It was very full in the conference room in Nairobi. Over 18,000 people from 184 countries and more than 300 events crammed into just a few days came together to save the ocean. The speeches were very emotional. There were more than 1,400 commitments. There was also a very uncomfortable question that wasn’t asked much during the networking lunches and the panel discussions about ocean acidification: who benefits when we talk about ocean exploitation in terms of sustainability?
That is the main conflict at the heart of what is now called the “blue economy.” At first glance, this idea seems practically impossible to argue against. Carefully use the ocean’s resources. Keep ecosystems safe. Get people in coastal areas out of poverty. It comes in a nice box. But the seams become more obvious as you get closer.
Officials at the UN and policymakers have talked about the “blue economy,” which is meant to balance economic growth with protecting the environment. It talks about everything from fishing to shipping lanes to tourism in the ocean. According to the UN, bad ocean management already costs the world economy at least $200 billion every year. The argument goes like this: if you run it better, everyone wins. There’s some sense to that. “Better management” can mean different things to different people, which is a problem.
The pattern is hard to miss. When big international meetings try to figure out what sustainable development means, the countries and businesses that have the most to gain from keeping access to ocean resources tend to speak out the loudest. Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries are the ones that depend on healthy oceans the most for food, jobs, and cultural survival. However, UN officials admit that these countries have “significant limitations” when it comes to shaping these conversations. They show up. They take part. After that, the frameworks are mostly written without them.
In September 2018, 12 heads of state launched the High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. It was seen as a big step toward protecting the ocean. And maybe that’s what they meant. But groups of heads of state often put geopolitical interests ahead of humanitarian ones that look like they are more important. “Bold solutions for ocean health and wealth,” as the panel’s mission statement put it, sounds like a great goal. But the question of “wealth for whom” is one that no one wants to answer out loud.
A phrase that keeps coming up in writing about the blue economy is “economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability.” It’s a triple promise that almost never comes true completely on all three. Most of the time, growth wins. Some of the more than 1,400 promises made in Nairobi might come true. Some have already done it. There are real projects to restore mangroves. In some places, campaigns against plastic pollution work. But it is well known that promises made at international conferences often fall apart between the closing ceremony and the flight home.
The idea of the “blue economy” is really hard to understand and worth looking into because it’s not just cynical. Some of the people who are pushing it seem to really believe in it. Ocean conservation is based on good science. There is no doubt that protecting marine ecosystems is the right thing to do. But even when people have good intentions, structural inequalities don’t always lead to fair results. When the same system that says it will protect the ocean also allows more shipping, industrial aquaculture, and deep-sea mining under the guise of “sustainable use,” something is very wrong.
It’s still not clear if the “blue economy” movement will become a real force for ocean protection or just one of the most complicated public relations stunts in the history of the environment. It’s not like the ocean waits for conferences to end. Fish stocks are going down. Coral reefs are losing their color. Coastal towns are seeing their shorelines change in ways that haven’t been able to be undone by any panel discussions so far. There is still a big difference between what people say about sustainability and what they actually do, which needs a lot more attention than what the glossy conference brochures give it credit for.
