A successful Blue Economy could be the difference between a liveable and an unliveable planet. Helping track and invest in activities that help, not just hurt less, is the goal of our Blue Economy Tracker™ (coming soon!). We needed a judicial definition to make it work, and we describe the rationale for it here. For the ocean. For us.
Blue Economy activities should help — the ocean and people. Credit: Anett Szaszi / Ocean Image Bank
Ocean assets are still valued at $24 trillion — this, after centuries of misuse with productivity, ecosystems, and populations being driven to a small fraction of what they once were.
When the term “Blue Economy” was coined by large ocean states (a.k.a. SIDS) to prioritize economic activities that conserve ocean health and equitable access to ocean spaces, it was a beacon of hope.
Over the last few years, however, a growing number of governments and businesses have, in a rush to exploit the perceived untapped wealth of the ocean’s services, co-opted and bluewashed the term ‘Blue Economy’ to suit their needs. They are using the Blue Economy to include all, or nearly all, ocean activities — including those disconnected from ocean health or equitable access.
But, that’s not what the ocean or the people who depend on it need.
To protect what’s left and restore the value of the ocean, investments are needed in activities that help.
At eOceans, we aimed to build models to help track and invest in the Blue Economy, but current definitions were too vague and disconnected from ocean health to work. So we sought a measurable and trackable definition to deploy in the eOceans platform.
Below, we outline our journey and rationale for our Blue Economy definition.
The definition is important
How we define the Blue Economy not only matters in the way it is tracked — we can’t track it if we can’t define it — but also in how we prioritize and invest in it.
Given that ocean ecosystems continue to be a diminishing remnant of what they once were, with traditional stakeholders and rightsholders being displaced from their traditional grounds, getting the definitions and associated investments right is arguably one of the most important challenges of this decade (see UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development).
It’s not only about growing and sustaining economies — it could be the difference between a liveable and an unlivable planet.
A blue Blue Economy is essential
The ocean covers more than 70% of our planet. As we run out of space on land, we’re increasingly looking towards the ocean for climate regulation, carbon stores, food, medicine, biodiversity security, protecting coastlines, and more. We need to carefully balance our ocean activities with the needs required for a healthy and productive ocean.
History shows us, however, that business-as-usual does not work. Ocean assets are valued at $24 trillion but countless studies have documented precipitous declines in the ecosystem services they provide.
As ‘tipping points’ are reached, these trends are unlikely to be reversible.
While many activities aim to improve on the old ways, such as through reduced fuel consumption, noise production, and pollution, even in the best-case scenarios these activities are still net negative for ocean health and productivity.
For the ocean to recover and support our growing needs, investments need to be directed towards activities that help, not just hurt less.
Use of the term “Blue Economy”
The concept of the blue economy has its roots in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit but came into popularity when it was proposed by large-ocean states to support and promote ocean-based economic activities that integrate conservation and sustainable uses (Rio+20 — UN, 2012). The term has since evolved and devolved.
Large Ocean States (a.k.a., Small Island Developing Nations) introduced the concept of blue economy to prioritize economic activities that support ocean health and equitable access. Photo credit: Alejandro Luengo
Scholars, research-based think tanks, and Indigenous groups have further refined the term to emphasize equitable access, social benefits, climate regulation, and conservation with additions of carbon storage, coastal protection, cultural values, and biodiversity (e.g., Silver, Smith-Godfrey, Bennett, Voyer, Mika).
On the other hand, many large governments and businesses have co-opted the term to include all offshore activities (e.g., Canada-2021, NOAA-2021, EU-2021) or nearly all (‘greener’) offshore activities (e.g., The World Bank-2017).
While it is exciting to see the growing interest in the ocean, expansion and divergence of the use of this term is problematic.
It’s not only a challenge for those who want to track and evaluate the success of the Blue Economy but also for those who want to prudently invest in a “Blue Economy” that actually supports ocean health and equitable access, and not just contribute to greenwashing or bluewashing.
The Ocean Economy and Green Economy
The Ocean Economy is “the sum of the economic activities of ocean-based industries, together with the assets, goods and services of marine ecosystems” (OECD) and the Green Economy is “low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive (UNEP)”. Note that the Green Economy does not specify location, so many offshore activities can also be Green.
The World Bank’s Blue Economy includes transport, renewable energy, and waste management.
These activities are particularly problematic for tracking and quantifying the success of the Blue Economy because they could grow and diversify exponentially with diminishing ocean health and loss of traditional access — they are not tied to ocean health or equitable access.
Windfarms help lower global carbon emissions, but they don’t help the ocean or the people who depend on it. Photo: Christine Ward-Paige
Renewable energy, like windfarms, reduce carbon emissions and lower our collective carbon load. Reducing carbon emissions is essential, but windfarms are still net negative to ocean health. Some argue that windfarm structures bring value to the ocean because they artificially inflate the biomass and diversity at the site. However, these same value arguments can also be made for non-renewable energy activities like offshore mining rigs and artificial FADS; but, ecologically speaking, they are foreign objects that destroy native habitat, biodiversity, species distributions, and oceanographic conditions (Bailey, Carpenter, Heery, Raoux ) and also displace other historical users of an area. Again, these activities may help lower our carbon emissions, and therefore slow the rate of anthropogenic sea level rise, seawater warming, and acidification, but they don’t help recovery.
For transport, even in the best-case scenarios where technologies reduced fuel consumption, noise production, and waste discharge to near zero, increasing the number of vessels in the ocean (even if quiet) would still not help the ocean recover, they just hurt less than their predecessors.
None of the existing definitions were explicit or measurable to support informed decisions and investments that would protect or restore ocean health and value.
Our motivation for a new definition
The eOceans app and analytics platform enables ocean teams to track any species, issues, or value of the ocean collaboratively, transparently, in real-time.
We have various scalable, expert-developed analytical packages — such as the MPA Health Tracker™ and MPA Health Score™, the Smart Fishery Tracker™, and the Shark and Ray Tracker™, as well as any species, or issue/threat.
We aimed to create the Blue Economy Tracker™ to help decision makers, marine spatial planners, and investors identify and prioritize activities that protect and restore ocean health and value.
After reviewing existing definitions, we found that they were too vague to be measured and tracked and they were untied to ocean health and equitable access, so we needed a new definition.
The Blue Economy
We developed the following definition:
“Activities where success is fundamentally tied to ocean health; other ‘Blue’ activities are not displaced; and there is sufficient data, understanding, and willingness to prioritize ocean health and community wellbeing”.
This definition allows activities to be scrutinized, categorized, and quantified. It is a subset from the Ocean Economy and separate from the Green Economy. Segregating activities into different Ocean, Green, and Blue categories allows us to track their growth and diversification in relation to ocean health (e.g., biodiversity, abundance) and equitable access.
An analogy may help.
You wouldn’t deplete 90% of your bank account and then have a goal of sustaining it. You’d want to grow it back. With the eOceans definition, we can think of the Ocean Economy as all the money going in and out of your account, the Green Economy as the measures put in place to stop the money going out so fast, and the Blue Economy as the activities that put money back into the account to rebuild it. To restore your account, you need both Green and Blue activities, and they need to be measured and quantified separately. Too much emphasis on Green and the bank account could be empty before Blue even has a chance. (see Will we bankrupt the ocean with sustainability?)
Definition into practice
Blue Economy activities fall on a spectrum of ‘blue-ness’, where they move towards being ‘blue’ as they improve to share with other blue activities and prioritize ocean health and equitable access. (eOceans 2022)
The schematic (above) lists a few activities, including culture, fisheries, tourism, marinas, aquaculture, storytelling, but can include many other activities (e.g., blue carbon). Although this definition excludes many of the activities that were included by others, like energy, mining, transport, and waste management, it expands in other ways to include social and cultural values, storytelling. and entertainment.
Just because an activity is dependent on healthy oceans does not mean that it is Blue — it is a spectrum of Blue-ness.
For example, fishing companies that specialize in black market trade of threatened marine species depend on the ocean, but the value of their items increases as the species decreases so they are not a Blue activity (they also displace other blue activities, and don’t prioritize ocean health and equitable access).
Aquaculture is likely to cause debate, but again, our perception is that “aquaculture” is on a spectrum, from not blue to blue (see Dan Barber’s TED talk).
Special case: Artificial reefs and restoration activities.
Artificial habitats are a complex edge case that comes up time and again and needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Generally, if the artificial habitat is a strategic piece of infrastructure that supports an existing nearby reef with native biodiversity and uses science-based decisions for placement, materials, and monitoring, and will stand the test of time, then it is likely considered a Blue activity.
However, artificial habitats/reefs that are deployed for habitat offsetting, are opportunistically placed, displace native habitats, ecosystems, or species, or use harmful materials that break down into polluting particles (plastics) and don’t provide permanent long-term habitat, would not be considered Blue activities.
Artificial reefs are a complex edge case that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis to be considered a Blue Economy activity. Generally, they should support native species and ecosystems and be expertly designed and placed. Just having something grow is not Blue. Photo credit: The Ocean Agency/The Ocean Image Bank.
Additional note for clean-up activities.
Many activities have become an integral part of supporting a vibrant and successful Blue Economy.
Garbage and pollution cleanups, including ghost gear removal, for example, help the ocean and the people who depend on it. However, they can occur in polluted and depleted ocean spaces, so the success of these activities are not intricately connected to ocean health — not Blue.
Instead they would be considered Green aspects of the pillar they support, such as fisheries or waste management, even if they operate in isolation from that industry (although those industries would do well to recognize and connect to that value).
Marine debris and ghost gear removal is important for supporting a successful Blue Economy, but they are considered Green activities within the ocean pillar they support. Photo credit: Dimitris Poursanidis / Ocean Image Bank
Moving forward.
This definition of the Blue Economy can serve many purposes.
It can be used to intentionally prioritize activities and focus investments and resources in the Blue Economy. It can also help prioritize the Green activities that support the Blue Economy (e.g., cleaning water, reduced noise and pollution, etc.). And, it can help standardize and prioritize activities in Marine Spatial Planning exercises, such as in the design of Marine Protected Areas.
This explicit definition may also impede bluewashing, increase awareness and interest in the topic, and build a more equitable, fair, connected, and collaborative ocean space in the face of our need to protect and recover our ocean assets.
Finally, this definition of the Blue Economy is a call to marine biologists, social scientists, chemists, oceanographers, and Indigenous and local knowledge holders to engage on a massive scale to help businesses, governments, marine spatial planners, and decision makers to monitor, track, understand, and convey what activities fall in the Blue Economy. It’s an opportunity for accountable quantification and innovation of Blue activities that support rebuilding our ocean.
eOceans — For the ocean. For us.
Be part of the solution with a Pilot Project.
If your organization is interested in supporting Blue Economy efforts that are measurable, trackable, and iterative, then contact Christine to get your organization set up with a pilot project today. Getting the right activities the support they need may be the most important thing that needs to get done this decade.
For the ocean. For us.