi: International Renewable

Energy Agency. https://irena.org/-­/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/ Publication/2019/Oct/IRENA_Future_of_wind_2019_summ_EN. PDF. (c) IEA and ETP. 2017. “International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2017.” www.iea.org/etp2017. (d) OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/environment/the-­o ceaneconomy-­i n-­2 030-­ 9789264251724-­en.htm. (e) IRENA. 2019. “Future of Wind”

plans supporting a sustainable ocean economy are expected to help maintain employment in ocean sectors and/or help transition towards the jobs required to develop the sustainable ocean sectors presented in this section.

• Shipping and ports. According to the OECD, seaborne cargo volume, driven almost entirely by GDP, will almost double from 11  billion  tonnes in 2015 to 20  billion  tonnes in 2030, which can be expected to significantly increase employment.391 A more granular view reveals the major trends. A major expansion in ports, driven at least in part by China’s massive Maritime Silk Road initiative, can be expected to increase trade. Larger and more automated vessels may slow job growth in shipping and shipbuilding, however (tonnage of ships larger than 7600 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) can be expected to increase 6–6.5 times between 2010 and 2030, much faster than for ships under 7600  TEUs, projected to grow 1.4–2 times).392 • Fishing and mariculture. Global fishing, at the commercial and artisanal or small scale, operates at significant overcapacity today; there are too many fishers and too many boats. Because of this overcapacity, fish stocks, productivity and yields are depressed, and coastal livelihoods can be threatened. Net job growth is thus not the relevant metric to be applied to fishing—but job security

• Offshore energy. Offshore energy is growing fast from a small base. Even in a conservative scenario, many jobs could be created: the OECD’s BAU scenario (assuming no significant new government incentives) estimates the creation of 440,000 new jobs by 2030 in the offshore wind sector.389 More assertive energy and industrial strategies could increase this number sharply. In the longer term, renewables are expected to outperform fossil fuel jobs in both relative and absolute numbers. In 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics listed turbine technician as the second-fastestgrowing occupation in the United States. With periodic downturns in the offshore oil and gas industries, many oil and gas workers are turning to the wind industry for highpaying jobs. In U.S. coastal regions, 160,000 gross jobs could be supported by the offshore wind industry in construction, installation, operations and maintenance.390 OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Gilman, P., B. Maurer, L. Feinberg, A. Duerr, L. Peterson, W. Musial, P. Beiter et al. 2016. “National Offshore Wind Strategy: Facilitating the Development of the Offshore Wind Industry in the United States.” DOE/GO-102016-4866. EERE Publication and Product Library. doi: https://doi.org/10.2172/1325403. 389  390 

OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. QinetiQ, Lloyd’s Register and University of Strathclyde Glasgow. 2013. “Global Marine Trends 2030.” http://www.futurenautics.com/ wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GlobalMarineTrends2030Report.pdf. 391  392 

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

853

is, alongside food security and productivity. Nevertheless, the reduction of fishing capacity, and the associated stranded assets, may create tensions which must be thoughtfully addressed (through structural adjustments, reskilling, etc.; see discussion in Sect. 6.2). For industrial capture fisheries, jobs can be expected to decline, as fleets slowly reduce capacity and increase efficiency. Artisanal jobs are much harder to define and track—estimates range from 12393 to 37 million, with an additional 100 million artisanal jobs being dependent on fishing (e.g. fish processors).394 Many artisans fish opportunistically for food, rather than as a full-time pursuit. In a sustainable ocean economy, their time on the water will decrease, and yields will increase. • The OECD projects strong mariculture employment growth to 3.2 million jobs in 2030, up from 2.1 million in 2010 under a BAU scenario. However, much higher job growth is possible if new technology can eliminate current constraints on feed availability and the production of non-fed mariculture is boosted. Buoyed by the growing maricultural capacity and recovering industrial capture yields, jobs from the seafood processing sectors can be expected to grow as well.395 • Tourism. Payment for ecosystem services through tourism fees could be adopted to finance the restoration and maintenance of the natural ecosystems (future) coastal tourism jobs rely on. Pre-COVID, the tourism sector was expected to continue its strong growth, directly accounting for over 8.5 million jobs in 2030 (up from 7 million in 2010).396 Post-COVID, the trajectory for the tourism sector is still uncertain.

caused revenue loss of US $1.9 billion for the carriers in a matter of months.397

The economic future  The size of the prize of the transition to a sustainable ocean economy is significant and appears to be limited far more by political and economic constraints than the ocean’s productive potential. As for the jobs section, the numbers presented below reflect longterm evolutions and economic gains, building on various sources and projections from the pre-COVID period. Significant economic losses have been experienced by ocean sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is a high uncertainty as to the pace of recovery and transition towards a sustainable ocean economy for these sectors. For instance, cancellation of shipping is estimated to have

Chuenpagdee, R., L. Liguori, M.L.D. Palomares and D. Pauly. 2006. “Bottom-up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches.” doi: https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0074761. 394  FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. n.d. “Small-Scale Fisheries around the World.” 395  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. 396  OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030.

On the conservative side, the OECD predicted in 2016 that economic growth and employment under a sustainable scenario would outpace both an ‘unsustainable’ and a ‘BAU’ scenario (see Fig. 20.29). The OECD projections were based on 2010 data points as a baseline. A more recent study commissioned by the Ocean Panel provides a far more optimistic picture, with a net benefit estimated at $15 trillion by 2050 if $2.8 trillion were invested today in four sustainable ocean-based solutions: sustainable ocean food, renewable ocean energy, decarbonisation of international shipping, and conservation and restoration of mangroves.398 The benefit-cost ratio differs for each of these opportunities, but overall it remains very attractive—see Fig. 20.30 below. These numbers are accounted through a holistic view that encompasses benefits of three kinds: economic (e.g. increased profits from higher fisheries productivity), environmental (e.g. avoided damages from coastal flooding) and health (e.g. reduced mortality from improved air quality). Such an analysis has a number of limitations, as it does not represent the distribution of the benefits (and costs), it puts a monetary value on nonmarket goods with debatable assumptions, and it is obliged to omit certain benefits that are still very hard to monetise (e.g. prevention of the loss of natural habitats from increased ocean acidification). However, it serves as a very useful pointer, emphasising that ocean-based solutions should be considered as highreturn investments and essential engines of a post-COVID economic, social and environmental recovery strategy. Looking at the more detailed assessment of these four ocean-based solutions, this benefit-cost analysis offers conclusions in the following areas:399 • Mangrove conservation and restoration: Every $1 invested in mangrove conservation and restoration generates an average benefit of $3. Conservation has a far higher return on investment (88-to-1) than restoration (2-to-1), which can mainly be explained by the higher cost of mangrove restoration and the low survival rates following restoration. The total value of net benefits for mangrove restoration over 30 years ($97–$150 billion) is, however, higher than for conservation ($48–$96 billion), as the surface is assumed to be 10 times larger for restoration.

393 

“Sea Intelligence: COVID-19 Impact Pushes Carriers’ Revenue Loss to USD 1.9 Bln.” 2020. Offshore Energy (blog), 3 March. https://www. offshore-energy.biz/sea-intelligence-covid-19-impact-pushes-carriersrevenue-loss-to-usd-­­1-9-bln/. 398  Konar and Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050.” 399  Konar and Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050.” 397 

854

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

Fig. 20.29 (a, b) 2010–2030 GVA and job creation associated with different OECD scenarios. (Source: OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note, April. https://www.oecd.org/futures/Policy-­Note-­Ocean-­Economy.pdf)

Fig. 20.30  Benefit-cost ratios and net benefits by 2050 for four sustainable ocean-based interventions. Note: Average benefit-cost (B-C) ratios have been rounded to the nearest integer and the net benefits value to the first decimal place. The B-C ratio for mangroves is the combined ratio for both conservation- and restoration-based interventions. The average net benefits represent the average net pres-

ent value for investments and is calculated over a 30-year horizon (2020–2050). (Source: Konar, M., and H. Ding. 2020. “A Sustainable Ocean Economy for 2050: Approximating Its Benefits and Costs.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel. org/Economicanalysis)

• Offshore wind: Every $1 invested in scaling up global offshore wind production generates a benefit estimated at $2–$17, depending on the cost of offshore energy production and transmission and the types of generation that would be displaced. The return on investment will increase as technology and efficiency improvements bring down costs for offshore wind energy generation. • Green shipping: Every $1 invested in decarbonising international shipping and reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 is estimated to generate a return of $2–$5. The anal-

ysis assumed that the significant capital expenditure to switch to zero-carbon emissions will happen after 2030, and limiting the analysis to 2050 captures only a portion of returns from these investments, which will continue beyond 2050. • Sustainable ocean-based food production: Every $1 invested in increasing production of sustainably sourced ocean-based protein is estimated to yield $10 in benefits. The increase in demand for ocean-based protein to provide a healthy diet for 9.7 billion people by 2050, which

20  Ocean Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy

855

Fig. 20.31  Examples of positive economic impacts of marine protected areas. (Sources: For Cap de Creus, Kas Kekova and Kuriat Islands: Mangos, A., and M.-A. Claudot. 2013. “Economic Study of the Impacts of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in the Mediterranean.” Valbonne, France: Plan Bleu. https://planbleu.org/sites/default/files/ publications/cahier_13_amp_en.pdf. For Great Barrier Reef: Hand, T. 2003. An Economic and Social Evaluation of Implementing the Representative Areas Program by Rezoning the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Report on the Revised Zoning Plan. PDP Australia Pty. Ltd. http://dspace-­prod.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/3376/1/

Hand_PDP_Australia_2003_Report_on_revised_zoning_plan.pdf. For marine protected areas in Vanuatu and Fiji: Pascal, N., A. Brathwaite, L.  Brander, A.  Seidl, M.  Philip and E.  Clua. 2018. “Evidence of Economic Benefits for Public Investment in MPAs.” Ecosystem Services 30 (April): 3–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.017; and Hand. 2003. Hunt, L. n.d. ‘Economic Impact Analysis of the Cape Rodney Okakari Point (Leigh) Marine Reserve on the Rodney District’, 43. https://www.howtokit.org.nz/images/emr/pdfs-­files/Consultation_ Resources/Hunt_2008_Leigh_marine_reserve_Economic_Analysis. pdf)

would replace a percentage of emission-intensive land-­ based protein sources, can be achieved by reforming wild-capture fisheries and by increasing the sustainable production of ocean-based aquaculture. Both measures will deliver benefits such as better health outcomes to consumers, higher revenues to fishers, lower GHG emissions mitigating the risks of climate damage, reduced land-based conflicts and lower water usage. In addition to these four ocean-based solutions, additional evidence in the literature suggests that a sustainable ocean economy can generate significant economic returns. The creation of MPAs, especially when coupled with ecotourism, substantially increases revenue for local economies. Integration of ecotourism with MPAs needs to be approached with care to avoid natural habitat degradation through over-­tourism. If precautions are taken, however, the creation of MPAs can have a significant economic benefit (Fig. 20.31).

The sustainable ocean economy agenda can also help catalyse land-based economic gains, especially regarding the currently wasteful plastics value chain. A systems approach to ocean plastics could result in annual savings for governments of $70 billion/year in 2040 while also reducing plastic leakage into the ocean by 80% compared to a business-as-­ usual trajectory.400 Pioneering businesses in the circular economy also avoid financial and reputational liabilities. Finally, the ocean agenda can also help catalyse broader reforms in agriculture. Agricultural regulations aimed at reducing ocean dead zones could result in farmers adopting precision agriculture practices to avoid runoff. This could eventually contribute to a broader food system reform towards sustainability, which has been estimated to repre-

Lau et al. 2020. “Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution”; Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave. 400 

856

sent new business opportunities worth up to $4.5 trillion a year by 2030.401 The equitable future  A healthy ocean is linked to prosperity and well-being.402 The Blue Paper ‘Towards Ocean Equity’ argues that without an active consideration of equity, sustained and increased inequity will be the default outcome.403 In the vision presented in this section, the sustainable ocean economy not only leads to prosperity of countries and economic sectors but also ensures adequate mechanisms for sharing the benefits of prosperity and alleviating climate change-induced inequalities. A fundamental principle of the SDGs is to ‘leave no-one behind’.404 Equality and equity considerations are implemented in the sustainable ocean economy for more than just moral reasons; they ensure the future legitimacy of the sustainable ocean economy agenda. Inequity remains a structural and persistent feature of the current ocean economy. Addressing these equity risks will counter accelerating social tensions, as well as strengthen the credibility and legitimacy of the sustainable ocean economy agenda. A recent report by the OECD, Sustainable Ocean Economy for All, includes a more detailed equity discussion, with a special focus on developing countries.405 Achieving ‘procedural equity’—defined as the recognition of rights and needs of all groups and the level of inclusion and participation in decision-making related to ocean development406—will need to be a key achievement of the sustainable ocean economy. Indigenous knowledge which is compatible with scientific conclusions will be central to a sustainable ocean economy, and will need to be made widely accessible in knowledge commons. In terms of gender equalFood and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). 2019. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. https://www. foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-­ GrowingBetter-­GlobalReport.pdf. 402  Bennett et  al. 2019. “Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Blue Economy.” 403  Österblom et al. 2020. “Towards Ocean Equity.” 404  UNDP. 2018. “What Does It Mean to Leave No One Behind?” UN Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/ library/Sustainable%20Development/2030%20Agenda/Discussion_ Paper_LNOB_EN_lres.pdf. 405  OECD. 2020. Sustainable Ocean for All. https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/docserver/bede6513-en.pdf?expires=1600102426&id=id&accnam e=guest&checksum=3BDD63D736252E0053B068682425AFEB. 406  Definition of procedural equity by Österblom et al. 2020. “Towards Ocean Equity.” Procedural equity refers to the recognition of rights and needs of all groups and the level of inclusion and participation in decision-­making related to ocean development. 401 

J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan

ity, women today comprise only 2% of the world’s formal maritime workforce (1% for sailors).407 By achieving gender equality, with respect to workforce participation, pay, leadership representation and advancement within a career, the sustainable ocean economy will fully unlock the productive and innovative potential of half of the world’s population. Ensuring the equitable sharing of marine genetic resources will be fundamental to ensuring a level playing field for furthering humanity’s common heritage. To ensure this, the sharing of benefits from areas beyond EEZs must be based on the exchange of information, transfer of technology, capacity building and sharing of benefits arising from commercialisation.408 Yields of many artisanal fishers have declined precipitously in recent decades, and food insecurity runs high in many coastal communities in the developing world.409 Climate change is expected to worsen current inequalities by disproportionally affecting communities in least developed countries.410 Building a more equal and just ocean economy will be critical for economic prosperity.411 Empowering local fishers by granting access rights will be one of the key levers of the sustainable ocean economy. Granting access rights has already been shown to be effective: a case study from Chile demonstrates that after the introduction of territorial use rights for fisheries, artisanal fisheries gained in importance, with landings even surpassing industrial catch while recovering the biomass and size of the target species.412 Rebuilding fish stocks and expanding non-fed aquaculture would significantly contribute to the alleviation of malnutrition (undernutrition and nutrient deficiency). Young children (